HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) AmendmentsJuly 12, 1999
Agenda Item No.
0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
July 12, 1999
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Amendments
Ordinance 99 -17
On June 28'", 1999, the City Council approved the introduction of an ordinance amending
the TPO (Ordinance 99 -17). The motion to introduce Ordinance 99 -17 included direction
to modify the draft to establish a "link" between the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program
and improvements assumed to be constructed within 48 months of project approval as
required by Section 15.40.030 VA. (see TPO, page 5, and Appendix A, page 10). The
motion also included direction to modify the terminology used in calculating the fee for
projects approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.1.d. (see Appendix A, page 8). These
modifications and typographical corrections are shown in strikeout and underlined text in
the ordinance that accompanies this memo.
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance 99 -17.
.-
ROBERT H. BURNHAM
City Attorney
Ordinance/Tpo /Ccmemo070699
0
070699
Chapter 15.40
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE
SECTIONS:
15.40.010 Findings.
15.40.020 Objectives.
15.40.030 Standards for Approval /FindinasGon*p awee/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.
15.40.10 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;
EQ. 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.
070699 1
070699
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
0 is roughly proportional to Project impacts.
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.
070699 2
070699
070699
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:
(i) 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
(ii) 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
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 and /or
contributions described in Subparagraphs a
and b below:
3
0
070699
070699
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. Feasible 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
Subsection 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 15.40.030 B.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
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
4
070699
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
(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 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 15.40.030 B.1.a. or
15.40.030 BA.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
070699 5
070699
period immediately after approval, to construct
Circulation Improvement(s) such that:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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
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 and /or
contributions described in Subparagraphs a. or
is 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; arm
b. Improvements, if anv. 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 Subsection 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; and
070699 6
070699
C.
070699
3. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or
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.
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. .
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:
(i) That establishes the average daily trips
generated by the Project C' baseline");
(ii) That requires the property owner to comply
with this Chapter prior to the issuance of any
7
070699
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
(iii) 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.
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 (13)(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 Planning Director and Traffic Manager shall, at least annually,
• monitor the progress of each Project to ensure compliance with this
Chapter.
070699 8
070699
15.40.040 Definitions. 0
The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meaning indicated
below:
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 required 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 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 (1 %) 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,
lawfully holding office except those Members disqualified from
voting due to a conflict of interest.
070699 9
070699
I. "NBTAM" means the most current City Council approved Traffic
Analysis Model for the City of Newport Beach.
J. "Peak Stour Period " shall mean 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 4:00 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each
Primary Intersection) as determined by the field counts required by
Appendix A.
K. "Primary Intersection" shall mean each intersection identified in
Appendix B and, with respect to individual Projects, any additional
intersection selected by the Traffic Manager pursuant to Section
15.40.050 B.1.
L. "Project" shall mean "project" as defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 at
seg.), 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.
M. "Traffic Engineer" shall mean the traffic engineer retained by the
City to prepare the Traffic Study.
N. "Traffic Manager" shall mean the person employed by the City
who occupies the position of Traffic and Development Services
Manager or similar position.
O. "Traffic Mitigation Study" shall mean 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 on traffic volumes in any residential neighborhood in
the vicinity of that Primary Intersection.
P. "Traffic Study" shall mean the study prepared by the Traffic
Engineer in strict compliance with this Chapter including Appendix
A.
Q. "Unsatisfactory Level of Service" shall mean 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.
070699 10
070699
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, 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.
070699 11
070699
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.
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 in Chapter 20.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code or any successor provision.
B. The City Council shall have a right 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.
070699 12
070699
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:
070699 13
0
070699
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.
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.
070699 14
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; and
A. 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.
F1useralcarisharech OrdinancelTPOITpoadrrinprocO70699 .doc 1
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:
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 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;
F: fusers% caMharedlordinance %TPO\TpoadminprocO70699.doc 2
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 i
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 speck 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
trips and the specific reduction in Project trips that can
reasonably be expected; and
F:W sers\ caflsharedlOrdinance \TPO1Tpoadmfnproc070699.doo 3
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 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 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 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
F:%users%caflsharecK Ordinance \TPO\Tpoadminproc070699.doc 4
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 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 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.
F:\users\ceRshared\ Ordinance\TPO\TpoadminprocO70699.doc 5
. 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 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 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.
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
F: lusersXwtXsharechOrdinance\TPO %Tpoadminprx070699.doc 6
based on the assumptions specified in Section 3 and the
methodology specified in this Section. 0
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 the NBTAM (or
ITE Manual or SANDAG Manual 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
F:W sera\ catl shared\Ordinance1TPOkTpoadminprocO7O699 .doc 7
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.
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 (€xistingISbl)(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 €misting ICU.
S
H. 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 "W/with Project
ICU). The "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated by
subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Improved
W61/Wth w44- Project ICU.
iii. For example, if the Future W/O Project Gxisting-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 Wdhwith Project ICU t6p"s .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
F,\userslcat\shared\ Ordinance \TPO \TpoadminprocO70699.doc 8
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
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 6.1.b., 15.40.030 13.1.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);
F:l userslpflsharec hOrdinancelTPOITpoadr inprocO70699.doc 9
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 Proiect 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 Proiect was Approved.
F.1cat\ shared\ Ordinance \TPOITpoadminprocD70699.doc
F.%userslcaflshared\ Ordinance\TPOITpoadminproc070699.doc 10
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 & 16th
Dover & Westcl'Iff
Irvine & Dover /le
Irvine & Highland /20th
Irvine & Mesa
Irvine & Santiago/22nd
Irvine & University
Irvine & Westcl'Iff /17th
F: Xusem% cat\shared \OrdinancelTPOWppendlxB.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
0
0
0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIN
JUL -12 -99 MON 01_33 PM PHILIP gPjr 7147$18227 P,01
Philip L. Arse
2601 Lighthouse Lane
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
(949) 721 -1272 Fax (949)721 -82,27
pnrarst@home. cone
Mayor Dennis O'Neill & Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1758
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the City Council:
"RECEIVED AFTER AGEND
PRINTED:" — 2
July 12, 1999
In making decisions upon important civic matters, having accurate, unbiased information
is cnrcial.
There was a major question raised by a consultant during the latest hearing on the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance as to the accuracy of my map showing traffic conditions in the city.
Enclosed is a chart from the Staff Report of January 11, 1999 showing the staff s
projections of traffic conditions in the city in the year 2010. This chart has been
authenticated via discussions with Mr. Edmondson, a review and questions by the
Planning Commission and subsequent review of a 1996 traffic study that generally
corroborates the older data actually used in the staff report.
Accordingly, I carefully plotted this authenticated information in the city map that I
submitted to you and properly cited the source of my data. If the consultant was correct in
stating that the chart was completely wrong, then he should submit written data to back
up his claims. On your part, if he is correct, you may need to re- examine your decision on
the TPO, as it should be based upon the best data available.
As my city map is plotted directly from official data in the staff report of Jan. 11, I don't
believe that it can be verbally dismissed as being highly inaccurate.
Accordingly, my statement that over one third of the intersections would be at LOS "E"
or greater in 2010 (including previously classified exempt intersections that will now
become "infeasible to improve ") was, and is correct and the passage of the TPO in its
present form creates a serious traffic problem for the city.
In the hope that this accurate information will be of value in your deliberations,
Qw
¢(!)
21. irvinc & Santiago/22nd
.55
Wz
NO
U
.05
.61
Q}
2. Irvine & Highland/'_ch
.:0
.43
�
QO
Z�
.45
.35
Lu0
cWi�Ww
.58
58
w
X
O
Q
V)
W
0
U
U
C�-
Q
Z 0
O
cr OOW,.�.
H
aQZ 1
#
e
rn
rn
� � 1
Q)
Um c
�M
C) r
v . U
c)z0.
4s
21. irvinc & Santiago/22nd
.55
.43
.06
.05
.61
2. Irvine & Highland/'_ch
.:0
.43
.05
.04
.45
.35
33. Irvine & Dover /19th
.58
58
Z
04
.62
24. Irvine & Westcl'.ff /17th
50
.62
.02
05
.52
M
25. Dover & Westtliff
.38
.38
.02
03
.40
26. Dover & 16th
55
.4J
.02
03
57
27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH
78
.59
07
.12
.85
28. Bayside & PCH
31
.70
.07
.15
.88
i 29. PylacArthur & Jamboree
.67
.66
.43
.43
1.10
:0. Jamboree & Bristol V.
37
.65
.08
.14
.45
i�
31. Bayview & Bristol S.
.41
.63
.13
.12
.54
32. Jwr.boree & Bristol S.
.58
.73
15
.13
73
31 Jamboree & Bayview
.58
.68
.17
.10
.75
34. Jamboree & University
.83
.85
.15
-0-
.93
3S. Jamboree & Bison
.72
.39
.04
.03
.76
rn
rn
� � 1
Q)
Um c
�M
C) r
v . U
c)z0.
4s
47
.62
.67
41
47
71
.35
1.09
.79
.75
.86
.78
.85
W
M
C Ir
I
3 E��rw�r
JUL -12 -99 MON 01:34 PM PHILIP ARST 7147218227 P.0;
$'
Table IV (Cont.)
Newport
Beach
Other
Total
I
Intersmion
AM
F.N1
6M
EiS
i
36. MacArthur & Bison
68
.77
.12
.07
.80
84
37. Jamboree & Ford
87
.88
.04
02
.91
.90
X
38. MacArthur & Ford
71
.78
14
.06
.85
.84
39. J.unbOree & San Joaquia H.
.67
.72
.04
.04
.71
.76
-10. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
58
.68
.03
03
.61
.71
41. Jamboree & PCH
.78
.74
.10
.11
.88
.85
!li
42. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin H.
21
.31
•0-
•0-
.21
31
I
43. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin H.
37
.76
.01
0-
.37
.76
44. MacArthur & San Joaquin H.
.60
.77
.09
.04
.69
.81
Q
45. MacArthur & San Miguel
.36
.36
.04
.06
.60
.92
j
46. Newport Ceatcr & PCH
.84
.38
.08
16
.92
.54
>S
47. Avocado & PCH
.38
.77
.09
.16
.47
.93
x
48, MacArthur & PCH
.38
76
.10
.17
.48
.93
X
49. San Miguel & San Joaquin H.
.41
.31
.03
.08
.44
.89�
50. Golden: od & PCH
.69
.62
20
.23
.89
.85
i
51. Marguerite & San Joaquin H.
41
.63
.04
.05
.45
.68
52. Marguerite & PCH
.60
.49
21
.14
.81
.63
11
53. Poppy & PCH
51
.57
.22
.25
.73
.82
54. 15th &PCH
34
.46
.19
.11
.53
.57
55. B:uff & PCH
.57
.63
.08
.14
.65
.82
56. SB Newport Ramp & PCH
.62
.70
.08
.11
.70
.81
i3O
$'
y
July 7, 1999
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
"RECEIVED AFTER AGEND
PRINTED:"
ers
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Reform Project.
Dear Mayor O'Neil, Council Members and Staff:
The June 280' City Council meeting marked an important milestone for the
city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance reform project (TPO). More than three years ago,
the City Council launched a study of needed reforms to the TPO. The city's
Economic Development Committee, with Newport Harbor Area Chamber of
Commerce input, led the charge. First adopted in 1978, the TPO was outdated and
in need of repair in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The Building
Industry Association had rightly put the city government on notice: The exaction
formulas in the ordinance were unfair to property owners — disproportional, if you
will - and could not withstand serious legal challenge.
For more than a year, we business stakeholders (including my colleagues
Tony Petros and Mike Erickson) participated in the council- sponsored facilitation
process, along with representatives of SPON (Stop Polluting our Newport).
Council members Adams, Noyes, and Mayor O'Neil were on the facilitation
committee, along with Planning Commissioners Ed Selich and Mike Kranzley.
Repairing the ordinance was like unraveling a snagged fishing reel. We did
not particularly celebrate the Planning Commission's version of the reform
ordinance, but that edition was the best alternative then on the table. Nevertheless,
following the first City Council public hearing your city attorney once again made
further refinements in the text and continued his tireless consultation with
representatives from SPON and the business stakeholders.
CABudding Industry Associationk7MCouncit liner 06.14- 99.doc
Mayor and City Council
July 7,1999
Page 2 of 3
Frankly, as we indicated to the City Council, the reform package is rather
modest in scope. The final ordinance given first reading falls short of meeting the
goals originally established by your own Economic Development Committee,
and by the Chamber and BIA representatives. By way of example:
• There is no exempt intersection list;
• There is no separate level of service standard for the airport area business
district;
• There is no pooling of intersections for intersection averaging when
calculating mitigation;
• There is no relief from the 300 Average Daily Trips threshold when
determining ordinance applicability.
So what's all the fuss about? We are baffled at the opposition to the
modest reforms that have at last been adopted, particularly since these reforms
relate only to legal requirements and operational clarification. The best measure of
the City Council's final determination here is that no one seems completely
satisfied with the outcome. Perhaps that's the way it should be.
Under any circumstances, we salute the Planning Commission and the city
staff - particularly the planning director, the traffic engineer and the city
attorney - for a job well done in de- boning the ordinance and making the
necessary fixes. The city council has patiently addressed as many of the individual
ordinance provisions as was humanly possible during four protracted public
hearings and countless follow -up meetings by your staff with the stakeholders
during 1999 alone.
Powerful City Controls Remain Intact. For those environmental activists
and residents who are fearful of making even these modest repairs to the legal and
operational aspects, remember the powerful planning tools that continue to be
available to the city government to deal with land use entitlements:
• The General Plan and Zoning Code;
• Specific plans and planned community regulations;
CABuilding Industry Associalion \7PO \Council Lcuer 06- 14 -99.dm July 8, 1999
Mayor and City Council <.
July 7, 1999
Page 3 of 3
• Floor area ratios (FARs) standards
• Height restrictions and parking requirements;
• Environmental review;
• The carrot and stick of development agreement bargaining
• Fair share fees.
• Benefit assessment district formation incentives
• And even coastal commission controls under certain circumstances and
for certain properties.
We believe the time has now come to move on and to at last close this chapter,
and give the reconditioned ordinance a chance to work — a road test, if you will.
Very truly yours,
074*t4=tWUft"-
Philip Bettencourt
Business Stakeholders Representative
Cc: Allen Beek
Robert Burnham
Christine Diemer
Rich Edmundston
Mike Erickson
Richard Luehrs
Tony Petros
Ed Selich
Patricia Temple
CABudding Indusuy Associs icd% PO1Council Latter 06- 1499.doc July S. 1999
yr