Chapter 15.40
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE*
Sections:
15.40.030 Standards for Approval—Findings—Exemptions.
* Prior ordinance history: Ords. 1765, 1777, 1787, 85-30, 86-20 and 94-2.
15.40.010 Findings.
A. The phasing of development with circulation system improvements to accommodate project-generated traffic is important to maintaining the high quality of the residential and commercial neighborhoods in Newport Beach;
B. Traffic congestion caused by inadequate phasing of circulation improvements and development is harmful to the public health, safety and general welfare due to the potential for delays in emergency response, air quality impacts and an overall reduction in the quality of life.
C. While some development may be important to the continued vitality of the local economy, the City should continue to require mitigation of traffic impacts by project proponents to ensure the circulation system functions as planned;
D. Circulation system improvements should not alter the character of neighborhoods or result in the construction of streets and highways which expand the capacity of the roadway system beyond levels proposed in the circulation element;
E. This chapter is consistent with the authority of a public entity to ensure that project proponents make or fund improvements that increase the capacity of the circulation system to accommodate project generated traffic. (Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.020 Objectives.
The City Council has adopted this chapter to achieve the following objectives:
A. To provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period;
B. To identify the specific and near-term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements;
C. To ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and
D. To provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent’s cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. (Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.030 Standards for Approval—Findings—Exemptions.
A. Standards for Approval. Unless a project is exempt as provided in subsection (C), no building, grading or related permit shall be issued for any project until the project has been approved pursuant to this chapter (approved). A project shall be approved only if the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, finds:
1. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A;
2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made; and
3. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval.
B. Findings for Approval. No project shall be approved pursuant to this chapter unless the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, finds that:
1. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project approval; and:
a. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection, or
b. The project including circulation improvements that the project proponent is required to make and/or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program or otherwise, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection, or
c. The project trips will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one or more impacted primary intersection(s) but the project proponent is required to construct and/or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program or otherwise, circulation improvements, or make contributions, such that:
(1) The project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection for which there is a feasible improvement, and
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse impacts and benefits, only the following improvements and/or contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) below:
(a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or implementation of some or all of the recommendations in, a traffic mitigation study related to an impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City Council,
(b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that, if implemented, would satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(b),
(c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project,
(d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80 ICU, or
d. The project complies with (1)(b) upon the completion of one or more circulation improvements; and:
(1) The time and/or funding necessary to complete the improvement(s) is (are) not roughly proportional to the impacts of project-generated trips, and
(2) There is a strong likelihood the improvement(s) will be completed within forty-eight (48) months from the date the project and traffic study are considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal. This finding shall not be made unless, on or before the date of approval, a conceptual plan for each improvement has been prepared in sufficient detail to permit estimation of cost and funding sources for the improvement(s); the improvement(s) is (are) consistent with the circulation element or appropriate amendments have been initiated; an account has been established to receive all funds and contributions necessary to construct the improvement(s) and the improvement is identified as one to be constructed pursuant to the five year capital improvement plan and as specified in Appendix A, and
(3) The project proponent pays a fee to fund construction of the improvement(s). The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the estimated cost of the improvement(s) by a fraction. The fraction shall be calculated by dividing the “effective capacity decrease” in the impacted primary intersection attributable to project trips by the “effective capacity increase” in the impacted primary intersection that is attributable to the improvement. The terms “effective capacity increase” and “effective capacity decrease” shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A; or:
2. The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan with construction of all phases not anticipated to be complete within sixty (60) months of project approval; and
a. The project is subject to a development agreement which requires the construction of, or contributions to, circulation improvements early in the development phasing program, and
b. The traffic study contains sufficient data and analysis to determine if that portion of the project reasonably expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy within sixty (60) months of project approval satisfies the provisions of subsections (B)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b), and
c. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are not made inconsistent by the impact of project trips (including circulation improvements designed to mitigate the impacts of project trips) when added to the trips resulting from development anticipated to occur within the City based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and
d. The project is required, during the sixty (60) month period immediately after approval, to construct circulation improvement(s) such that:
(1) Project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection for which there is a feasible improvement,
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse impacts and benefits, only the following improvements and/or contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) or (b):
(a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or implementation of some or all of the recommendations in, a traffic mitigation study related to an impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City Council,
(b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that, if implemented, would fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(b),
(c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project,
(d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80 ICU; or
3. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal finds, by the affirmative vote of five-sevenths (5/7) of the members eligible to vote, that this chapter is inapplicable to the project because the project will result in benefits that outweigh the project’s anticipated negative impact on the circulation system;
C. Exemptions. The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
1. Any project that generates no more than three hundred (300) average daily trips. This exception shall not apply to individual projects on the same parcel or parcels of property, such as changes in land use or increases in floor area, that in any twenty-four (24) month period cumulatively generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips;
2. Any project that, during any morning or evening peak hour period, does not increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary intersection;
3. Any project that meets all of the following criteria:
a. The project would be constructed on property within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach and that is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange or an adjacent city as of the effective date of this ordinance; and
b. The project is subject to a vesting tentative or parcel map, development agreement, pre-annexation agreement and/or other legal document that vests the right of the property owner to construct the project in the County or adjacent city; and
c. The property owner enters into a development agreement, pre-annexation agreement, or similar agreement with the City of Newport Beach:
(1) That establishes the average daily trips generated by the project (“baseline”),
(2) That requires the property owner to comply with this chapter prior to the issuance of any permit for development that would, in any twenty-four (24) month period, generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips above the baseline for the project, and
(3) That makes this chapter applicable to the project immediately upon annexation;
d. The City Council determines, prior to annexation, that the environmental document prepared for the project fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. (Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.035 Expiration.
A. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, shall establish a specific date on which the approval of the project shall expire (expiration date). In no event shall the expiration date be less than twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval. The initial expiration date for projects other than those described in Section 15.40.030(B)(2) shall be no more than sixty (60) months from the date of approval unless subsequent approval is required from another public agency. In the event the project requires approval from another public agency subsequent to approval pursuant to this chapter, the date of approval shall be the date of the action taken by the last public agency to consider the project. Approval pursuant to this chapter shall terminate on the expiration date unless a building permit has been issued for the project and construction has commenced pursuant to that permit prior to the expiration date or the expiration date has been extended pursuant to subsection (C).
B. Any project approved pursuant to this chapter shall be considered a “committed project” until the expiration date, if any, or until the final certificate of occupancy has been issued if construction has commenced on a portion or a phase of the project. All trips generated by each committed project shall be included in all subsequent traffic studies conducted pursuant to this chapter as provided in appendix A. Committed projects shall be administered in accordance with Appendix A.
C. The Planning Commission or City Council may, subsequent to the date of approval, extend the expiration date for any project.
D. The Community Development Director and Traffic Manager shall, at least annually, monitor the progress of each project to ensure compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 2013-11 § 110, 2013; Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.040 Definitions.
The following terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning indicated below:
“Circulation element” means the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach as amended from time to time.
“Circulation improvement(s)” or “improvement(s)” means a modification to a primary intersection (possibly including a related roadway link) that increases the capacity of the primary intersection.
“Date of approval” means the date the project is approved, pursuant to this chapter, by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal.
“Feasible improvement” means a circulation improvement that:
1. Is not inconsistent with the Circulation Element as the date of approval and has not been identified as infeasible by the City Council at a public hearing to initiate or approve a traffic mitigation study; or
2. Is not inconsistent with any amendment(s) to the Circulation Element initiated and approved in conjunction with the project and is required to be completed by the project proponent and/or the City within the time frames required by this chapter.
“ICU” means the intersection capacity utilization computed in accordance with standard traffic engineering principles and the procedures outlined in the existing Appendix A.
“Impacted primary intersection” means any primary intersection where project trips increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one percent or more during any peak hour period.
“Level of traffic service” means the letter assigned to a range of ICU’s in accordance with Appendix A.
“Members eligible to vote” means all members of the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, lawfully holding office except those members disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest.
“Peak hour period” means the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (morning) and the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each primary intersection) as determined by the field counts required by Appendix A.
“Primary intersection” means each intersection identified in the existing Appendix B and, with respect to individual projects, any additional intersection selected by the Traffic Manager pursuant to Section 15.40.050(B)(1).
“Project” means “project” as defined in CEQA and relevant decisional law without regard to whether any environmental document is required for the project. The term “project” shall also mean any application for a building or grading permit for development that would generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips.
“Traffic engineer” means the traffic engineer retained by the City to prepare the traffic study.
“Traffic Manager” means the person designated by the City Manager as the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to Section 2.32.010.
“Traffic mitigation study” means a study designed to evaluate and recommend a plan to mitigate the impact of an actual or potential unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any primary intersection or traffic volumes in any residential neighborhood in the vicinity of that primary intersection.
“Traffic study” means the study prepared by the traffic engineer in strict compliance with this chapter including Appendix A.
“Unsatisfactory level of service” means a level of service at a primary intersection, which is worse than level of service “D” (.90 ICU), during any morning or evening peak hour period as determined in accordance with Appendix A. (Ord. 2023-22 § 733, 2023; Ord. 2013-11 § 111, 2013; Ord. 2007-12 § 1 (Exh. A), 2007: Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.050 Procedures.
A. The Planning Commission shall determine compliance with this chapter based on the traffic study for the project, information from staff and/or the traffic engineer, and the entire record of the proceedings conducted with regard to the project. The traffic study shall be prepared in compliance with Appendix A.
B. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, the traffic manager, in the exercise of his/her professional discretion, shall:
1. Direct the preparation of each traffic study by a traffic engineer retained by the City and, in compliance with Appendix A, determine those primary intersections (or other intersections if the impact of project traffic on primary intersections may not be representative) that may be impacted by project trips;
2. Ensure that each traffic study is prepared in compliance with the methodology described in Appendix A and independently evaluate the conclusions of the traffic engineer;
3. Make recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council with respect to the criteria for evaluating trip reduction measures, the appropriate trip generation rates of land uses, and the criteria for distributing project trips to ensure that each traffic study reflects modern transportation engineering practice.
C. Any finding or decision of the Planning Commission with respect to any project that also requires discretionary action on the part of the City Council, such as an amendment to the general plan or zoning ordinance, shall be deemed an advisory action. In such cases the City Council shall take any action required by this chapter at the same date and time that the City Council considers the other discretionary approvals required by the project.
D. The application for any building, grading or other permit for any project subject to this chapter shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied within one year from the date on which the application is deemed complete. In the event action is not taken on an application within one year, the project shall be deemed approved provided it is consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach.
E. A fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expenses of administering this chapter shall accompany the application for a traffic study. The application for a traffic study shall be submitted in compliance with Appendix A.
F. The City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing prior to initiating or approving any traffic mitigation study and identifying as infeasible any improvement at or near any primary intersection;
G. The City Council may establish reimbursement programs to ensure that multiple projects affecting the same primary intersection pay for improvements in proportion to their respective impacts. The reimbursement programs shall be developed and administered in compliance with Appendix A. (Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.060 Hearings—Notice.
A. The Planning Commission, and the City Council on appeal or review, shall hold a public hearing on any project pursuant to this chapter. The public hearing on the traffic study may be consolidated with other hearings required by the project. The hearing shall be noticed in the manner provided in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision.
B. All findings required or provided for in this chapter shall be in writing and supported by the weight of the evidence in the entire administrative record for the project including the traffic study. (Ord. 2013-11 § 113, 2013; Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.070 Appeal—Review.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any Planning Commission decision to approve a project shall be final unless there is an appeal by the project proponent or any interested person. The appeal shall be initiated and conducted pursuant to the procedures in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision;
B. The City Council shall have a right to review a decision of the Planning Commission consistent with the procedures and processes as specified in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision;
C. The City Council shall be subject to the same requirements as the Planning Commission relative to decisions and findings required by this chapter. (Ord. 2013-11 § 114, 2013: Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.075 Proportionality.
A. In no event shall the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal:
1. Impose any traffic related condition or conditions on the approval of a project that would require the project proponent to construct one or more circulation improvement(s) if the total cost of traffic related conditions and/or improvements is not roughly proportional to the impact of project trips; or
2. Impose any traffic related condition or conditions on the approval of a project which would require the payment of fees or costs that are not roughly proportional to the impact of project trips.
B. The provisions of this chapter are intended to address the specific and, in most cases, near term impacts of project trips on impacted primary intersections rather than the overall impact of project traffic on the circulation system. Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is intended to address the overall impact of development on the circulation system. Conditions or fees imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be in addition to fees required pursuant to Chapter 15.38 except as otherwise provided in Chapter 15.38.
C. The provisions of this section shall not limit or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, to impose on any project all feasible mitigation measures pursuant to the provisions of applicable law, including CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
D. The provisions of this section shall not require approval of any project if the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, is unable to make the findings required for approval pursuant to this chapter.
E. The provisions of this section shall not require approval of any project which the Planning Commission is authorized to deny or modify pursuant to any State law or City ordinance, resolution or plan.
F. The provisions of this section shall not limit or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, to impose conditions, fees, exaction or dedications on a project pursuant to:
1. A development agreement;
2. A reimbursement agreement, a reimbursement program, or any agreement acceptable to the project proponent;
3. The consent of the project proponent; or
4. An amendment to the land use element or zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach that is required for approval of the project. (Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE
1. General.
These Administrative Procedures (Procedures) apply to any Project for which Traffic Study is required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO).
2. Application.
a. The proponent of any Project subject to the TPO shall:
i. file an application for a Traffic Study;
ii. pay the required fees; and
iii. sign an agreement to pay all costs related to the Traffic Study.
b. The application shall be accompanied by the following information:
i. A complete description of the Project including the total amount of floor area to be constructed and the amount of floor area allocated to each proposed land use;
ii. A Project site plan that depicts the location and intensity of proposed development, the location of points of ingress and egress, and the location of parking lots or structures;
iii. Any proposed Project phasing;
iv. Any trip reduction measure proposed by the Project proponent;
v. Any information, study, or report that supports any request by the Project proponent to use trip generation rates that differ from those in the most current version of ITE’s Trip Generation or the SANDAG Traffic Generators; and
vi. Any other information that, in the opinion of the Traffic Manager, is necessary to properly evaluate the traffic impacts of the Project or the Circulation System Improvements that could mitigate those traffic impacts.
3. Traffic Study Assumptions.
a. The definitions in Section 15.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be applicable to these Procedures.
b. ICU calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for both through and turn lanes. No factor for yellow time shall be included in the lane capacity assumptions. ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each movement to three decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places. The increase in the ICU attributable to Project trips shall be calculated to three decimal places. The ICU shall then be rounded to two decimal places. For example, an ICU of .904 shall be rounded to .90 and an ICU of .905 shall be rounded to .91.
c. Circulation System Improvements may be included in the Traffic Study for a Project provided that the Traffic Manager determines:
i. The Improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the Project or Project phase for which the Traffic Study is being performed; and
ii. The Improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis; or
iii. The design of the Improvement is consistent with standard City design criteria or has been approved by the City Council, or other public entity with jurisdiction over the Improvement, and is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis.
d. Traffic volumes shall be based on estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the Project, or that portion of the Project for which the Traffic Study is being performed. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure use of the most accurate information to estimate traffic volumes one year after Project completion. Traffic volume estimates shall be based on:
i. The most current field counts for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during the morning and evening Peak Hour Period between February 1 and May 31;
ii. Traffic generated by Committed Projects as determined in accordance with the TPO and these Procedures
iii. Projects reasonably expected to be complete within the one year after Project completion and which are located in the City of Newport Beach or its sphere of influence;
iv. Increases in regional traffic anticipated to occur within one year after Project completion as projected in the most current City Council approved traffic analysis model for the City of Newport Beach or other accepted sources of future Orange County traffic growth; and
v. Other information customarily used by Traffic Engineers to accurately estimate future traffic volumes.
e. For purposes of the traffic analysis of Circulation System Improvements, seventy percent (70%) of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vphg for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of any Circulation System Improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future Traffic Studies.
f. Trip generation rates for the land uses contemplated by the Project shall be based on standard trip generation values listed in the current version of ITE’s Trip Generation except as provided in this Subsection. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, use trip generation rates other than as specified in Trip Generation when such rates are based on limited information or study and there is a valid study of the trip generation rate of a similar land use that supports a different rate.
g. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, reduce trip generation rates for some or all of the land uses contemplated by the Project based on specific trip reduction measures when:
i. The Project proponent proposes in writing and prior to commencement of the Traffic Study, specific and permanent measures that will reduce Peak Hour Period trips generated by the Project; and
ii. The Traffic Manager and Traffic Engineer, in the exercise of their best professional judgment, each determine that the proposed measure(s) will reduce Peak Hour Period Project trips and the specific reduction in Project trips that can reasonably be expected; and
iii. The Project proponent provides the City with written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure(s) will be permanently implemented. The Project proponent must consent to make permanent implementation of the measure(s) a condition to the approval of the Project, and the measure(s) shall be made a condition of the Project by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal.
h. In determining Project trips, credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site. Credit shall be given based on the trip generation rates in ITE’s Trip Generation. In the alternative, the Traffic Manager may, in the exercise of his/her professional judgment, authorize the use of trip generation rates in SANDAG’s Traffic Generators or on the basis of actual site traffic counts. In the event the Project site has not been used for any purpose for a period of one (1) year prior to the filing of an application for a Traffic Study, credit shall be limited to trips generated by the last known land use, if any, that could be resumed with no discretionary approval. For any land use that is not active as of the date of the application for a Traffic Study, the Project proponent shall have the burden of establishing that the use was in operation during the previous one (1) year period.
i. The purpose of this Paragraph is to ensure that trips that would be generated upon completion of a Project approved pursuant to the TPO are incorporated into any subsequent Traffic Study conducted prior to completion of the Project and/or post-Project field counts specified in Section 3.d.i. A Committed Project is one that has been approved pursuant to the TPO, requires no further discretionary approval by the City, and has received, or is entitled to receive, a building or grading permit for construction of the Project or one or more phases of the Project. In preparing a Traffic Study, trips generated by Committed Projects shall be included subject to the following:
i. All trips generated by each Committed Project or that portion or phase of the Committed Project for which no certificate of occupancy has been issued shall be included in any Traffic Study conducted prior to the Expiration Date of that Committed Project;
ii. In the event a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for one or more phases of a Committed Project, all trips shall be included in subsequent Traffic Studies until completion of the first field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) subsequent to the date on which the final certificate of occupancy was issued. Subsequent to completion of the field counts, those trips generated by phases of the Committed Project that have received a final certificate of occupancy shall no longer be included in subsequent Traffic Studies.
iii. The Traffic Manager and Community Development Director shall maintain a list of Committed Projects and, at least annually, update the list to reflect new Approvals pursuant to the TPO as well as completion of all or a portion of each Committed Project. A Committed Project shall not be removed from the Committed Project list until a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for all phases and the field counts required by subsection 3(d)(i) have been taken subsequent to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
iv. The total trips generated by Committed Projects shall be reduced by twenty percent (20%) to account for the interaction of Committed Project trips.
j. For purposes of Chapter 15.40 and these Procedures, the following Levels of Traffic Service ranges shall apply:
|
A |
.00—.60 ICU |
|
B |
.61—.70 ICU |
|
C |
.71—.80 ICU |
|
D |
.81—.90 ICU |
|
E |
.91—1.00 ICU |
|
F |
Above 1.00 ICU |
4. Initial Traffic Study Procedures.
a. The Traffic Manager shall retain a qualified Traffic Engineer pursuant to contract with the City to prepare a Traffic Study for the Project in compliance with the TPO and the methodology specified in these Procedures.
b. The Traffic Manager shall advise the Traffic Engineer of the methodology and assumptions required by these Procedures and provide the Traffic Engineer with a copy of the TPO and these Procedures.
c. The Traffic Manager, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer and in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and principles, shall determine the most probable manner in which Project Trips will be distributed throughout the Circulation System. The determination of Project trip distribution shall be consistent with:
i. the assumptions in the City’s current transportation analysis model relative to production and attraction characteristics of various land uses; and
ii. previous trip distribution determinations for Projects of similar size and location;
Trip distributions shall be in increments of 5% of Project Trips. In no event shall Project trips be removed from any roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located except at a signalized intersection with another roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located. The determination of Project trip distribution shall, in all cases, reflect the most probable movement of Project trips throughout the Circulation System. The Traffic Study shall clearly explain the rationale for the determination of Project trip distribution.
d. The Traffic Engineer shall determine if Project trips will increase traffic on any leg of any Primary Intersection by one percent (1%) or more during any Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion.
e. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that Project generated trips will not increase traffic by one percent (1%) or more on any leg of any Primary Intersection during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion the analysis will be terminated. In such event the Traffic Study and worksheet shall be submitted to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Project be determined exempt from the TPO pursuant to Section 15.40.030 C.2.
f. No mitigation shall be identified or required for any Primary Intersection unless Project trips increase traffic on one or more of the legs of the intersection by one percent (1%) or more during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period.
5. Traffic Study Methodology.
a. The Traffic Engineer, in preparing the Traffic Study, shall evaluate the impact of Project trips generated from all proposed land uses based on the assumptions specified in Section 3 and the methodology specified in this Section.
b. In the case of conversion of an existing structure to a more intense land use, the incremental increase in trips generated by the Project shall be evaluated. In the event the uses within the existing structure changed during the preceding twelve (12) months, the differential shall be calculated on the basis of the prior use or uses with the highest trip generation rates according to ITE’s Trip Generation (or SANDAG’s Trip Generators as appropriate).
c. Project trips shall be distributed in accordance with the determination specified in Subparagraph 4c.
d. The following ICU calculations shall be performed for each Primary Intersection where, one year after Project completion, Project generated trips will increase traffic by one percent (1%) or more on any leg of the Primary Intersection during any morning and/or evening Peak Hour Period:
i. The existing ICU;
ii. The ICU, with Circulation System Improvements that will be in place within one year after Project completion, based on all projected traffic including regional traffic increases and trips generated by Committed Projects excluding Project generated trips; and
iii. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips;
iv. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager;
v. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any mitigation resulting from Improvements;
vi. The ICU in (v) with trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager.
e. The Traffic Study shall, for each Impacted Primary Intersection with an Unsatisfactory Level of Service (ICU of .905 or more) that has been caused or made worse by Project generated trips, identify each Feasible Improvement that could mitigate some or all of the impacts of Project trips. The Traffic Study shall also determine the extent to which the Improvement provides additional capacity for critical movements at the Impacted Primary Intersection in excess of the Project trips and any other information relevant to the calculation of any fee required by the TPO.
f. The Traffic Study shall, for each Improvement identified pursuant to Subsection e., estimate the cost of making the Improvement including the cost of property acquisition, design, and construction. The Traffic Engineer may perform the cost estimate or, with the approval of the Traffic Manager, retain a civil engineer or other qualified professional to prepare the cost estimates.
g. The determination of “effective capacity increase” and “effective capacity decrease” as described in Section 15.40.030 B.1.d. shall be made as specified in this Subparagraph.
i. In determining the “effective capacity increase” attributable to any Improvement to any Primary Intersection, the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU with existing, committed and regional trips (Future W/O Project ICU). Then the ICU shall be calculated with existing, committed and regional trips and the Improvement (Improved W/O Project ICU). The “effective capacity increase” shall be determined by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Future W/O Project ICU.
ii. In determining the “effective capacity decrease” attributable to Project trips the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU of the Primary Intersection with existing, committed and regional trips, Project trips and the Improvement (Improved With Project ICU). The “effective capacity decrease” shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Improved With Project ICU.
iii. For example, if the Future W/O Project ICU is .92 and the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 the “effective capacity increase” is 10. If the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 and the Improved ICU With Project ICU is .87 the “effective capacity decrease” is 5. Assuming the cost of the Improvement is $100,000 the contribution of the Project would be $50,000 ($100,000 multiplied by 5/10).
h. The Traffic Study shall also provide the Planning Commission with any additional information relevant to the findings or analysis required by the TPO.
6. Staff Analysis.
a. The Traffic Engineer shall transmit a draft Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager for review, comment and correction. The Traffic Manager shall review the draft Traffic Study and submit corrections to the Traffic Engineer within 15 days after receipt. The Traffic Engineer shall make the corrections within ten (10) days of receipt and transmit the final Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager.
b. The Traffic Manager shall transmit the final Traffic Study to the Community Development Department for presentation to the Planning Commission.
7. Issuance of Permits.
The City shall not issue building, grading or other permits for a Project Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.1.b., 15.40.030 B.1.c., or 15.40.030 B.2. until each Improvement that has been assumed to be in place for purposes of Project Approval, or is to be constructed or funded as a condition to Project Approval, satisfies the following criteria:
a. The Improvement has been budgeted and committed for construction by or on behalf of the City; or
b. The State, County or other governmental agency making the Improvement has accepted bids for the Project; or
c. The Improvement has been approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions and is to be constructed by the Project proponent in conjunction with development of the Project or the Project proponent has guaranteed construction of the Improvement through the posting of bonds or other form of assurance.
8. Reimbursement Programs.
a. The City Council may establish Reimbursement Programs to ensure Project conditions are roughly proportional to Project impacts and to facilitate the prompt construction of Improvements to mitigate the impact of Project trips. A Reimbursement Program may be proposed by the City Manager to the City Council whenever he/she becomes aware of the potential for multiple Projects to impact a Primary Intersection and a Feasible Improvement may be required of one or more of the Projects because of the impact of Project trips.
b. A Reimbursement Program shall have the following components:
i. Identification of the Feasible Improvement(s) including, without limitation, preliminary design and cost estimates and the estimated date of completion of the Feasible Improvement(s);
ii. Calculation of the “effective capacity increase” attributable to the Feasible Improvement(s);
iii. The amount of the cost of the Feasible Improvement for which the City or Project Proponent shall be entitled to reimbursement from subsequent or contemporaneous Projects;
iv. The duration of the period during which Reimbursement shall be required of subsequent or contemporaneous Projects.
9. Committed Improvements.
In the case of Projects Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.1.d., the Improvement(s) assumed to be completed within forty-eight (48) months after Project Approval shall be listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council shall not remove the Improvement(s) from the CIP unless a different Improvement (Substitute Improvement) is identified and the Substitute Improvement will result in reductions in the ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection that equal or exceed the reduction(s) in ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection(s) that were assumed or projected when the Project was Approved.
(Ord. 2023-22 § 735, 2023)
Appendix B
PRIMARY INTERSECTIONS
|
Balboa and 21st |
Jamboree and Bayview |
|
Bayview and Bristol |
Jamboree and Birch |
|
Birch and Bristol North |
Jamboree and Bison |
|
Birch and Bristol |
Jamboree and Bristol North |
|
Campus and Bristol |
Jamboree and Bristol |
|
Campus and Bristol North |
Jamboree and Campus |
|
Campus and Von Karman |
Jamboree and Ford/Eastbluff |
|
Coast Highway and Avocado |
Jamboree and MacArthur |
|
Coast Highway and Bayside |
Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Coast Highway and Dover/Bayshore |
Jamboree and Santa Barbara |
|
Coast Highway and Goldenrod |
Jamboree and University/Eastbluff |
|
Coast Highway and Jamboree |
MacArthur and Birch |
|
Coast Highway and MacArthur |
MacArthur and Bison |
|
Coast Highway and Marguerite |
MacArthur and Campus |
|
Coast Highway and Newport Center |
MacArthur and Ford/Bonita Canyon |
|
Coast Highway and Newport Coast |
MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Coast Highway and Newport Ramp |
MacArthur and San Miguel |
|
Coast Highway and Orange |
MacArthur and Von Karman |
|
Coast Highway and Poppy |
Marguerite and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Coast Highway and Riverside |
Newport and Balboa |
|
Coast Highway and Tustin |
Newport and Hospital |
|
Coast Highway and Superior |
Newport and Via Lido |
|
Dover and 16th |
Newport and 32nd |
|
Dover and Westcliff |
Newport Coast and Ridge Park |
|
Irvine and Dover/19th |
Newport Coast and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Irvine and Highland/20th |
Placentia and Superior |
|
Irvine and Mesa |
San Miguel and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Irvine and Santiago/22nd |
Santa Cruz and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Irvine and University |
Santa Rosa and San Joaquin Hills |
|
Irvine and Westcliff/17th |
Superior and Hospital |
(Ord. 2023-22 § 736, 2023; Ord. 2013-11 § 112, 2013; Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)