The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About25 - Traffic Phasing OrdinanceCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ke�eWPOgr COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT m 1 Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT u 1 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, P.O. Box 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 694.3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: June 28, 1999 25 Patricia L. Temple (949) 644 -3200 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Ordinance SUMMARY: Proposed amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to provide that circulation system improvements required for a development are roughly proportional to that project's impact, to modify the definition of feasible improvement, to establish a threshold for traffic impacts that require circulation system improvements, and to change the number of affirmative votes needed to override the provisions of the Ordinance to 5nths of the members eligible to vote. ACTION: Conduct public hearing, introduce Ordinance No. 99 -_, and pass to second reading on July 12, 1999. At the public hearing held on June 14, 1999 by the City Council on the revisions to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), staff was directed to provide information regarding the possibility of relying on the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze and mitigate the traffic impacts of new development, and rescind the TPO. Current City Practice When a project is determined to require environmental review (an EIR or Negative Declaration/Initial Study), traffic and circulation is one of the issue areas which must be analyzed. Since the TPO contains both standards and procedures for assessing and mitigating short term traffic impacts, we have relied on those standards for determining when a significant effect on the environment will result from the traffic generated by a new development. This practice is recognized and supported by CEQA, as the statute encourages agencies to adopt local standards of significance. Reliance on CEOA The City Council could rescind the TPO in favor of reliance on the procedures of CEQA. The processes are very similar, in that analysis, determination of significant effect, and the identification and imposition of feasible mitigation measures to reduce a significant environmental effect are 0 required by both. One advantage to using CEQA, is that it may be possible to anticipate a significant environmental effect even if a project generates less than 300 average daily trips, depending on the location or the characteristics of the use, thus requiring traffic analysis in the environmental review. Additionally, the City could adopt local significance thresholds for traffic impacts in the CEQA implementation policy the same or similar to the provisions of the TPO. This would allow the process as experienced by applicants to be essentially the same as under today's system. One difference reliance on CEQA would produce is an override vote under CEQA is a simple majority requirement, where the TPO requires a larger majority. Additionally, the standard to override an unmitigated significant environmental effect pursuant to CEQA is specified in the CEQA Guidelines, as follows: "If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable. " This standard is both broader and less specific than the findings to approve a traffic study in either the existing or proposed TPO. Submitted and prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachment: Initial Study Checklist Tic Phasing Ordinance June28, 1999 Page 2 11 0 0 1. 0 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 644 -3200 located on the southeasterly corner of Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: To the north To the east: To the south: To the west: 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) 0 CHECKLIST Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leas one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral ❑ Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 CHECKLIST Page 2 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signature Printed Name 0 Date RWSERSU I MHAREDIIFORMSWEG- DECWWKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 3 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? III. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 11 0 cHMKI.IST Page 4 0 IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? CHWKUST Page 5 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? IV) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? CHWKUST Page 5 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Potentially Potentially Less then Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ rn FM 0 L no tiJ C INC LC A u 0 u No Impact u 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ll 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation D • Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? V. AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a substantial number of people? VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? CHECKLIST Page 7 b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Potentially less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact ❑ Mitigation ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C IECI=T Page 8 u CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat . conservation plan? VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? IX. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? u CHECKLIST Page 9 b) C) d) e) g) h) E • CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or propose school? Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? E • CHECKLIST Page 10 X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of • the public services: CHECMST Page 11 • LJ CHECKUST Page 12 Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulation related to solid waste? • LJ CHECKUST Page 12 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in • Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XV. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) Prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: CHECKLIST Page 13 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide ❑ ❑ Importance (Farmland), as shown ❑ ❑ on the maps prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a William ❑ ❑ contract? son Act ❑ ❑ C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ their location or nature, could result ❑ E3 in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? XV1. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ E3 regional parks or other recreational ❑ ❑ facilities such that substantial Physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ construction of or expansion of ❑ ❑ recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce ❑ ❑ the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife Population to drop below sell- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or Prehistory? 0 CHEMIST Page 14 b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. S c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. F: \USERS\PLN\SHAREDU FORMSW EO- DEC\OOCKUST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 Meeting Date: June 28, 1999 Agenda Item No.: 25 Subject: TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. ALSO refer to City Council Agenda Packet for the Meeting of June 14, 1999, ITEM NO. 30 for the Original Report or Backup Information on this item. Thank you! 0 E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY June 25,1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Member FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Appendix A/Appendix B Proposed Modifications 1. Introduction On June 14, 1999, the City Council received testimony and offered comments on the proposed amendments to the TPO. Staff has considered the testimony and comments and is suggesting modifications to the proposed TPO (PTPO) considered on June 14. The proposed modifications to the TPO and Appendix A are generally shown in the strikeout and underlined versions that accompany this memo. Staff believes the proposed modifications are consistent with the input received on June 14' and with the direction from the TPO Working Group to limit changes to those that resolve legal and operational problems. This memo identifies the more significant proposed revisions and discusses the CEQA issues raised in the June 14, 1999 letter from Scott Williams. 2. Discussion A. Proposed Revisions Section 15.40.010 — Findings We have added a Subsection that mirrors the findings in the existing TPO (ETPO) related to the ota ential impacts of traffic congestion. Representatives of the Police and Fire & Marine Departments testified that they do not currently experience any traffic - related delay in responding to emergencies and, in fact, the response time for police personnel is the best in Orange County. While there is no credible evidence that the proposed revisions to the ETPO will have any adverse impact on public safety, the insertion of a finding relative to the link between traffic congestion and emergency response, among other things, would be helpful in the event of a legal challenge. � .e�.,n }1 �3 ��_ Leap � �'o��sw ®.s �,._..1 _:.cle�� '�` -:: �.�.�.F`_`.:•_ 5 k ,._ = V 2. Section 15.40.030 — Standards for Approval We have added a new Subsection (A) that identifies the "Standards" for approval. This Section incorporates a new requirement that the Project proponent agree to make the improvements and /or contributions necessary to the "Findings" for approval and that those improvements and /or contributions are made conditions to Project approval. 3. Section 15.40.030 — 15.40.075 _ Impacted Primary Intersection We are proposing to change the definition of Critical Intersection to Primary Intersection to avoid the implication that any particular intersection is congested or impacted by Project trips. The new definition more clearly reflects the desire to focus on intersections that are the best indicators of the overall condition of our circulation system. In response to Councilmember Ridgeway's valid "nexus" concerns we have added a definition of "Impacted Primary Intersection" — one where Project trips increase traffic by one percent (1 %) or more (the current standard). 4. Section 15.40.030 B.1.c. Approval/No Feasible Improvement The ETPO permits approval of a Project that "causes or makes worse" an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at an intersection for which there is no "feasible identified improvement" if, among other things, the benefits of other improvements outweigh the impacts of increased congestion at unimproved intersections. As noted by Councilmember Ridgeway and others, the ETPO does not require the "other improvements" to bear any relationship to Project trips. The PTPO requires the "other improvements" to be related to the impact of Project trips. Moreover, the PTPO requires the "other improvements" to be meaningful (intersections functioning or predicted to function at or above .80 ICU) or directly related to the impacted intersection (Traffic Mitigation Study or improvements to intersections "in the vicinity" of the unimproved intersection). 5. Section 15.40.030 B.1.d. Calculation of Fee The ETPO permits the approval of a Project if it contributes to the construction of an improvement that will be complete in 48 months and, when complete, will fully mitigate the impact of Project trips. The fee required by the ETPO is based on the proportion of project trips to the additional trips "anticipated to result from (all) additional traffic from development within Newport Beach from the date of the project approval to the date" construction begins on the improvement. There is no realistic way to calculate this fee and, as a general rule, the fee is unrelated to the impact of the Project on the improved intersection. We are suggesting a fee based on the extent to which the Project takes advantage of the enhanced capacity resulting from the improvement. 6. Section 15.40.030 C.2. Exemption The June 14"' draft established a .005 ICU increase as the threshold for determining if Project trips "impacted an intersection. Staff is proposing a return to the "1 %" test in the ETPO with the understanding we are willing to evaluate any proposal that all interested parties agree is a more appropriate measure of impact. 7. Section 15.40.040 D. Feasible Improvement The definition of "feasible improvement" in the ETPO is a "major improvement" that is not clearly disproportionate to the "size of, or traffic generated by, the Project...." The definition of "feasible improvement' in the June 14th draft was based largely on whether the improvement was in the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program. We are proposing a much broader definition of "feasible improvement" that severely limits the improvements that can be considered "infeasible ". The new definition of "feasible improvement" assumes any improvement "not inconsistent with" the Circulation Element is feasible and requires the City Council to identify any improvement considered infeasible at a public hearing held to initiate or approve a Traffic Mitigation Study. The Traffic Mitigation Study would evaluate ways to mitigate impacts in adjacent residential areas resulting from possible congestion at the unimproved Primary Intersection. 8. Section 15.40.050 G. Reimbursement Program We are proposing the addition of a subsection that enables the city Council to establish a "Reimbursement Program ". The Reimbursement Program is a vehicle for funding and accelerating the improvement of intersections as well as ensuring that multiple Projects that would benefit from an improvement pay their "fair share" of the costs. B. CEQA Issues On June 14"', the City Council received a letter from Scott Williams, an attorney for SPON, claiming the City failed to comply with CEQA. According to Mr. Williams, the Class 5 Categorical Exemption (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) adopted by the City for the PTPO is inappropriate. Staff believes the Class 5 Categorical Exemption is appropriate and, as a practical matter, the current version of the PTPO is exempt pursuant to the "general rule" that CEQA only applies to "projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In fairness to Mr. Williams, his analysis was based on a much earlier version of the PTPO and, for that reason, we express no opinion on his position. Moreover, we have incorporated many of Mr. • Williams' earlier suggestions into the PTPO" (especially the "rough proportionality provisions) and, in so doing, minimized any change between the ETPO and the PTPO. CEQA requires the City to prepare environmental documentation for "projects ". The term project is defined as an "activity directly :undertaken by a public agency" action that "has the potential for resulting in either a direct (or indirect) physical change in the environment" such as the "enactment of zonir)g;,ordinances and... General Plans. The TPO is a regulatory and procedural ordinance hat does not change or modify the zoning or general plan designation of any parcel. In CEQA terms, the PTPO is at least as protective of the environment as the ETPO. The PTPO retains the 300 ADT threshold for analysis and '1% threshold for significance in the ETPO. The PTPO requires the Project proponent to agree to the improvements and contributions required for approval and the City to impose mitigation as a condition to the Project — protections not found in the ETPO. The PTPO method of calculating the fee of a Project when a required improvement will be complete in 48 months will result in higher and more relevant contributions than is the case with the formula in the ETPO. Where intersection improvements are infeasible, the PTPO requires mitigation to be meaningful and directly related to Project trips while the ETPO allows "mitigation" even if the improvements are unrelated to the Project or unnecessary. The ETPO defines "feasible improvement" in terms of the size of the project so any improvement can be deemed infeasible. The PTPO limits the definition of an infeasible improvement to those identified by the City Council at public hearing combined with the initiation or approval of a study to mitigate any impacts. Unlike the ETPO, the PTPO and Appendix A "codify ", modernize and objectify the analysis of Project trip impacts. Finally, we have drafted PTPO (incorporating language suggested by Mr. Williams) so that the "rough proportionality" section doesn't deprive the Planning Commission or City Council of the power to deny a project when the weight of the evidence doesn't support findings for approval. In summary, the PTPO does not, in our opinion, have the potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the determination by staff — that the PTPO is exempt from CEQA analysis - is appropriate. We have attached a strikeout and underlined version, (based on the June 14t° draft) of the PTPO and Appendix A as well as a copy of Appendix B (Primary Intersection List). Please call if you have questions. ert H. Burnham Attorney 0 r. • 62599 Draft Chapter 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE SECTIONS: 15.40.010 Findings. 15.40.020 Objectives. 15.40.030 Standards for Approval /Compliance /Exemptions. 15.40.035 Expiration. 15.40.040 Definitions. 15.40.050 Procedures. 15.40.060 Hearings /Notice. 15.40.070 Appeal /Review. 15.40.075 Proportionality. 15.40.080 Severability. 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 conaestion caused by inadeouate Dhasina 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 utilize -grew require mitigation of traffic impacts by Project proponents; to ensure the circulation system functions as planned; C. 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; D. This Chapter is consistent with the authority of a public entity to ensure Project proponents make or fund improvements that increase the capacity of the circulation system to accommodate Project generated traffic. 062299 Draft r 1 62599 Draft 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 49wPeak Hour Period **e494&; 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 6FitiW- 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_;- 0 15.40.030 Standards for Compliance /Approval /Exemptions. A. Standards for Approval Unless a Project is exempt as provided in Subsection C.44, 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. T4hat a 94e- 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 062299 Draft 2 2 • • 62599 Draft 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: Construction of the Project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project approval; and a. The Project #4p&-will neither cause nor make worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at any CFitis8l Impacted Primary Intersection; OR b. The Project mss— including Circulation Improvements that the Project proponent is required to make or fund pursuant to a Reimbursement Program or otherwise, will neither cause nor make worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at any G409a4 Impacted Primary Intersection; OR C. The Project trips will cause or make worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at one or more fritisal-lpacted Primary Intersections) but the Project proponent is required to construct and /or fund. pursuant to a Reimbursement Program or otherwise. Circulation Improvements or make contributions etkeFrait+gatier} such that: (i) The Project trips will not cause or make worse .an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at any G499al- Impacted Primary Intersection for which there is a Feasible Improvement; and (ii) The benefits esulting from Circulation Improvements constructed or funded, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a Traffic Mitigation Study made, by the Project proponent outweigh the adverse impacts of Project trips ea- tlae -6RUM A Tr2ffir GAPAoR at any Eritisal- Impacted Primary Intersection for which there is are no Feasible Improvement(s) that would, if implemented, 062299 Draft 3 62599 Draft fully satisfy the provisions of Subsection 15.40.030 B.1.b. In balancing ! the adverse impacts and benefits, only he following Improvements: and / -0r contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to contifBufions described in Subparagraph a and b: e a. Contributions to the preparation of, and /or implementation of some or all of the recommendations in. a Traffic Niitigation Study related to an Impacted Primary Intersection that is initiated or approved by the City Council: b. Feasible Improvements, if any, that mitigate the impact of Project trips at any Impacted Intersection for which there is (are) no Feasible Improvement(s) that, if implemented, would satisfy the provisions of Subsection 15.40.030 B.1.b.• C. Improvements that mitigate the impacts • of Proiect trips on any Impacted Primary Intersection in the vicinity of the Project: QA. 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: (i) The time and/or funding necessary to complete the Improvement(s) is (are) not roughly proportional to the impacts of Project generated trips; and (ii) 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 062299 Draft 4 62599 Draft 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; and an account has been established to receive all funds and contributions necessary to construct the Improvement(s); and (iii) 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 fraeVeR 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. Prejest #ipr—The terms "effective capacity increase' and "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A. OR at the GFiWal WeF69GWR divieled lay the I%aGity at that 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) 062299 Draft 5 62599 Draft 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: ' MProject trips will not cause or make worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at any GFitieal- Impacted Primary Intersection for which there is a Feasible Improvement; (ii) The benefits resulting from Circulation Improvements constructed or funded. 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 Subsection 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 or contributions described. in Subparagraph 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: and b. Improvements that mitigate the impacts of Project trips on any Impacted Primary Intersection in the vicinity of the Project: C. Improvements that mitigate the impacts of Project trips on any Impacted Primary Intersection operating, or proiected to operate. at or above 0.80 ICU: and . 3. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or 062299 Draft 6 62599 Draft appeal finds, by the affirmative vote of five- sevenths 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.B. Exemptions. The following Projects are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: 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 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. IF.�w.rrx+s :e ts�:r�zr�nrsrst�nr+trrs��n !r�sr_rrrx.. 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 Citv 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: (i) That establishes the average daily trips generated by the Project ( "baseline "); (ii) That requires the property owner to comply 062299 Draft 7 62599 Draft 15.40.035 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 aae�the baseline for the Project; and (iii) That makes this Chapter applicable to the Project immediately upon annexation and —the Ma. Se"i"Gale Of easupaney for the eRtiflemeff- A@Feemen d. The City Council determines, prior to annexation, that the environmental document prepared for the Project fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 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-OF The initial Expiration Date for Projects other than those described in Section 15.40.030 LBA)(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. 062299 Draft 8 0 0 62599 Draft D. 15.40.040 below: The Planning Director and Traffic Manager shall, at least annually, monitor the progress of each Project to ensure compliance with this Chapter. Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meaning indicated A. "Circulation Element" shall mean the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach as amended from time to time. B. "Circulation Improvement(s)" or "Improvement(s)" shall mean a modification to a Primary Intersection (possibly including a related roadway link) that increases the capacity of the Primary Intersection. C. "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. D. "Feasible Improvement" means a Circulation Improvement that: 1. Is not inconsistent with the Circulation Element at 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 reauired to be completed by the Project proponent and /or the City within the time frames required by this Chapter. E. "ICU" means the intersection capacity utilization ealswlatieR computed in accordance with standard traffic engineering principles and the procedures outlined in Appendix A. F. "Impacted Primary Intersection" means any Primary Intersection where Project trips increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one percent 0 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period. G. "Level of Traffic Service" shall mean the letter assigned to a range of ICU's in accordance with Appendix A. H. "Members Eligible to Vote" shall mean all members of the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, 062299 Draft 9 62599 Draft lawfully holding office except those Members disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. I. "NBTAM" means the most current City Council approved Traffic Analysis Model for the City of Newport Beach. J. "Peak Hour Period " shall mean the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods eae-149vr- ed- between 7:00 a.m. a;nd 9:00 a. m. (morning) and the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute ARA hem periods between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each Primary Intersection) as determined by the 19 *A-.RR*A11FAfflsr9URt6 equired by Appendix A. K. Cfitlsal- "Primary Intersection" shall mean those intersections identified in Appendix B and, with respect to individual Projects, any additional intersection selected by the Traffic Manager pursuant to Section 15.40.050. L. "Project" shall mean "project" as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 4 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines,, 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.—wAless J. "Traffic Engineer" shall mean the traffic engineer retained by the City to prepare the Traffic Study. K. "Traffic Manager" shall mean the person employed by the City aad -who occupies the position of Traffic and Development Services Manager or similar position. L. "Traffic Mitination Studv" shall mean a studv 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 on traffic volumes in any residential neighborhood in the vicinitv of that Primary Intersection. M. "Traffic Study" shall mean the study prepared by the-Traffic Engineer in strict compliance with this Chapter including Appendix A. N. "Unsatisfactory Level of Service" shall mean a Level of Service at a 6r+tisalPrimary Intersection, which is worse than Level of Service "D" (.90 ICU), during any a.m. or p.m. peak hewfPeak Hour Period per+ed etermined in accordance with Appendix A. stafldafd 062299 Draft 10 I- L-1 62599 Draft 14.40.050 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, 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 6fitisai- Primary Intersections (or other intersections if the impact of Project traffic on GFitisalPrimary Intersections may not be representative) that may be impacted by ti;ie-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 tries to arm+ etbewvise- ensure that each *e- Traffic Study ies- seadaeted 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. 062299 Draft 11 62599 Draft 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 fora 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 anv 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. 15.40.60 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 Section 20.91.030_C. 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. 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 sel fGFtrin Chapter 20.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision; B. The City Council shall have aright of review as specified in Chapter 20.95 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. 15.40.075 Proportionality. 062299 Draft 12 62599 Draft 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 which 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 trips generated by the Project. B. The provisions of this Chapter are intended to address the specific and, in most cases, near e4e#—term impacts of Project trips on SFit+sal-lmpacted 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: 062299 Draft 13 a 62599 Draft 1. A development agreement; 2. A reimbursement agreement, a Reimbursement Program, or any etl9F 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. 15.40.080 Severabililty. If all or a portion of any Section or Subsection of this Chapter is declared invalid, all of the provisions of this Chapter_that have not been declared invalid shall be considered valid and in full force and effect. Il 0 1 062299 Draft 14 s APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 1. General. These Administrative Procedures (Procedures) apply to any Project for which a 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 used in the NBTAM or the most current version of the ITE Manual or the SANDAG Manual if the T-ra#s :5-r-'%rxs:QmanrrvWrt; 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. is 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. leash nor% 112-11. 9 C. Circulation System Improvements may be included in the Traffic Study for a Project provided that the Traffic Manager determines: L 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 is 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 Gieaaiat-field counts eeadasted-for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during the morning and evening Ppeak Hour tfat€s- Pperiods .. .: etween February 1 and May 31 of sash yew. 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 NBTAM or other accepted sources of future Orange County traffic growth; and iv. 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 utilized in NBTAM 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 the NBTAM when NBTAM trip generation 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: L 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 a 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 Abe 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 the NBTAM. In the alternative, the Traffic Manager may, in the exercise of his/her professional judgment, authorize the use of trip generation rates in the ITE Manual, SANDAG Manual, or on the basis of actual site traffic counts. In the event the Project site as 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 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 trios that would be generated upon completion of a Project approved pursuant to the TPO are incorporated into any subsequent Traffic:Studv 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: L 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 aM11--Traffic Studyi% 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 • MI required by Subsection 3(d)Q1) 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 Planning 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 phases— e"ommitted Projects. 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. In 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. G. The Traffic Manager, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer and in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and principles, shall determine identi€ythe most probable manner in which Project. Trips will be distributed throughout the Circulation Svstem. The determination of Proiect trio distribution shall be consistent with: (i) the assumptions in NBTAM relative to the trip 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 trios 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. --a d. The Traffic Engineer shall determine if Project trips will increase traffic on any leg of any IntersestonnPrimary Intersection by one percent (1 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period 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 tlae - -0f any Primary Intersection by 0.005 uring the MOFRiRg GF evenimjany morning or evening Peak Hour PeriodPeried 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 Prgect be determined exempt from the TPO pursuant to Section 15.40.030 C.2. No mitigation shall be identified or required for, @ny that- Sritisal iatersestieaPrimary Intersection unless Project trips increase traffic on one or more of the legs of the intersection by one percent 0 %) or more during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period. Traffic Study Methodology. a. a. The Traffic Engineer, in preparing the Traffic Study, shall evaluate the impact of Project trips generated from all proposed . R€ejest -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 chest 49west —trip generation rates according to the NBTAM (or ITE Manual or SANDAG Manual as appropriate). C. Proiect trips shall be distributed in accordance with the determination specified in Subparagraph 4c.. d. The following ICU calculations shall be performed for each GFitisal IntefsestieaPrimary Intersection where, one year after Project completion, Project generated trips will increase traffic by one percent 0%) or more on any leg of the —IGU of the 6ritisal 1RteFSestieaPrimary Intersection by at lea6t 0.006 uring an morning and /or evening the FA8FRiRq 9F evening Peak Hour Period; PRARd- . L 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. eA The Traffic Study shall, for each Impacted "tisal 1RteFSectieRPrimary 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 IntAmAntoonimpacted Primary Intersection in excess of the Project trips and any other information relevant to the calculation of anv fee reauired by the TPO. f.e. The Traffic Study shall, for each Improvement identified pursuant to Subsection ed., 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. be made as specified in this Subparagraph. L 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 (Existing ICU). Then the ICU shall be calculated with existing, committed and regional trips and the Improvement (Improved ICU). The "effective capacity increase" shall be determined by subtracting the Improved ICU from the Existing ICU. ii. In determining the "effective capacity decrease" attributable . to Proiect 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 ICU/with Project). The "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved ICU from the Improved ICU/with Project. For example, if the Existing ICU is .92 and the Improved ICU is .82 the "effective capacity increase" is 10. If the Improved ICU is. .82 and the Improved ICU with Project trips is .87 the "effective capacity decrease" is 5. Assuming the cost of the Improvement is $100.000 the contribution of the Proiect would be $50.000 ($100.000 multiplied by 5/10). i €. 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 0 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 Planning 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 BA.1.b., 15.40.030 BA.1.c., or 15.40.030 BA.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: The Improvement has been budgeted and committed for construction by or on behalf of the City; or 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: L 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 Improvementtsl; iii. The amount of the cost of the Feasible Improvement for which the City or Project Proponent shall be entitled to reimbursement from subseauent or contemporaneous Projects: iv. The duration of the period dudna which Reimbursement shall be required of subsequent or contemporaneous • Projects. F:\cat\shared\Ord i na nce\TPO\Tpoad minprocO6l l 99.doc • is 11 0 0 APPENDIX B PRIMARY INTERSECTIONS Bayview & Bristol Birch & Bristol North Birch & Bristol Campus & Bristol Campus & Bristol North Campus & Von Karman Coast Highway & Avocado Coast Highway & Bayside Coast Highway & Dover /Bayshore Coast Highway & Goldenrod Coast Highway & Jamboree Coast Highway & MacArthur Coast Highway & Marguerite Coast Highway & Newport Center Coast Highway & Newport Ramp Coast Highway & Orange Coast Highway & Poppy Coast Highway & Riverside Coast Highway & Tustin Coast Highway & Superior Dover & 16d' Dover & Westcliff Irvine & Dover /190' Irvine & Highland /200i Irvine & Mesa Irvine & Santiago /22nd Irvine & University Irvine & Westcliff /17th F:\ Users\PB.WZhered \TRAFFIC\Appendiz B.doc Jamboree & Bayview Jamboree & Birch Jamboree & Bison Jamboree & Bristol North Jamboree & Bristol Jamboree & Campus Jamboree & Ford /Eastbluff Jamboree & MacArthur Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Jamboree & Santa Barbara Jamboree & University /Eastbluff MacArthur & Birch MacArthur & Bison MacArthur & Campus MacArthur & Ford /Bonita Canyon MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills MacArthur & San Miguel MacArthur & Von Karman Marguerite & San Joaquin Hills Newport & Hospital Newport & Via Lido Newport & 32nd Placentia & Superior San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills PROPOSED UNSATISFACTORY AND MARGINALLY CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS • EXEMPT • UNSATISFACTORY • LOS 'D' ?? ab NOL RTH MUMM -ml Source: City of Newport Beach TPOChange 1/11/99 Nair lsm m and Recommended Solutions for the June 25 PTPO I. Dwbm k solve traffic congestion problem Over one third of the intersections in the city are projected by the City Staff as unsatisfactory by the year 2010. Some are projected to have ICU's of up to 1.29 producing gridlock conditions. Nothing in this TPO does anything to help solve this problem. In point of fact, the use of `tin feasible" intersections will make matters worse by providing a mechanism to accept gridlock. 2. "in-feasible intersection" category should be removed The designation of infeasible intersections provides a major loophole to allow gridlock by four votes of present and future councils. Recommendation: Eliminate designation of "in-feasible intersections." Projects that cannot mitigate their impacts cannot be allowed to create gridlock conditions within the city. The projects will still retain some economic use and therefore this action will not be a `taking." 3. Timing of "Contributions" needs clear definition (15.40.050 G.) Does not insure that the impacted primary intersections are mitigated in a timely manner that will prevent unsatisfactory traffic congestion. Recommendation: Add a requirement for the project proponent to complete mitigation of impacted primary intersections that the project has caused to become unsatisfactory or made worse prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. 4. Level of Contributions can be artificially low (15.40.030.B.1.c. (ii) Preparation of a traffic mitigation study is too low cost an item to be considered as a valid contribution. Remove preparation of a Traffic Mitigation Study as a permitted application of contributions as a condition for approval as permitted uses 5. Improvements need better definition Current definition provides too much leeway for minimizing contributions thereby penalizing later users of the intersection Recommendation: Use the Improvements definition from the ETPO. "Improvements shall mean a substantial physical change to an intersection or roadway or the construction of a new road, but shall not mean resurfacing, restriping or other similar changes. " 6. The 617 Override should be retained Overriding the TPO is a serious matter. It should have the unanimous support of the City Council to enact. The 80% override has served us well for twenty years. There is no justification for relaxing this requirement. Recommendation: Retain the 80.0 vote to override requirement. It is recognized that jour votes can revoke the TPO entirely iifan EIR is also processed This is highly unlikely and so the override level is significant) 7. Annexed Areas should fully comply with the TPO Annexed area become part of Newport Beach. If not required to meet TPO LOS `D" standards, they will be second class citizens. Since carrying a Newport Beach address doubles or trebles property values over Irvine or Costa Mesa, there is sufficient inducement to developers to meet city standards or they should not be annexed. Recommendation: Delete exemptions from TPO pertaining to Annexed Areas. 8. Avoiding harm to the Public Health Safety d Public Welfare Up until the June 14 Council Meeting, no consideration was given to the role of the TPO in avoiding harm to the Public Health, Safety and Public Welfare. The undersigned protested this omission in favor of unfettered development in writing to the City council. Adding a finding, without revising the fundamental provisions of the ordinance is not adequate. The new TPO must insure that the high environmental impacts from over one third of the city being unsatisfactorily congested are mitigated in order to claim that this finding supports its actions. Recommendation: Redo proposed law to incorporate all of the above recommendations.