Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - General Plan Update Land Use AlternativesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 May 24, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Trip Generation and Fiscal Impact Analysis of General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: Review and comment on reports. DISCUSSION: The preliminary analysis of the land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council has been completed. Staff and the consultant team have presented the results of the environmental, fiscal impact and traffic analyses to the General Plan Update and Advisory Committees and the Planning Commission. The two Committees have started to discuss the implications of these analyses for land use planning, and this discussion will continue at a public workshop on Saturday, June 25 and at future meetings of the Advisory Committee. We will be presenting limited results of the traffic analysis and the full fiscal impact analysis to the City Council at this meeting, and results of the environmental analysis and the complete traffic analysis on June 14. Attached to this report are a report from Urban Crossroads on Model Trip Generation for Subarea Land Use Alternatives and a report from Applied Development Economics (ADE) on Fiscal Impact Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives. The only portion of the traffic report that will be discussed at this meeting is how the trip generation numbers were used to determine the Citywide sets of alternatives that were analyzed. This is background that the Council needs to have for discussion of the fiscal impact model results, which will be the focus of this meeting and will be presented by Doug Svensson of ADE. We are planning to have a Trip Generation and Fiscal Impact Analysis of General Plan Land Use Alternatives May 24, 2005 Page 2 complete presentation and discussion of the trip generation rates and the results of the traffic model runs at the meeting of June 14, when Carleton Waters of Urban Crossroads will be present. Submitted by: itx�34-OL Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Model Trip Generation for Subarea Land Use Alternatives 2. Fiscal Impact Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives 41 Corporate Park Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 949.660.1994 rraln 94 MW. .1911fax,,,www,urWturroadKOro:g April 20, 2005 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Subject: Model Trip Generation for Subarea Land Use Alternatives Mr. Tescher: This letter has been prepared to document trip generation rates for the subarea alternatives suggested for analysis of the overall minimum and maximum intensity (in terms of trip generation) land use alternatives. Full analysis with the traffic model will be run on four alternatives. Thirteen subarea land use tables were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. Each table contains land use data quantities and comparisons for each option being considered for the subarea, as well as for the currently adopted General Plan. Several of the subareas are further segmented into individual Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) or even blocks. In some cases, the TAZ is larger than the study area. A total of 67 discrete alternatives have been evaluated. Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has performed calculations on each subarea (or TAZ or block) to determine the approximate trip generation from the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). A separate sketch planning tool has been developed specifically for this task. Daily and peak hour trips have been computed. The resulting trip generation is used to determine the minimum and maximum intensity alternative from a traffic standpoint. We recommend that the identification of minimum and maximum be based on the PM peak hour, as the PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified under the currently adopted General Plan. 3 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 2 1.0 TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ADJUSTMENTS In this letter, we provide information on trip generation issues (including adjustments to some standard /typical rates). Coastal trip generation for residential land use is compared with general residential trip generation by type. Mixed Use refinements are discussed. High -rise apartments trip generation rates are evaluated in comparison to typical apartments. Overall model trip generation rates are included as Table 1. These are typical calculations which change slightly based on changes in input variables such as median income. A. Coastal Trip Generation As the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) was developed, Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff determined (during model validation) that the traffic pattems /trip generation rates in the coastal areas were different from elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. The existing traffic model volumes were higher in the coastal areas than the count data. Occupancy factors and trip rates were developed for residential uses in the coastal areas during the validation process. The shoulder season (spring /fall) occupancy rate for typical City of Newport Beach residential uses is 95 %. For Coastal areas, the occupancy rate is 90 %. Trip generation rates from the model have been provided as part of Table 2. The trip rates in Table 2 include the occupancy factor. For total AM, total PM, and Daily trip rates, the range is between 79% and 88% of typical residential trip rates. The PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified, and in the PM peak hour, the coastal trip rates are between 85% and 87% of typical. B. Mixed Use Developments Mixed Use trip generation information has been included as Appendix "TG ". Information has been gathered from sampling done by ITE and documented in Trip Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 3 Generation, 5u' Edition (ITE, 1991). More recent versions of ITE's Trip Generation do not include information on mixed use sites. There are two examples of mixed use developments containing residential uses in the 5th Edition. Internal capture (the proportion of traffic that would typically be generated, then distributed to the surrounding system that is instead served on -site as a result of the land use mix) has been identified. The first example contains 606 dwelling units and 64,000 square feet of commercial /office. The internal capture rates are 27% for the PM peak hour and 17% for the daily. The second example is for a larger site, with 2,300 dwelling units and over 160 thousand square feet of total commercial, office, restaurant, and medical center uses. This site also includes schools, a church, and a day -care center. The internal capture for this site is substantially higher (45% or more for all time periods). An additional data resource was the Santa Monica Civic Center study. The Santa Monica Civic Center study included a 50% reduction for the retail component, but no reduction was done on other uses. The net result in the analysis was an overall reduction of approximately 10% A final data resource consulted was the San Diego Association of Governments trip generation handbook. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation handbook suggests up to a 10% reduction. Based on the examples cited, an adjustment factor of 10% of traffic for mixed uses will provide a conservative representation of trip generation. The factor is applied in cases where the land use has been defined as mixed use development. Where both the mixed use and coastal factors are applicable, only one is applied to avoid 5 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 4 overstating trip generation benefits. Later sections of this letter will discuss individual sub -area land use representation. To assist with land use planning refinements in mixed use areas, conversion factors have been developed from the rates presented in Table 1. Table 3 contains the results of this analysis for the PM peak period. As shown in Table 3, for the PM peak hour, a reduction of one single - family detached residence allows 220 square feet of commercial without an increase in trip generation. A transfer the other direction (from commercial to single - family detached residential) could be performed to increase dwelling units by 4.49 for every thousand square feet of commercial lost. Similar conversion factors are included for single - family attached and apartment residential uses. The factors presented in Table 3 are related to the PM peak period (consistent with other trip generation calculations for Newport Beach modeling purposes). Conversion factors could potentially be related to daily traffic or AM peak hour, or a subset of AM or PM peak hour total. These factors are included in Table 4. The worst case conversion for each type of residential use is included in Table 5. To provide the most conservative conversion, AM peak hour inbound rates should govern for converting residential uses to commercial (approximately 70 to 120 square feet per dwelling unit). To convert from commercial to residential using the worst case conversion factor, the AM outbound should be used (and 1.25 to 1.67 units would result from a reduction of 1 thousand square feet of commercial). C. High -Rise Apartments High -rise apartments are a special apartment use. As defined by ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7'' edition (2003), high -rise apartments have more than 10 floors and typically include one or two elevators. Trip Generation rates for high -rise I Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 5 apartments are compared to general apartment trip generation rates in Table 6. As shown in Table 3, the ratio of trip generation for high -rise apartments to apartments ranges from 0.56 to 0.63 trips, depending on the time period. Because the ITE rates show a trip reduction of 37 to 43% the factor of 20% used for high -rise apartments in this General Plan analysis is conservative. 2.0 SUBAREA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES A. Airport Area For the Airport Area, three alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. All residential use in the Airport Area is either high -rise apartments, or mixed use residential. Option 2 contains 295 mixed use residences and 2,104 high -rise apartments. Option 3 includes 589 mixed use residences and 6,633 high -rise apartments. There is no residential component for the currently adopted General Plan or for- Option 1. Table 7 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 10,168 peak hour trips to 13,556 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the lowest number of trips, while option 3 generates the most PM peak hour trips. Daily trip generation follows the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan has the minimum and option 3 has the maximum). The AM peak hour minimum and maximum follow the same pattern as PM peak hour and daily, but options 1 and 2 are switched. B. Balboa Village For Balboa Village, five land use options, in addition to the General Plan scenario, have been evaluated. Options 4 and 5 each have a mixed use component. There are 440 mixed use residences and 281,986 square feet of mixed use commercial in q Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 6 Option 4 and 308 mixed use residences with 205,150 square feet of mixed use commercial in Option 5. Table 5 summarizes the results of this analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 1,677 peak hour trips to 1,932 peak hour trips. Option 4 generates the highest number of trips, while option 3 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 4 generates the most trips and option 3 generates the fewest trips). C. Banning Ranch For Banning Ranch, four alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. Banning Ranch has not been analyzed as part of the coastal area. Table 9 summarizes the results-of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 12 peak hour trips to 2,057 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the highest number of trips, while option 1 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan has the maximum and option 1 has the minimum). D. Cannery Village Cannery Village is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and can be considered separately in the overall minimum and maximum intensity alternatives. TAZ 1449 is located west of Newport Boulevard south of 32nd Street while TAZ 1454 is east of Newport Boulevard south of 32nd Street. Because of the location, the mixed use residential in Option 1 of TAZ 1449 may be represented as coastal residential. The same is true of mixed use residential in TAZ 1454. In both cases, coastal Do Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 7 representation has been used. TAZ 1449 also includes 96,050 square feet of mixed use commercial. TAZ 1454 contains 206,910 square feet of mixed use commercial. Table 10 summarizes the results of the analysis. Scenarios for TAZ 1449 include only the currently adopted General Plan and Option 1. For TAZ 1454, the currently adopted General Plan is considered, in addition to options 1 and 2. For TAZ 1449, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 334 peak hour trips to 444 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates fewer trips than Option 1. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and Alternative is the maximum). For TAZ 1454, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 280 peak hour trips for option 2 to 1061 peak hour trips for option 1. The currently adopted General Plan falls into the middle, with 950 PM peak hour trips generated. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 2 is the minimum and option 1 is the maximum). E. Corona Del Mar For Corona Del Mar, two alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. For Option 1, the 181 mixed use dwelling units have been represented as 45 mixed use units and 136 coastal units (depending on location). The same is true for Option 2. Options 1 and 2 each also include 90,256 square feet of mixed use commercial. Additional (non- mixed use) coastal apartments are included in Option 2. Table 11 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 4,058 peak hour trips to 4,500 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the highest number C) Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 8 of trips, while option 2 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Option 2 also generates the fewest AM peak hour and daily trips, and the currently adopted General Plan generates the most AM peak hour and daily trips. F. Lido Isle Table 12 summarizes the results of the Lido Isle_ analysis. Two land use options, have been evaluated (adopted General Plan and option 1). No trip generation adjustments have been made. Option 1 is equivalent to the existing condition. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 718 peak hour trips to 916 peak hour trips. The adopted General Plan generates the most trips, and the option 1 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 1 generates the fewest trips and the currently adopted General Plan generates the most trips). G. Lido Village Lido Village is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and can be considered separately in the overall minimum and maximum intensity alternatives. TAZ 1452 is located northeast of Via Lido. TAZ 1453 is located between Via Lido, 32nd Street, and Newport Boulevard. Table 13 summarizes the results of the analysis. Scenarios for TAZ 1452 include the currently adopted General Plan and options 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 contains 250 mixed use dwelling units represented as coastal and Option 3 contains 312 mixed use dwelling units represented as coastal. Options 1 and 3 for TAZ 1452 each contain 187,199 square feet of mixed use commercial. For TAZ 1453, the currently adopted General Plan is considered, in addition to options 1 and 2. Option 2 contains 61 mixed use dwelling units represented as coastal, and 30,274 square feet of mixed use commercial. to Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 9 For TAZ 1452, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 579 peak hour trips to 874 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest trips, and option 1 generates the most trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and option 1 is the maximum). For TAZ 1453, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 558 peak hour trips for the currently adopted General Plan to 711 peak hour trips for option 2. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 2 is the maximum and currently adopted General Plan is the minimum). H. Mariner's Mile For Mariner's Mile, two alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. For traffic modeling purposes, options 1 and 2 are identical, as the model does not differentiate between different types of commercial uses ( "marine- related" vs. "typical' commercial uses in this case). Mariner's Mile has not been represented as having coastal residential characteristics, so the mixed use apartments in Opions 1 and 2 are represented as mixed use. The mixed use commercial has been factored as well. Table 14 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 4,599 peak hour trips to 5,304 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest trips, while option 1 or 2 generates the most PM peak hour trips. The AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as the PM peak hour (adopted General Plan trip generation is less than option 1 or 2). I. McFadden Square McFadden Square is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and can be considered it Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 10 separately in the overall minimum and maximum intensity alternatives. TAZs 1450 and 1451 have been analyzed separately, with each having a currently adopted General Plan scenario and an alternative scenario. TAZ 1450 located east of Newport Boulevard in the vicinity of the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. TAZ 1451 is located west of TAZ 1450. Table 15 summarizes the results of this analysis. TAZ 1450 contains mixed use residential (represented as coastal) and mixed use office. For TAZ 1450, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 366 peak hour trips for the currently adopted General Plan to 601 peak hour trips for the alternative. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and the alternative is the maximum). Only the coastal residential adjustment applies to TAZ 1451. For TAZ 1451, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 391 peak hour trips for currently adopted General Plan to 550 peak hour trips for the alternative. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and the alternative is the maximum). J. Newport Center ! Fashion Island For Newport Center / Fashion Island, three alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. All new apartments in Newport Center are High Rise apartments. Table 16 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 10,178 peak hour trips to 12,289 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the lowest number of trips, while option 1 generates the most PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour trip generation follows the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently r� Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 11 adopted General Plan has the minimum and option 1 has the maximum). Daily minimum and maximum trip generation is in the same pattern as PM peak hour, but the two in the middle (Option 3 and Option 2) are switched. K. Old Newport Boulevard Three land use options, in addition to the General Plan scenario, have been evaluated for Old Newport Boulevard. Although there is a true mixed use development in Old Newport Boulevard for Options 1, 2, and 3, the size of the development precludes it from qualifying for mixed use factoring. Table 17 summarizes the results of this analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 830 peak hour trips to 1,471 peak hour trips. Option 1 generates the most trips, while the currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 1 generates the most trips and the currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest trips). L. West Newport Highway And Adjoining Residential West Newport Highway and Adjoining Residential is composed of three blocks (A, B, and C), and one non -study area, each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are independent of one another, and no land use allocation by block for the currently adopted General Plan is available. The currently adopted General Plan scenario contains all of the areas. Block B contains only one option, as does the non -study area. Blocks A and C each have four options. Alternatives have been defined for the 16 combinations of Block A and C options (with Block B and non- study area included in each for total TAZ alternatives). The only mixed use development is in Option 1 for Block C (348 mixed use dwelling units and 86,902 square feet of commercial). Table 18 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM 11 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 12 peak hour trip generation for the TAZ ranges from 665 peak hour trips to 981 peak hour trips. The highest traffic generator for the PM peak hour is alternative 5. Alternative 5 contains option 2 (special needs housing) for Block A and option 1 (mixed use) for Block C (in addition to Block B and non -study area). Alternative 5 also generates the most AM peak hour trips and the most daily traffic. The lowest traffic generator is Alternative 16. Alternative 16 contains option 4 for both Block A (parking lot) and Block C (limited retail, housing, and hotel) (in addition to Block B and non -study area). Alternative 16 also generates the lowest AM peak hour and daily traffic, of all the alternatives. M. West Newport Industrial For West Newport Industrial, three options (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. No adjustments have been made for this subarea. Table 19 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 5,146 for Option 3 to 6,238 for Option 2. AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as the PM peak hour traffic. 3.0 SUMMARY Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter report for your use. Based on the sketch planning analysis provided in the report we have provided recommendations to represent the overall least and most intense General Plan Buildout land use alternative for modeling purposes, as well as least intense alternative for options not including the General Plan. On Table 20, we have presented the alternatives for each subarea that will generate the fewest PM peak hour trips, the alternative for each subarea that will generate the most PM peak hour trips and the options for each subarea (excluding the currently adopted General Plan) that will generate the fewest trips. Traffic modeling of these three alternatives will commence upon receipt of your i` Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES April 20, 2005 Page 13 approval. Table 21 provides an overview of trip generation minimum, maximum, and currently adopted General Plan for all subareas selected for evaluation. Table 21 does not include the entire City of Newport Beach. Please provide any comments as soon as possible. Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter report for your use. Please do not hesitate to give us a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal CW:MW:js JN:01232 -17 Attachments M rlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Engineer xc: Ms. Sharon Wood, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Rich Edmonston, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ms. Patricia Temple, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6 TABLE 1 MODEL TRIP GENERATION RATES NBTM LAND USE CODE I NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT$ TRIP RATE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Res -Low (SFD Coastal 1 DU 0.19 0.50 0.69 0.41 0.27 0.69 7.50 1 Res -Low (SFD) 1 DU 0.21 0.64 0.84 0.49 0.30 0.79 8.63 2 Res - Medium (SFA )-Coastal 1 DU 0.12 0.41 0.53 0.32 0.19 0.52 5.64 2 Res - Medium (SFA) 1 DU 0.13 0.55 0.68 0.40 0.21 0.61 6.66 3 Apartment-Coastal 1 DU 0.11 0.38 0.49 0.31 0.19 0.49 5.37 3 Apartment 1 DU 0.12 0.46 0.60 0.36 0.20 0.56 6.12 4 Elderly Residential 1 DU 0.11 0.29 0.40 0.27 0.18 0.45 4.90 5 Mobile Home - Coastal 1 DU 0.10 0.34 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.46 5.06 5 Mobile Home 1 DU 0.11 1 0.45 0.56 0.34 0.20 0.54 5.92 6 Motel 1 ROOM 0.40 0.13 0.53 0.23 0.34 0.57 6.08 7 Hotel 1 ROOM 0.51 0.17 0.68 0.28 OA3 0.71 7.58 9 Regional Commercial 1 TSF 1.14 0.49 1.64 0.93 1.25 2.18 23.46 10 General Commercial 1 TSF 1.78 0.80 2.59 1.53 2.02 3.55 38.24 11 Comm. /Recreation 1 ACRE 2.12 0.80 2.92 1.42 2.04 3.46 37.07 13 Restaurant 1 TSF 2.39 1.07 3.46 2.05 2.70 4.75 51.18 15 Fast Food Restaurant 1 TSF 2.94 1.32 4.25 2.51 3.32 5.63 62.78 16 Auto Dealer /Sales 1 TSF 1.74 0.74 2.48 1.36 1.66 3.24 34.84 17 Yacht Club 1 TSF 1.30 0.49 1.79 0.87 1.25 2.12 22.71 18 Health Club 1 TSF 1.30 0.49 1.79 0.87 1.25 2.12 22.71 19 Tennis Club 1 CRT 1.35 0.54 1.89 0.98 1.37 2.35 25.26 20 Marina 1 SLIP 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.22 2.39 21 Theater 1 SEAT 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.34 22 Newport Dunes 1 ACRE 0.96 0.42 1.39 0.80 1.06 1.86 20.02 23 General Office 1 TSF 0.84 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 11.08 24 Medical Office 1 TSF 1.14 0.39 1.53 0.64 0.98 1.63 17.36 25 R&D 1 TSF 0.57 0.17 0.74 0.25 0.42 0.67 7.10 26 Industrial 1 TSF 0.48 0.13 0.62 0.18 0.33 0.52 5.48 27 Min kStora e/Warehouse 1 TSF 0.40 1 0.11 0.51 0.16 0.28 0.43 4.61 28 Pre-School/D@y Care 1 1 TSF STU 2:08 0.18 0.65 0.02 2.73 0:20 1.04 0.04 1.68 0.07 1 2.72 0.11 29.05 1.30 29 Elementary/Private School 30 Junior/High School 1 STU 0.18 0.02 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.11 1.30 31 Cultural /Leaming Center 1 TSF 1.13 0.35 1.48 0.54 0.89 1.43 15.22 32 Library 1 TSF 1.13 0.35 1.48 0.54 0.89 1.43 15.22 33 Post Office 1 TSF 1.54 0.49 2.03 0.78 1.25 2.03 21.63 34 Hospital 1 BEDS 1.10 0.32 1.42 0.47 0.80 1.27 13.57 35 Nursin /Conv. Home 1 BEDS 0.12 0.08 020 0.08 0.10 0.18 2.00 35 Church 1 TSF 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.36 0.57 6.09 37 Youth Ctr /Service 1 TSF 2.08 0.65 2.73 1.04 1.68 2.72 29.05 36 Park 1 ACRE 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.23 2.49 39 Re ional Park 1 ACRE 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.23 2.49 40 If Course 1 ACRE 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.17 0.25 0.42 4.55 '547 Golf Course 1 ACRE 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.17 0.25 0.42 4.55 U t1UGtobsl Dt ?DD\D1 ?391TC:raIcllTG lalruhlnr5 E< TABLE 2 MODEL RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION RATE REVIEW NBTM LAND USE CODE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION UNITS TRIP RATE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN I OUT I TOTAL DAILY �' 1 Res -Low SFD - Coastal DU 0.19 0.50 0.69 0.41 0.27 0.69 7.50 1 Res -Low (SFD ) DU 0_21 _0.64 0.84 0.49 _ 0.301 _ 8.63 Res -Low (SFD) Ratio 0.92 0.78 0.81 0.84 1 0.91 0.87 0.87 2 Res - Medium (SFA)- Coastal DU 0.12 0.41 . 0.53 0.32 0.19 0.52 5.64 2 Res - Medium (SFA) DU 0.13 0.55 0.68 0.40 0.21 0.61 6.66 Res - Medium (SFA) Ratio 0.90 0.75 0.78 0.62 0.90 0.85 0.65 3 Apartment - Coastal DU 0.11 0.36 0.49 0.31 0.19 0.49 537 3 A rtment DU 0.12 0.48 0.60 0.36 0.20 0.56 6.12 Apartment Ratio 0.92 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.88 4 Elderly Residential DU 0.11 029 0.40 027 0.18 0.45 4,90 5 Mobile Home - Coastal DU 0.10. 0.34 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.46 5.06 5 Mobile Home DU 0.11 0.45 0.56 0.34 0.20 0.54 5.92 Mobile Home Ratio 0.90 0.76 0.79 0.83 0.89 0.85 0,85 U:1 UcJobsl_ 0120DI012321 TGcalcl LandUseAIIsTGComparel [rateReducelnvestigation.xls]Res Rates S� TABLE 3 CONVERSION FACTORS BASED ON PM TOTAL ONLY STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE 1UNITS1 CONVERSION FACTOR Res -Low SFD DU Ganeral Commercial TSF 0.22 Res- Medium SFA DU General Commercial TSF 0.17 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF 0.16 General Commercial TSF Res -Low (SFD ) DU 4.49 General Commercial TSF Res - Medium (SFA) DU 5.82 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 6.32 ' TSF =thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U -.\UcJobs\_ 01200\ 01232\ TGcaic\ LandUseAtsTGCompare\[ rateReducelnvestigation .xi$30onv (1) TABLE 4 OVERALL MIXED USE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE I UNITS` ENDING LAND USE I UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUTI TOTAL IN I OUT I TOTAL Res -Low (SFD) DU General Commercial TSF 0.12 0.80 0.33 0.32 0.15 0.22 0.23 Res - Medium (SFA ) DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.68 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.17 0.17 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.601 0.23 0.24 0.10 0.16 0.16 General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU 8.68 1.25 3.06 3.12 6.71 4.49 4.43 General Commercial TSF Res - Medium (SFA) DU 13.94 1.46 3.83 387T942 5.62 5.74 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 14.66 1.67 4.29 4.25 10.05 6.32 6.24 2 TSF = thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units U:1UcJobsl_ 012001 01232 1TGcalc\LandUseAltsTGComparel rateReducelnvestigation .xls]Conv'(2) 0 TABLE 5 ABSOLUTE WORST CASE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE UNITSZ ENDING LAND USE UNITS TIM P DIRECTION NVFRSION FACTOR Res -Low (SFD) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 1 0.12 Res- Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 artment DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 General Commercial TSF Res -Low (SFD) DU AM OUT 1.25 General Commercial TSF Res- Medium (SFA) DU AM OUT 1.46 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU AM OUT 1.67 Z TSF =thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U:1UcJobsl_ 012001 012321 TGcalcl LandUseAILSTGComparel[ rateReducelnvestigation .xls)Conv (3) TABLE 6 APARTMENT TRIP GENERATION RATE COMPARISON' LAND USE ITE CODE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM i PM I IN I OUTI TOTAL j IN I OUTI TOTAL Apartment 220 DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.72 High-Rise Apartment 222 DU 0.08 0.23 0.30 0.21 0.14 0.35 4.20 Ratio (High -Rise Apt. /Apartment) 0.59 0.56 0.63 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003. DU = Dwelling Units U:1U cJobsl_012001012321TGcalc\La ndU seAltsTGComparei[rate Reducelnvestiga tion.xlsjTG a-k ■ 2 / / ) w al I \ \ / / a 9> \ \§ co k co CL \\ 2j 2! j2 , LU /°\ . b ` § kLLmCO\\ * LL »° �gb (7k cq °0 }(\ ( LQ @LL @ =2 z �,R�9 ® �S`/\/ U) \ X U) �,,;, co (E2a2 00 0 2�/�2 �2§�° ±eo k�k @ § = = =; E 00o AE I \ \ / / a 9> S a f 7 m W2 00 5P a Z W m � H a m J N u w 5 D° N m n N N C W n N 6 N o� N D 0 3 7 a3 v!2 N O O 27 pv N P J Q N N m P m m m m n N T 17 QI Q O A O A IO A b Fa 17 OI A = W OAi. OAi, T OAi, 0Ai ?i2 y P P P P P V W T m S N N N N N N � LL 7 F S V W A A A A A A N V LL b LL d H O G m o m m m m m y P P P C P J H W o 0 b b b O = V LL N N N b W LL m m m O O S N N N YOl YOl YOl m = n ' im b b b b b b N N N N N N V a. 6 m m m m �c m N N Iz t: 00 f N N N N V on °nn yJj� ,0 nn S Y A b 000101 � m 0 W N F r � O V N a�❑ a a ci NN NNN0 ❑ N N N N N N � a w ❑ o a� cc C; W ❑ m mmmmm J n' m 0S b a O m ❑❑ '0 LL ❑ b A m A A V n: J v Y b O ^m -NM Q o o fi G � o °W.3 m Op u w 5 D° N m n N N C W n N 6 N o� N D 0 3 7 a3 A W J F N Z U O Z F 9 c U. W Z_ Z tu z Z a m W Ir ¢ in V) N L c C m m C C c m rL N K N N 1y % LU / } § \} }§ (/ aF d § / [ \ \ ul ) J .� 5 §� \§ § \ ! ! � R§ k §� o, ° ° (L) 0 �° §° B/o Ba` LU § /) § §� § w /j� \ , §Q u ( $ G ° G E/ §• /U) k` °\ , ;o \� ) \ t ex °/ƒ \ / [ \ \ ul ) J .� 5 W J F } Q 7 H Z l O W C O W Q Z Z W 00 sa 02 U F W co Q D 7 N F y 9 d N C � N m y ry T y m � C � S a L y I- y N d � O L C j a a m N � �a 9 K „ E p� m V � m 7 9 O- y O 7 y O W m y y C 9 E y m C N m O � U E v E J to O C e U W x N N O m W n N O 0 0 0 I A yO 7 } p r m J w Q O m m < O Q Q Q y O m m CL O m M en v v C o Hn Q Q in o in O O Cl Q Q Q N yY mac �o QQ a S rQinn N ix y N N 7 S U W o 0 0 yU LL LL� h 6 0 O } O m D Q C (D J Z U LL W N q W LL N Q Q 0 O C o00 LU Q W W N f c� m .- $ LU � N h U Q n 0 LU O Q Q X_ N 4� � Q O F Ir Q Q W W 0 O w � .- N aa Q � O O U Ir W 5 m y m m LL F O rn 0 N N N W Q O U J � C ac�aoo F y 9 d N C � N m y ry T y m � C � S a L y I- y N d � O L C j a a m N � �a 9 K „ E p� m V � m 7 9 O- y O 7 y O W m y y C 9 E y m C N m O � U E v E J to O C e U W x N N O m W n N O 0 0 0 I A yO 7 r w J Q F a U) N 2 O H J < N w p w J CL IL H a w Q CI N d N 0 N X N N_ O d U W N [7 N O O O N O I O 11 W m H C Lr Lr N 2 w O 0 F g9 O W O Oa J C F Q W 5 6i 7 N d OT m O a r. h x t` N Cl) N ,p�6 r N N N N a 0 OD J R _ m N N O OT O) Q OP OP OD OD OD 1n D N co� O a n CL co OD n �a O m O � m N � Q U O O O a: LL co O co U a co co co 0 O O O W U V LL wF Z) O rn r J o 0 o N o w N 0 0 °o rn o w LL r4 °' rn 0) °' WLL F i5 O Q O 00 O � F Q OD co OD OD OD W 2 N F N h 0) 0 0, C> 'T 0, O O J V) U_fQ1 co c0 co N LL r O W g X 0 1 J O W O O � � V fP D iD 6 L LF W m N W F `S W t2 O U WEj 000 00 O 00 0 N N O O F 0 N O .-O O N OO N Q W M W G ° a N Q W 00 O J � N W LL O Q N D UW C' .- N 0 o fU C O O a d C 000 oCL oo c�a d OT m O a r. h x t` N Cl) N ,p�6 a f N Z � O f� N � C W W W Z � 4' Qa i& Q W K Q m N m x `w C n X n N N Oy_ 4 X W N N O O O N O 1 a 0 99 In W J Q 1- a W N K Z � 0 O Q N K Z Z tLj W 0 0 LLJ Qa v F �Q w m U) N 04 - m J O rn rn N Q tD C'1 N Q O N o o a g co n v, n �a g in M v n Q 3 O o o LLJ N FZ K 0 W O J O N O W Q W C' V LL W LL N z LL LLJ O w 0 0 0 V LL EL- U) WLL X_ O Q —LL 0 m LLJ Z�y LLJ 0 O P IQ- v w� O � 0 _0 W 00 W 1- 0 ¢ Q z a a a rn y rn N o 0 f%1 m 0 _ Q W LL J v � W � Q O O N N OR. ()O — N N J 0 N (h W C' d N J @ N N 9 d A t0 c)a 04 \( }§ \( g §!}\\ \ } 2}(} & ) \@k$/ \ .jL ■° owt \)N \ /K) ( f § Z!7/ r4 m§ &(!! , ) W§`)� (}2)§ ) »( §2 |§ ( e ,2 @ |s® M N `3332!) g n W J Q K Q O � i N Z -1 O O~ ml ix W 0 Z W a O z O Q OK Q m U) N 0 a 3 m Z v O N X n N M N O U x w N f") N O 'o 0 N r O' N a 0 n J 0) -mco J N co m O) Q O ici - cC N co -,t OOi a� v,oOco Ma n v co co C N n O O) c0 Q � O O Q w h N N U V LL 0 W LL ~ O �O J 0 0 0 w V LL 6 W LL N Z LL H wp C) J (O O O) 0 coo � c J IU 0) o O x LL O N E Z^yH LU V J h h h h wo 2 K n o O co Z N v N w � O � O Q CL Q s� rn rn rn m D rni rni a rni W LL N O W > 0000 O N N N N J 7 V) O N w �- C f0 a m H N J Q y O C C G N O O O OOOQ 0 a 3 m Z v O N X n N M N O U x w N f") N O 'o 0 N r O' N a 0 n J m W J Q J _Q F 2 W Y C Q C7 � 2 � Z N OZ o O Q O W Z 'ate 3 a x� o� =Q �w xx oCo a :) WN Z H w W m 2 L O a 3 N Z N X N N N O d V X W N N N O O O N O I a 0 c� 7 BS a W J CI rQ- �y 70 0- Z Q K W OZ aW RU ED Z w F- QQ W W ai 7 N 0 I a 7 7 5� J O T T M y LL� M o o e LL N N N �. m o 0 0 ¢ �c vi vi vi K U a Q o 0 0 CL O O S y U N r W LL Q s y n I a n n n n n n OU F- O Z 6 N N N N F y o a W y Om 2 Q W U U LL r o 0 0 LL y o M W a e 20 J n M M M Q W ion n o K U LL A n o ZLL MM M 1y' ul O 0 J U �. IV IV IV W W y W � f U O U U Z W y m Mimi m M e 7S CI Z Z p n W N N N M a rn po=rnrn rn N N W - K N� Yl A M c O '- °Q 00 Uma O 0 I a 7 7 5� N W J a H Q mac' N N w a Z w w ujJ a J J uj 0 0 w 0 Z W V w K N Z ' m y a R v v U' O � v O d m m c v a � 5 U C � rD d O C d �X d O a N C y N m c 0 0 w V X � W U N N O O m 0 0 m m Z 0 0 0 E o o a o 0 0 E E E o � O its B,5 -. - p, m .2 7-! .2 y. N , 000¢0 D0 ¢ Ro'1400ao N Z � O � a � p Z N rn 111 1 Z m C O C O C O O E C O C O C O G O C O G O m E O E,o o E C o 0 000¢OOOOOOGQOO¢O m m m 0 m m m m m =a a aaaaan.a a m m d w (7 (7 0000000 0 N N 1 -0 -0 V 'O V O V a. C C m C C C� d d N m d y E C 0 0 0 15. 0 0 0 O 0 a 0 CL 0 CL 0 O O O N 0 3 aoo °¢000 °a °aaaa °aaao C m 0 d c 'c ¢ 0 ¢ t0 10 y C iD C a a G N N N N L 9 m m aLo ~ HQH >t m ` m m m m O= m C c' C O O �' >> p m O m 9 O r 3 0 0 [;eOt:c O 'C- o Z Z Z l0 C m C m C m o 0 0 Z-j 0 0 A m w U w U D O 3:13: m CO a]UUU J J..I :3 f ZO c ' m y a O v v U' v O m m c v 5 U C rD d C �X d O N C y CL 0 m c 0 m V X � W p N N � C N 0 0 U O y y O > N p O E ' m y O O j N W J Q F m c @ U' F N X n i6� tnvtnon tn'- oven. -�ao rn�orn Fy tOOM i0 M NNR aD aDN OOn M } nrnMCOV�ovrc'- vrnrnm�o — .- J vi O N < OD O O ri ri tD vi O n 10 v N N v n M o n 8 0 ONn tN oO On O nmO aM D O 10 O o O.0 < O t- aD n Ho 0 allo < a to v M M 0 to n n CO O n 00 n (O CO CO < N '- O t0 M O aD O t0 O N 10 O M 10 r tD •- n r M G3 O GD n to O i0 < O M O O of '= �i v v o Q to < l0 O 00 to < O O .D M O NO n N W <O N O N OmM < O N O M d ao N O O 1n M< O W aD n O Q < W F a p ro ao nv o' O t0 o- o 0 t0 O o M o tO .0 0to-, to O O n M O Rol c n C i M < to M o D too- N } a tri J F Z W N M M to O to O to M 0"r aD M O< W O O to ON r O N n (O O aD aD to < toOO R" M th O aD �N H O n N Lu O R O to aD O O M to r v O M aD O n aD M O N to N W n to N n aD M O< O N O N M '- J o ao M M� n tO to � of v o ao r: � a O N n < O N O aD WO O O aD O to O O tD n M OD < n to tD tD W n M tD < r M M '- m '0 '- N zo.' - v N M O< O to O to M O aD aD O N O GD r O M M O to to O O '- N N O C> n M G7 (0 < N N f (D R < '- M M to n Q M m m C N ccC .0 Q O . W Q A v vn c m 7 O m = C N 0 0 Q 3 O 0 O m Z Z Z Q F O C O m U :OCJ �m � F m c @ U' F N X n i6� APPENDIX TG MIXED USE TRIP GENERATION INFORMATION • l TRIP GENERATION An Informational Report Stli Edition J� i ■ M � i$e.- INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is a professional society of more than 10,000 transportation engineers and planners who are responsible for the safe ai}d efficient movement of people and goods on streets, highways, and transit systems. Since 1930 the Institute has been providing transportation professionals with programs and resources to help them meet those responsibilities. Institute programs and resources include professional development seminars, technical reports, a monthly journal, local, regional, and international meetings, and other forums for the exchange of opinions, ideas, techniques, and research. N r r INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 525 School St., S.W., Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20024 -2729 USA Telephone: 2021554 -8050 Telex: 467943 ITE WSH CI FAX 2021863 -5486 © 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers. All rights reserved. PoLi.n'.� Ne. ❑'JC'C IMIAGSMI 4D V111. Multi -Use Developments/ Quantifying Capture Rates Background A trip generation rate or equation is often used to forecast trips at a proposed development. This rate or equation is generally based on the trip - making characteristics observed at similar stand -alone existing developments. Often a forecast of trips for a development consisting of several different types of land uses, or a multi- use development, must be made. A common method of developing this forecast is to apply the trip rare or equation for each individual land use in the proposed development and then add the forecasts together. This method does nor rake into consideration the fact that some of the trips counted err stand -alone sires are now being made within the multi -use development, either by vehicle or an alternate mode such as walking or transit. probably the most common example of this Trip- making occurs at multi -use devclopmenrs containing residential and shop- ping areas. Some of the resident's work trips and shopping trips are made to the on -site shopping area. Another example is the devel- opment containing offices and a shop - ping /service area. Some of the trips made from the offices to shops, to restaurants, or to banks may be made on -site. These types of trips thus become internal to the multi -use site; they are "captured" on -site. Definitions A capture tare can therefore be generally de- fined as a percentage reduction in traditionally developed trip forecasts to account for trips in- tetnal to the site. Depending on the methodol- ogy being used, the reduction may be applied to the total trips forecast or to individual land uses or components of the multi -use develop- ment. It is important to note that these "reduced" trips ate applied externally to the site —at entrances, at adjacent intersections, and iriP Generation, hnuary 1991 on adjacent roadways. The reductions to inter- nal site traffic volumes would be appropriate if the internal trips are made by modes other than private vehicles. The trip reduction for captured or internal trips is separate from the reduction for pass -by trips described earlier. These are two distinct phenomena, and both could be appli- cable for a proposed development. Multi -use developments can be classified into two categories. The first consists of a combination of residential and non - residential land uses, and the second .consists of a combi- nation of non- residential land uses only. Cate- gory I will typically consist of one or more types of residences and a shopping and/or office component. Category II will typically consist of offices and a shopping /serail component, with possibly a hotel or motel. A central business district (downrown) is the ultimate case of a multi-use development. Downtown areas have a mixture of very diverse employment, retail, residential, and commercial recreation /hotel uses. Extensive pedestrian in- teraction occurs because of the scale of the downtown area, the ease of access, and the proximity of the uses. Some downtowns have excellent transit service. Auto occupancy, par - ticulady during peak commuting hours, is usu- ally higher in the CBD than in the outlying ar- eas. For these reasons, trip generation character- istics in a downtown envitonment are different from those found in outlying or suburban areas. Accordingly, trip generation characteristics in this text, and specifically in the case of rapture rates at multi -use developments, are applicable to sites outride the doumtown. A shopping center is also an example of a multi -use development. However, it has histot- ically been considered as an individual or single land use, and the associated trip generation rates and equations already reflect the "multi- use" nature of the development because of the way shopping center data in this report have been collected. Accordingly, capture rates are not 1-91 Ak i i i .x applicable and should not be utilized in the fore- casting of trips for shopping centers. Likewise, a subdivision of planned unit development con- taining genetal office buildings and suppott services such as banks, savings and loan institu- tions, restautants, and service stations artanged in a park- of campus -like atmbsphete should be considered as an office park, not as a multi -use development. Similatly, office buildings with suppott retail of testautant facilities contained inside the building should be tteated as genetal office buts dings because the ttip generation tates and equations alteady teflect this situation. Finally, it should be noted that the database fot Land Use 270, tesidential planned unit development (PUD), contains sites that ate genetally only a combination of tesidential land uses. Accotdingly, these ttip tates and equations ate genetally not applicable to a Cat- egory I multi -use development. The PUD data may possibly be used if the non - tesidential component is an exttemely small part of the overall site. Available Data Very little infotmation is available on quantify- ing captute tates. The infotmation genetally consists of interview data whete people ate asked about their ttip- making, actual vehicle ttip counts, of a combination of both. Follow- ing is a btief summary of the known database. The Petmanent Ttip Genetation Committee would be very appteciative of teceiving any data not teported here. 1. Trip Generation at Special Sites, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia, VHTRC 84 -R23, January 1984. Dtiveway vehicle counts ate available ftom one multi -use site. The site is located in a densely developed area located in the Northern Virginia subutbs of Washington, D.C., and is served by ttansit. It contains 606 tental units, 555 of which are located in a high -tise, the temaindet being multilevel townhouse units. Thete ate ap- ptoximately 64,000 squate feet of tetailloffice atea, including a delicatessen, a commercial cleaning company office, two building conttac- tot offices, a testautant, a bank, a hospital consulting fitm, a ditect -mail advettising fitm, a teal estate firm, a management consulting fitm, and a dentist. Based on applying trip gen- etation equations, the following comparisons wete made: Trip Ends Accotdingly, 17% of the daily ttips and 27% of the P.M. peak trips were internal to or captured t on the site. During the A.M. peak hout the calculated ttips wete less than the measuted ttips, which implies there wete no intetnal ttips. This finding points out a ptoblem inhet- ent in this method of calculating a captute tate. That is, it is assumed in the calculation that the ITE equation is valid fot this site. In fact, the ITE equation teptesents an avetage of several sites, and appears to undetstate the A.M. ttips at this site. This furthet suggests that the P.M. and 1 -42 daily ITE calculated ttips are undetstated, which would mean that the aforementioned captute rates are low. 2. The Btandermill PUD Ttaffrc Generation Study, Technical Report, JHK & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, June 1984. Brandetmill is a latge, planned tesidential de- velopment located approximately 10 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia. At the time of the study there wete apptoximately 2,300 Insrimre of Zransponacion Engincen 41 A.M. Peak Hour 7 - 9 A.M. P.M. Peak Hour 4 - 6 P.M. Dail ITE Calculated 337 764 8,222 Field Counted 440 559 6,803 Captured 0 205(27%) 419 17% Accotdingly, 17% of the daily ttips and 27% of the P.M. peak trips were internal to or captured t on the site. During the A.M. peak hout the calculated ttips wete less than the measuted ttips, which implies there wete no intetnal ttips. This finding points out a ptoblem inhet- ent in this method of calculating a captute tate. That is, it is assumed in the calculation that the ITE equation is valid fot this site. In fact, the ITE equation teptesents an avetage of several sites, and appears to undetstate the A.M. ttips at this site. This furthet suggests that the P.M. and 1 -42 daily ITE calculated ttips are undetstated, which would mean that the aforementioned captute rates are low. 2. The Btandermill PUD Ttaffrc Generation Study, Technical Report, JHK & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, June 1984. Brandetmill is a latge, planned tesidential de- velopment located approximately 10 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia. At the time of the study there wete apptoximately 2,300 Insrimre of Zransponacion Engincen 41 occupied dwelling units, with 180 townhouse - style condominiums and 2,120 single - family detached units. Commercial development con- sisted of a 62,600- square feet shopping center, a 63,000 - squate feet business park, a 14,000 - square feet medical center, and a 4,400- square feet restaurant. There were also recreational facilities, including a golf course, tennis courts, swimming facilities, and several lakeside recre- ation facilities. Finally, there was a day -care center, a church, an elementary school, and a middle school. The study had the overall goal of deter- mining the on -site (internal) and off -site (external) traffic generation at Brandermill. Data collected included the following: • Automatic machine counts at selected roadways of driveways serving specific land uses, • Manual driveway counts to supplement the machine counts, • Land use inventory, • Travel questionnaire distributed to resi- dences, • Travel questionnaires administered to pa- ttons and employees of non- tesidential land uses, • Turning movement counts at selected lo- cations. Based on the various data collected, the follow- ing comparisons were made: Trip Ends Thus, 51% of the daily trips, 55% of the P.M. peak hour trips, and 45% of the A.M. peak hour trips were internal to or captured on the site. Additionally, 46% of persons employed in Brandcrmill also reside in Brandermill. Since the generated trips were actually measured, rather than calculated based on ITE rams or equations, this method eliminates the problem described in the first study. The travel questionnaires provided the following information: Hours A.M. Peak Hour 7 -9A.M. P.M. Peak Hour 4 -6P.M. Dail Total Generated 2,570 2,935 33 540 External 1,420 1,325 16,280 Captured 1,15D 45% 1.61D 55% 17,260 51 %) Thus, 51% of the daily trips, 55% of the P.M. peak hour trips, and 45% of the A.M. peak hour trips were internal to or captured on the site. Additionally, 46% of persons employed in Brandcrmill also reside in Brandermill. Since the generated trips were actually measured, rather than calculated based on ITE rams or equations, this method eliminates the problem described in the first study. The travel questionnaires provided the following information: Hours Home-Based Trips with Destinations within Brandermill Home -Based Trips with Origins � within Brandermilk 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. 18.1% 50.9% ' 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. 44.4% 50.2% 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. 55.2% 34.4% 6 P.M. to 7 A.M. 40.6% 33.6% Daily 35.2% 39.1% Tnp Grnorntion. January 1991 1.43 `1 C'l5 �I� Shopping Center Trips with Shopping Center Trips with Origins Destinations Hours within Brandermill within Brandermill' 11 A.M. to 1 P.M. 65% 66% 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. 52% 66% Tnp Grnorntion. January 1991 1.43 `1 C'l5 �I� 3• Trip Generation for Mixed Use Develop- ments, Technical Committee Report, Col- orado- Wyoming Section, Institute of Trans- portation Engineers, January 1986. This study was undertaken to determine how trip generation estimates using ITE rates com- pared to actual driveway counts at multi -use developments in Colorado and Wyoming. Also included were interviews that were aimed at de- termining whether persons entering and leaving multi -use sites came there for multiple pur- poses. The nine sites included in the study had the following sizes and land uses: Site Size (Square Feet Land Uses 1 154,536 Retail Office Government Office Restaurants Health Club 2 86,381 Retail Bank, Restaurants 3 731,846 Retail, Hotel Restaurants Office 4 5001000 Retail, Office Restaurants, Motel Theaters 5 61198 Retail, Office 6 115,000 Retail Restaurants, Hardware Store, Supermarket 7 1,773,500 Restaurants, Bank Hotel Medical Office, Office, Traininq Center 8 177,277 Savings & Loan, Office, Hardware Store, Supermarket, Medical Office, Bank, Health Club, Theater, Retail, Restaurants 9 95,104 Supermarket, Restaurants, Bank, Medical Office, Savings and Loan, Retail It is noted that some of the sites would be con- sidered a shopping center for trip generation purposes. The results of the study are shown in Tables VIII -1 through VIII -3.The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the driveway count comparison: a. Total daily trip generation for a multi -use site can be accurately estimated using ITE generation rates applied to individ- ual uses within a multi -use development. The 8% difference observed in the study is not statistically significant. (Note: Based on the method of calculating cap- ture rates in the first study, overall 7% of the daily trips were captured.) b. Peak hour trip generation for a multi -use site using ITE generation rates applied to individual uses within a multi -use devel- opment may result in an overestimation of an average 2.5%. (Note: This means that for multi-use sites, peak hour trips as a percentage of daily trips is 2.5% lower than that calculated from ITE data. Based on the method in the first study, overall 28% of the A.M. peak hour and 1-44 TC-1 Lo 24% of the P.M. peak hour trips are cap- tured.) The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the interviews. a. The percent breakdown by number of purposes for persons entering a multi -use site based on data contained in Tables VIII -1 and VIII -2 were determined to be: Number of Purports (stops) Percoit 1 77 2 16 3 or more 7 Institute of Transportation Engineers T� Table V111-1 Number and Percentage of Persons Entering Multi -Use Sites by Number of Purposes (Stops�and Primary Destination Interviewee (Percent) Prima Destination 1 2 3 or more Total Bank/Savings and Loan 27 90.0) 2(6,6) 1 3.4 30 (100.0) Hardware Store 20 66.7 9(30,0) 1 3,3 30 100.0 Su ermarket 189 79.1 40 16.7 10(4.2) 239 J1 00.0 Theater 27 93.1 2(6.9) 0(0.0) 29 100,0 OfficeMork Location 48 67.6 22 31.0 1 1.4 71 100.0 Small Retail Shop, etc. 120 (72.7 ) 21 12.7 24 14.6 165 100,0 Restaurant 105 80.8 13 0 3.8 7(5.4) 130 f 100.0) Health Club 7(100.0) 0 0,0 0(0.01 7(100.01 Post Office 19 {51,4 12 32.4 6 16.2 37 100.0 Other 4 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 100.0 Total (Average) 566 76.3 126 17.0 50(6.7) 74 100.0) Source: Colorado Wyoming Section, ITE. b. Using the interview data obtained in the study, it was determined that multi -use dcvel- opments could reduce trip generation of indi- vidual uses within the development by 24% (if all of these uses are present in the proportion noted). Because the 8% difference in driveway volumes in the first part of the study was not statistically significant, it has been concluded that most of the secondary trip purposes indi- cated by interviewees occur because of the availability of multiple retail outlets in close proximity to major primary destinations, such as work locations, supermarkets, banks, restau- rants, hotels, and theaters in multi -use devel- opments. If the secondary destinations were not in close proximity to the primary destinations, trips to the secondary des tina-dons. would not occur or would occur at a much lower level. Trip generation for multi -use sites is largely a function of the square footage of primary desti- nation uses cited above. Table V111-2 Number and Percentage of Persons Exiting Multi -Use Sites by Number of Purposes (Stops) and Primary Destination of (Percent) Primary Destination 1 3t Total BankSavin s and Loan Hardware Store 17 73.9 22 88.0 2(8.7). W�6(28.6) 4(17.4) 0(0.0) 23 (100.0) 25 100.0 Supermarket 39 67.3 9 15.5 58 100.0 Hotel 4 100.0 0(0.0) 4(100.0) Office/Work Location 15 71 A 0 0.0 21 100.0 Small Retail Shop, etc. 82 73.2 12 10.7 112 100.0 Restaurant 100(89.2)_ 11 9.8 1(1.0) 112 (100.0) Health Club 3 42,8 4 57.2 1 0(0.0) 7(100.0) Post Office _ 20(8 0 3(12.0) 2(8.0) 25(100.01 1 Other 2(100.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(100.0) Total {AvemkeL 304 (78.2)-] 57 (14.6) 28(7.2) 389 100.0 Source: uvoraao Wyoming Seaton. IT[-. Trip Generation, January 1991 R, -1 1 -45 �I i i I ..� .., a '.. .. Table VIII -3 Comparison of ITE T Ip Generation with Driveway Counts sours: Colurado-Wyorning sea ;On. IM 1 There nombert ¢flea a 25% oflies vacancy rate estimated by Grubb K Ellis, Muth 31. 1985, Tor the Dwa off to market. The data base in i11e study was used to develop the information in Table VIII -4. This table was derived by applying Fourth Edition Trip Gen- eration equations of tates to those sites in the Colotado- Wyoming study that ate not'shop- ping centers. The site numbers in Table VIII -4 cottespond to the ptevious site numbets. Table V111-4 Comparison of ITE Trip Generation with Driveway Counts Using 41th Edition THD Generation and ExcludIna Sho PpIng Centers A.M. Peak Hour -9 P.M. Peak Hour 4 -6 Dail Site Counted iTEA.M. Counted Counted Counted I ITE I Courrfed Counted !TEAM. A.M. Pk Pk Hr. of A.M. Pk, ITEP.M. P.M Pk. Hr. fTEP.M. P.M. Pk 365 ITE Dairy Daily Pk. Hr, of Hr. of Acif. Hr. of Adj. Pk. Hr. of of Pk Hr. of Hr. of 362 Trips Tres Generato Generator Skeet Street Generator Generator Ad.Street Ad).Street Site (VPD (VPD) r (VPD) N (VPf9 NPfA "D) NPM (VPM (VPH) 1 7.015 7,910 712 682 374 365 920 700 886 70D 15% 9% (11.12) (7-9) (7-9) 0 (12-1) (4.6) (4-6) 2 10578 6,830 952 565 248 247 1.368 5B6 1,076 513 3 _13V6_1_ 11.706 1,734 1.012 1.391 855 1.806 1,038 1.701 B21 20% (fi -12) (7-9) (7-9) (12-1) (4.6) (4-6) 4 14,815 13.718 1,339 1.334 1,136 640 1.984 1576 1,460 1.138 (11 -12) 1 E-g) (12-1) (4-6) 5 5,368 5,179 445 389 164 184 682 503 624 5D4 (11 -12) t.-9) (7-9) (12 -1) (4.6) (4.0 6 12,182 13.695 1,219 1,043 549 625 4,455 1,254 1,185 1,254 (11.12) (T9) (4-5) (4-5) 7 27.004 24,462 3.6031 2448 3.6391 2.448 3,827 2.891 3.765 2,891 (7-8) (7-8) (4-5) (4-5) B 14,481 18,303 1,575 1,160 343 551 1,810 1,556 1,334 1.556 (11 -12 ) (7 -9) (4-5) (4-5) 9 11,873 7,372 1,162 527 676 247 1.479 697 140 697 (11 -12) E-9) (4.5 ) (4-5) Total 116,997 109,175 12.741 9.160 8.520 6,162 15.331 10,801 13 ,211 10,074 sours: Colurado-Wyorning sea ;On. IM 1 There nombert ¢flea a 25% oflies vacancy rate estimated by Grubb K Ellis, Muth 31. 1985, Tor the Dwa off to market. The data base in i11e study was used to develop the information in Table VIII -4. This table was derived by applying Fourth Edition Trip Gen- eration equations of tates to those sites in the Colotado- Wyoming study that ate not'shop- ping centers. The site numbers in Table VIII -4 cottespond to the ptevious site numbets. Table V111-4 Comparison of ITE Trip Generation with Driveway Counts Using 41th Edition THD Generation and ExcludIna Sho PpIng Centers A.M. Peak Hour -9 P.M. Peak Hour 4 -6 Dail Site No. I ITE I Courrfed Captured ITE Counted Captured ITE Counted Captured 1 1 3231 365 0 64D 700 0 6178 7,910 0 3 1,217 855 362 1,491 821 670 12,638 11,706 1,132 30% 45% 9% 4 922 640 262 1,337 1,138 .199 15,119 13,718 1.401 31% 15% 9% 5 148 184 0 461 504 0 4 899 5,179 0 7 3,878 2.448 1,430 4.019 2,891 1,128 30.408 24,462 5,946 37% (28"/0)_ 20% The following observations wete made from the Table VIII -4 comparisons. a. Intetnal ttips at multi -use sites can be significant; howevet, the captute late varies considetably. Duting the A.M. peak the capture rate at the three sites 1 -4G —to having internal trips tanged ftom 30% to 37 0/b, with an avetage of 33%. The avet- age !ate was 29% duting the P.M. peak, tanging ftom 15% to 45 %. Finally, on a daily basis the avetage captute late was 13 %, with a large of 9% to 20 %. Insdrute of Transporcauon Engineers 4(o It is important to again note the problem inherent in calculating a capture rate by this method. However, the two sites that have basically retail and office land uses did not appear to have internal trips. All three sites having internal trips had a ho- tel or motel. 4. Travel Characteristics at Large -Scale Subur- banAetivity Centers, JHK & Associates, NCHRP Project 3- 38(2), Report 323, October 1989. The findings of this study are known to be ap- plicable only in major activity centers. The ob- jective of the project was to develop a compre- hensive database on travel characteristics for various types of large - scale, multi -use suburban activity centers. Data wete collected at six sites having the characteristics shown in Table VIII - 5. Data collection activities are shown in Table VIII -6. Following is a summary of findings per- tinent to internal trips for each of the land uses listed. It is noted that "larger centers" refers to the three centers having at least 15 million square feet each, whereas "smaller centers" refers to the remaining three having less than 8 million square feet. ofce a. The proportion of employees who made intermediate stops within the activity center on their way to work ranged from 7% to 15%, with an average of 10 %. The proportion on the way home from work ranged from 6% to 16%, with an average of II%. The percentages were higher at the sites having relatively little retail activity immediately outside their boundaries, and vice - versa. b. The proportion of employees making midday trips internal to the center ranged between 29% and 33% at sites with at least 600/b of the work force in professional, technical, managerial, or administrative positions. If the propor- tion in these positions was less than 60 %, the midday trips internal to the center ranged between 20% and 23 %. c. The proportion of employees who used on -site facilities ranged as follows for the listed land use: Restaurant 6% to 65% Bank 0% to 43% Health Club 1% to 8% Travel Services 1% to 121yo Medical Office I % to 5% Table VIII-5 Characteristics of NCHRP 323 Study Sites Office I Retail I Hotel I Residential Site No. GFA million Employees GLA million Employees Rooms DUst DUs2 1 4.7 12,880 3 6,150 1,000 556 N/A 2 3.5 10,465 4 -6,86-5 1,800 1,201 2 300 3 17.0 35,020 7 131-35-5 3,100 823 15, OD 4 13.0 39,000 2 3,430 1 800 206 206 5 13.0 32,500 3 5,150 9103 1,745 (2,000) 6 4.0 13,700 3 6 155 J 2,200 2,017 3,000 f Number of dwelling units surveyed. 2 Estimated total dwelling unlls on site. 3 Number of rooms at surveyed sties. Trip Gcntration, January 1991 T a ll 1 -47 0 Table VIII -6 Data Collection Activities at NCHRP 323 Study Sites Land Use Activity Office I Retail I Hotel I Residential Workplace Survey X Residential Survey X Vehicle Counts X - X X X Pedestrian Counts X X X X Pedestrian Interviews X X X d. The proportion of office visitors coming from within the center ranged from 15% to 59 0/olsin the A.M. peak period and from 15% to 68% in the P.M. peak. Averages at the smaller centers were 30% in the A.M. and 33% in the P.M. For the larger centers these averages were 54% in the A.M. and 58% in the P.M. Retail a. The proportion of trips generated by the retail sites that were internal to the activ- ity centers ranged from 7% to 68 %, with an average of 37 %, during the midday peak and from 7% to 57 %, with an aver- age of 24%, during the P.M. peak. b. For the larger centers these percentages were 47% during midday and 31% dur- ing the P.M. peak. The smaller centers exhibited percentages of 23% and 14% midday and evening, respectively. Note: These percentages were derived from surveys at seven regional malls ranging in size from 970,000 square feet to 2.2 million square feet. Residcnrial t -48 a. The proportion of employed residents who work within the activity center ranged between 13% and 50 %. This percentage averaged 31% for owner -oc- cupied units and 28% for rental units. b. For the larger centers 33% of the em- ployed residents worked within the cen- ter. This percentage was 27% for the smaller centers. c The impact of this relatively high internal trip - making on overall center travel pat- terns was minimal for two reasons. First, the number of units (and therefore the number of potential employees) is rela- _T 0 K) tively small compared to the total num- ber of jobs. Second, many of the resi- dential developments attract senior citi- zens and therefore have lower propor- tions of employed residents. Hotel a. The proportion of trips with origins or destinations within the activity center ranged from 13% to 53% in the A.M. peak period and from 15% to 46% in the P.M. peak period. b. For the larger centers the average per- centages were 37% in the A.M. and 36% in the P.M. In the morning peak period 29% of the trips entering the hotels originated within the center and 44% of the trips leaving the hotels were destined to locations within the center. In the evening peak period 35% originated from and 36% were destined to locations within the center. c. For the smaller centers the average per- centages were 19% in the A.M. and 27% in the P.M. In the morning peak period 14% of the trips entering the hotels originated within the center and 27% of the trips leaving the hotels were destined to locations within the center. In the evening peak period 33% originated from and 18% were destined to locations within the center. 5. Shared Parking, Barton- Aschman Associates and The Urban Land Institute, 1983. This report contains data on the effect of the captive market. Table VIII-7 summarizes Ex- hibit 23 from that report, indicating the per- centage of employees who were patrons in the same nearby developments. This study reports sharing for parking, not trips. Institute ofTmnsportarion Fngincers Table VIII -7 Effects of Captive Market Percentage of Employees Who Are Also Patrons in Same or Nearby Development C8D Site Non -CBD Site The ULI report also indicated a strong linkage between hotel guests and nearby restaurants or retail uses. In one survey of eight hotels, 73% to 1000/o of the guests indicated that they were 21SO patrons at nearby retail establishments and /or restaurants. Another survey of six hotels indicated a range of 8D% to 9D%. It further stated that these results appeared to be consis- tent for both downtown and suburban hotels. 6. State DOT Capture Rate Guidelines Florida has formal guidelines describing factors such as location of the site, market area, and specific combination and amount of land use types. Florida DOT's capture rate guidelines are as follows': Internal capture describes trips that are sat- isfied entirely on -site by using an internal circulation system. Internal trips that must use the emetnal roadway network cannot be considered internally captured trips. 1. Use caution when allowing large num- bers of internal capture for a mixed -use development. A study by the Col - oradotWyoming Section of ITE, Trip Generation Technical Committee, showed a lack of proof that large mixed - use developments have a significant in- ternal capture r2te.2 2. Things to consider when looking at in- ternal capture ate as follows: . a. How remote is this project? b. What is the timing for construction of commercial facilities as compared to the timing for residential construction? c. Can those who work on -site afford to live on -site? d. Office uses may not attract on -site home -based work immediately. c. The commercial land use intended for drug and grocery stores will have larger internal capture percentages than large regional malls. f. What types of establishments off -site are there that will compete with on- site development? g. Is there an internal circulation system that enhances or discourages internal trips? h. Is there an internal shuttle system proposed and financially committed to? Conclusions Internal or captured trips can be a significant factor in the travel patterns at multi -usc devel- opments; however, very few studies have been conducted to quantify this phgnomenon. Be- cause of the very limited data bale, it is not rea- sonable to draw conclusions regarding the specific value of capture rates or allowable re- ductions in trips to account for internal trips. Based on the studies reported in this chapter, however, several general conclusions can be stated: I Excerpted from 'Minimum cutda(ne: (tea the Revlew of 1. Internal trip making varies according to Developmenn of Retioml Impact (DRI),' Drxfu November 1989. the combination of land uses. a. Sites having both residential and non - Fbrrip Genenrion for Mimd Use Developmem,.' rTE /ourna( residential Components have the most non- February 19fi7. � p trip Generarion,)anuary 1991 .TL, I \ 1 49 491 I -50 Data Request for Multi -Use Developments The Institute is very much interested in in- creasing the data base on multi -use develop- ments and would be most appreciative of re- ceiving additional data. Submittal of multi -use development data is described in this chapter. The remainder of this chapter presents information on conducting a study of multi -use developments. Data Collection for Multi -Use Developments A trip generation study of a multi -use site re- quires careful selection and gathering of drive- way volumes for the site, interviews of the users and residents of the site, and the comparison to anticipated trip generation as if the site were a series of discrete, individual, isolated land uses. In selecting a site for a multi -use study, the following criteria should be adhered to: 1. The site should be fully developed. Sites new and only partially developed may not have reached a mature state and would not nec- essarily generate trips at the rate that a fully de- veloped site would. 2. The driveway serving the site must not serve any other adjacent property. If driveways are shared with another site, it is not possible to separate that traffic destined for the multi -use site. 3. Multi -use developments must meet the criteria described earlier. A great deal of data must be collected to conduct a multi -use trip generation study. A list of these data follows, adapted from the ITE Colorado- Wyoming Section repoit. Driveway volumes should be gathered for as long a period as possible. Some previous studies have gathered only 24 to 48 hours of data. If these are all that can be obtained, the time period should be during mid -week (Tuesday through Thursday) to avoid daily variations that may occur on Fridays and Mon- days. Ideally, seven consecutive days of data should be gathered, from which daily variations can be computed, and a weekday average and weekend average can also be calculated. Mini- mally, driveway counts should be made during t C-� t2 Institute ofTnnsportation Engineers i potential for internal trips, especially during peak periods. b. Sites having only non - residential com- ponents have the least potential for in- retrial peak hour trips; however, the pres- ence of a hotel or motel increases the potential. 2. Internal trip making varies by time of day, i.e., the capture rate can be expected to be different during the morning peak, evening peak, midday, and on a daily f' basis. The variation can be expected to 'i foMw logical trip - making patterns. For i example, there is little trip making be- tween residences and shopping /retail ar- eas during the morning peak hour. On the other hand, there is considerable trip- making between residences and offices j, during both morning and evening peaks. As a final example, there are considerable internal trips made between offices and '! shopping /retail during the midday, par - ticularly for lunch. 3. Use of existing ITE trip rates or equa- tions to calculate the base on which to derive capture rates is inherently incor- -rect. The assumption is made that the i� individual land uses within the site being l' studied are "average," and thus the ITE {� rates or equations accurately calculate the individual land use trips. The correct way I to develop a capture rate is to actually count the individual land use trips and `I compare the with a count of external trips at the site. 4. The specific results repotted in NCHRP 323 should probably not be universally applied to all sizes and configurations of multi -use sites. There are relatively few sites being developed and /or reviewed that have the size and configuration characteristics of suburban activity cen- ters (as defined in NCHRP 323). It is not cleat whether the findings from such large sites are transferable to the much smaller sites that are much more common. I -50 Data Request for Multi -Use Developments The Institute is very much interested in in- creasing the data base on multi -use develop- ments and would be most appreciative of re- ceiving additional data. Submittal of multi -use development data is described in this chapter. The remainder of this chapter presents information on conducting a study of multi -use developments. Data Collection for Multi -Use Developments A trip generation study of a multi -use site re- quires careful selection and gathering of drive- way volumes for the site, interviews of the users and residents of the site, and the comparison to anticipated trip generation as if the site were a series of discrete, individual, isolated land uses. In selecting a site for a multi -use study, the following criteria should be adhered to: 1. The site should be fully developed. Sites new and only partially developed may not have reached a mature state and would not nec- essarily generate trips at the rate that a fully de- veloped site would. 2. The driveway serving the site must not serve any other adjacent property. If driveways are shared with another site, it is not possible to separate that traffic destined for the multi -use site. 3. Multi -use developments must meet the criteria described earlier. A great deal of data must be collected to conduct a multi -use trip generation study. A list of these data follows, adapted from the ITE Colorado- Wyoming Section repoit. Driveway volumes should be gathered for as long a period as possible. Some previous studies have gathered only 24 to 48 hours of data. If these are all that can be obtained, the time period should be during mid -week (Tuesday through Thursday) to avoid daily variations that may occur on Fridays and Mon- days. Ideally, seven consecutive days of data should be gathered, from which daily variations can be computed, and a weekday average and weekend average can also be calculated. Mini- mally, driveway counts should be made during t C-� t2 Institute ofTnnsportation Engineers i Fiscal Analysis Of The General Plan Alternatives May 12, 2005 Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 548 -5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 441 -0323 www.adeusa.com 1 f: CONTENTS Introduction And Summary ................................. ..............................1 Fiscal Impact Of The Alternatives ...................... ..............................5 Citywide Alternatives ....................................... ..............................5 Fiscal Impact Of Subarea Options ................ ..............................8 Airport Business Area ..................................... ..............................8 11 BalboaVillage ................................................... ..............................9 BanningRanch ................................................. ..............................9 12 CanneryVillage ............................................... .............................12 CoronaDel Mar ........................................... ............................... 13 LidoIsle ........................................................... .............................13 LidoVillage ..................................................... .............................15 l7 MarinersD4ile ................................................ ............................... 15 McfaddenSquare .......................................... ............................... 16 Newport Center /Fashion Island ............... ............................... 18 OldNewport Blvd ....................................... ............................... 18 West Newport Highway And Adjoining Residential ............. 19 West Newport Industrial .............................. .............................19 A Note On Residential Assessed Values .......... .............................22 TABLES 1 Fiscal Impact of General Plan Alternatives .... ..............................6 2 Detailed Alternatives Analysis .......................... ..............................7 3 Fiscal Impact For Airport Business Area ..... .............................11 4 Fiscal Impact For Balboa Village ................... .............................11 5 Fiscal Impact For Banning Ranch ............... ............................... 11 6 Estimated Land and Development Values at Banning Ranch............................................................. ............................... 12 7 Fiscal Impact For Cannery Village ................ .............................14 8 Fiscal Impact For Corona Del Mar ............... .............................14 9 Fiscal Impact For Lido Isle ............................. .............................14 10 Fiscal Impact For Lido Village ................... ............................... l7 5S 11 Fiscal Impact For Mariners We ................ ............................... 17 12 Fiscal Impact For McFadden Square .......... .............................17 13 Fiscal Impact For Newport Center/ Fashion Island.. ............ 20 14 Fiscal Impact For Old Newport Boulevard ............................ 20 15 Fiscal Impact For West Newport Highway and Adjoining Residential..................................................... ............................... 21 16 Fiscal Impact For West Newport Industrial ........................... 21 FIGURES 1 Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach .............2 2 Overall Cost Revenue Impact of Existing Land Uses ($Millions) ......................................................... ..............................3 3 Impact of Existing Visitors ($ Millions) ........... ..............................3 4 GPAC Alternatives by Landuse ...................... ..............................4 r INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The fiscal analysis of the General Plan Alternatives is based on the model described in the report entitled Fiscallmpact Analysis and Model, dated January 2004. The report described the methodology used to develop the fiscal model and presents a fiscal analysis of existing land uses in Newport Beach, as well as analyses of future growth both at Newport Coast and for the city as a whole based on the existing General Plan- The present report analyzes several citywide alternatives identified through analysis of trip generation rates for each development option identified by the GPAC in geographic subareas of the City. The analysis evaluates the new development that would occur in each General Plan alternative. The report also presents a fiscal analysis of every option for each study area. However, from a fiscal perspective, the plamiing goal is to achieve a positive fiscal result citywide, not necessarily in each subarea. This requires a balance of land uses across the city, and each neighborhood or commercial district will provide only a piece of the total land use mix. Therefore, the results from the individual subareas should be viewed as "building blocks ", for use in creating citywide development alternatives that make fiscal sense. The City would not likely want all future growth to be concentrated in one type of land use or another, because individual land uses depend on each other from an economic standpoint, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. For example, by themselves, residential and office uses sometimes create a negative fiscal impact, yet they provide the income and living environment necessary to support the retail uses that provide more of the fiscal benefit for the City. City of Newport Beach 7 f, 5 Figure 1 Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach Income Purchase Newport Beads products and services r' Net Tax Dollars for Services Inca S Net Tax Ddlars� Income I for Sbvlms Regional I+ Visi" Shopping Spending Local Purchases lobs 6 Net Tax Dollars Income for Services Local _0 purchases )obs 6 Income Net Tax Dollars for Services Business to Business Transactions a.d Visitor Spend ft In general, the individual land uses generate similar impacts as demonstrated in the earlier analysis of general plan buildout for the City (Figure 2). Office and industrial uses typically do not generate enough property tax to offset the cost of services for those uses. However, retail, lodging and service commercial uses show a positive fiscal benefit, primarily due to sales taxes they generate as well as Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues from overnight stays. Public uses tend to require more in service costs than they generate in tax revenues. Figure 3 shows the net benefit of land uses serving primarily visitors. Average -priced housing creates a negative fiscal impact while higher -priced units tend to pay for themselves in terms of their cost /revenue balance for the City.' As shown in Figure 2, the total existing residential housing stock in Newport Beach is estimated to create a negative fiscal impact of $7.7 million annually, due in part to the fact that assessed values tend to degrade in relation to market values over time. The types of housing included in the General Plan Alternatives, I In this context, "average prices" range from the low $400,000's for townhouses to the low $600,000's for single family units, while "higher prices" range from $600,000 for townhoues to $800,000 for single family units. City of Newport Beach 2 r, "t combined with current market trends, result in higher property tax revenues than is typically generated by the current housing stock. This leads to a positive fiscal outcome for most of the residential scenarios analyzed in this report (see Figure 4) (more discussion of residential values is provided at the end of this report). FIGURE 2 Overall Cost - Revenue Impact of Existing Land Uses ($ Millions) Public -$6.9 TOTAL = $0.1 Million Institutional $0.07 Service Commercial $1.9 ikMarine $2.4 Industrial -$1.6 Office -$5.4 Residential -$7.7 FIGURE 3 Impact of Existing Visitors ($ Millions) TOTAL = $4.7 Million Public $7.5 Institutional ;0 Service Commercial $0.1 Marine $0.2 Lodging $7.8 Industrial $0 Retail $3.1 Office $0 Residential $0.7 City of Newport Beach 3 r� .D i $12.00 $10.00 -8 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 ($2.00) ate° e� Figure 4 GPAC Alternatives by Land Use It`c2 ■True Minimum ■ Aks Minimum ❑ ARs Maximum City of Newport Beach FISCAL IMPACT OF THE ALTERNATIVES CITYWIDE ALTERNATIVES The fiscal performance of the alternatives and the various options for the sub -areas is a function largely of their land use combination and the amount of new development of each type. Three citywide alternatives were assembled, representing low and high levels of traffic generation. These same alternatives have been evaluated here from a fiscal standpoint; but perhaps not surprisingly, the results are the reverse of the traffic analysis. The maximum trip generation alternative generates the best fiscal benefit. While the two minimum traffic generation alternatives still generate positive fiscal results, they have lower net revenues (Table l). The outcome for the minimum alternatives could be significantly affected by the cost of purchasing Banning Ranch for open space, if the cost were home by the City of Newport Beach. As discussed below in the section on Banning Ranch, the cost of the land could require bond payments as high as $10.3 million annually. This would cause both of the minimum alternatives to show a negative fiscal impact. However, it is possible this transaction could be undertaken by other groups or agencies, or perhaps with the aid of state or federal funds. For these reasons, the land purchase has not been included in the figures in Table 1, but it must be recognized that the cost of the open space option at Banning Ranch could be substantial. A number of the individual options for many of the subareas do show a negative fiscal impact, as discussed in more detail in the next section. Table 2 provides some perspective for this discussion by presenting the individual options that comprise the citywide alternatives. The table indicates the percent contribution of each area to the grand total for each alternative, and demonstrates that although some of the areas have negative fiscal impacts, the magnitude of the impact is minimal. City of Newport Beach 5 Q D H i+ m C d I Q C m a W � J -C C Q d 0 t m CO. C H YI ry O Y < P a � ^ a N m °n' O ^ v d d Y Y � d N G U d C d .i d� C Oi V J m z N V C M 3 d z Y 0 0 ccd C d V N d m O N W Q C W J Q b N N O� n ry n 0 v n ry a IR N 0 C m m N n a N N n N N Q1 O� N 0 n ry n O N qd L In 0 m m Q1 O 3 m Z V0 City of Newport Beach TABLE 2 Detailed Alternatives Analysis BALBOA VILLAGE Subarea Subarea Only Only True Options Options Minimum Minimum Maximum AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA -1.0% Option 2- Taylor Woodrow General Plan Growth -2.1% CANNERY VILLAGE GPAC Alternatives Growth General Plan Growth Option 2 52.8% Option 3 34.2% BALBOA VILLAGE GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 3 -25.4% Option 4 BANNING RANCH GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 - -Open Space -1.0% Option 2- Taylor Woodrow CANNERY VILLAGE TAZ 1449 /CANNERY VILLAGE WEST General Plan Growth -0.2% GPAC Alternatives Growth TAZ 1454 /CANNERY VILLAGE EAST GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 Option 2 -26.1% CORONA DEL MAR GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 Option 2 47.6% LIDO ISLE General Plan Growth GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 - -NO change LIDO VILLAGE TA7 1452 General Plan Growth 0.2% GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 2 Option 3 -mixed use TAZ 1453 General Plan Growth -9.0% GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 Option 2 MARINERS MILE TOTAL PLANNING AREA General Plan Growth 32.8% GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 2 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 General Plan Growth 3.4% GPAC Alternatives Growth TAZ 1451 General Plan Growth 4.5% GPAC Alternatives Growth NEWPORT CENTER /FASHION ISLAND General Plan Growth 272.6% GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 Option 2 0.1% 6.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% -1.6% 1.5% 23% 0.6D /D 0.0D% D 0.0% 13.0% 1.8D/D 0.4% 0.8% 17.99/D 9.2% 9.1% 4.7% 19.6% 10.1% 38.1% 8.1% 7 411 TABLE 2 Detailed Alternatives Analysis (continued) Only Only True Options Options Minimum Minimum Maximum OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD TAZ 1432 General Plan Growth 23.6% GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 1 1.0% Option 2 3.0% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Block A Option 2 (spec needs housing) 0.0% Option 4 (parking lot) 0.9% 0.1% Block B (no change, est. exist dus) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Block C Option 1 (vertical mixed use) 4.9% Option 4 (limit rtl, hsg, & hotel) 108.1% 6.4% Non -Study Area 35.4% 2.1% 1.1% WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL GPAC Alternatives Growth Option 2 (total TAZ) -15.4% Option 3 (total TAZ) - 365.6% -21.8% TOTAL* 100.00/0 100.00/0 100.0% 'Note Totals do not add due to rounding. FISCAL IMPACT OF SUBAREA OPTIONS An analysis was run for every land use option in each subarea in the General Plan alternatives analysis. The analysis addresses only the incremental land use change, and does not account for existing land uses that would remain in place for each alternative. While the options within each subarea may be mutually exclusive, the fiscal results for the options may be added to those for options in other subareas to create results for any combination of subareas throughout the City. A brief discussion of each subarea is provided below. AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA According to the existing General Plan Growth Scenario, the Airport Business area would add primarily commercial and office development, with little change in the number of hotel rooms. This scenario produces a negative fiscal effect, primarily due to the amount of office space in relation to other land uses (fable 3). City of Newport Beach 8 .} 1 Under the GPAC alternatives, Option l would see substantially more office development, but also significant growth in lodging. New retail development would be similar to the existing General Plan. This option produces a very strong $3.2 million in annual net revenues. Option 2 introduces mixed use residential and commercial development, with less office space and lodging than in Option 1. It performs very well, with $2.8 million in annual net revenue. Option 3 expands the mixed use development over Option 2, and provides much less office space, but the same amount of hotel development as in Option 2. It has the best fiscal impact of the GPAC options in this area, with $3.5 million in annual net revenues. BALBOA VILLAGE There are five options in this area in addition to the existing General Plan (Table 4). Under the General Plan Growth Scenario, the area would see growth in condominiums and single - family units in lieu of some existing single family units. There would also be a small amount of new retail and office development. Overall, this scenario creates a negative fiscal impact of about $93,000 per year. The first three GPAC alternatives show very similar residential development patterns as the General Plan alternative, but with slightly varying amounts of commercial or office space. Their fiscal effects are very similar to the General Plan, ranging from negative $80,000 to negative $93,500. Options 4 and 5 include mixed use development, featuring residential over retail space. Option 5 also includes new hotel space, not included in any of the other options. The hotel development creates a positive fiscal impact for Option 5, while Option 4 remains slightly negative. BANNING RANCH In the General Plan Growth Scenario, the Banning Ranch Area is slated to have 2,496 multi- family units, in addition to 225 single - family units. There would be commercial development to support the residential uses, as well as industrial and office uses in portions of the site adjacent to the existing West Newport industrial area. It is anticipated City of Newport Beach 9 S V that this site would support higher than average residential values, and the General Plan scenario produces a modest positive fiscal impact of about $27,000 per year. The GPAC options range from devoting the entire site to open space (Option 1) to various levels of residential and commercial uses substantially below the amount allowed by the existing General Plan (Options 2 and 3), with no office or industrial space. These middle option are variations on the previously proposed Taylor Woodrow project, and both create a healthy fiscal benefit of nearly $600,000 to $700,000 per year (Table 5). Option 4 would include a resort on a smaller portion of the site, with relatively little housing and no industrial or office space. However, the lodging development would create a $1.7 million net fiscal benefit, which is the best result of all the scenarios for Banning Ranch. The open space option would entail significant cost to purchase and maintain the land at Banning Ranch. The value of the land is dependent upon the development options available to it For this analysis, we have taken the approach of estimating the total value of the various land use options included in the alternatives analysis and then setting the land value at 25 percent of total value for each option (Table 6). The development permitted under the existing General Plan is the most intensive of the options, and would result in a total development value of over $1.7 billion. Options 2 and 3 reduce this value somewhat. Option 4, a small scale resort development, represents the lowest overall value project, primarily because it uses only a small portion of the site. We have taken the average of these alternatives to represent the potential value of a project at Banning Ranch. This results in a potential land value of $226 million. If the community were to approve a 30 -year bond measure to finance this purchase, the annual debt service would be about $10.3 million. City of Newport Beach 10 �J 2� \ `\ \i ! \ 2 § � { � k � ce E \j ce co§ � k ) C) k) d)\ Qo \\ kE � k ce � ( j co a » ) 7| \ . _ ' z q� @/ ca }0 % ce k § § cm \�$ �m CIZ. 6 Cz \ \ \ & � As discussed in the Introduction, other options may be possible for purchasing the land, some of which may not require any investment from the City of Newport Beach itself Therefore, the land purchase has been kept separate from the fiscal impact of the onsite land uses in Table 5. TABLE 6 Estimated Land and Development Values at Banning Ranch LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS General Plan Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 RESIDENTIAL Single Family $202,500,000 $787,500,000 $392,400,000 $0 Multi - Family $1,388,400,000 $487,275,000 $142,675,000 $26,000,000 Subtotal Residential $1,590,900,000 $1,274,775,000 $535,075,000 $26,000,000 NON- RESIDENTIAL Office $33,431,918 $0 $0 $0 Retail $1,859,526 $2,789,289 $1,301,668 $929,763 Industrial $108,976,964 $0 $0 $0 Lodging $0 $5,997,503 $5,997,503 $20,951,277 Service Commercial $12,395592 $3,593,977 $1,677,189 $1,197,992 Subtotal Non - Residential $156,664,000 $12,380,768 $8,976,360 $23,079,032 TOTAL $1,747,564,000 $1,287,155,768 $544,051,360 $49,079,032 ESTIMATED LAND VALUE $436,891,000 $321,788,942 $136,012,840 $12,269,758 AVERAGE AMONG THE OPTIONS $226,740,635 ANNUAL COST' $10,316,699 `Based on a 30 year bond @ 5% Source: ADE., Inc. CANNERY VILLAGE The east and west villages have been addressed separately in the analysis (fable 7). CANNERY VILLAGE WEST (TAZ 1 449) Under the existing General Plan, thus area would see a small amount of condominium development and some commercial growth. This scenario has a minor negative fiscal impact. The GPAC alternative would include mixed -use development with residential over commercial space, and increase the intensity of development over the existing General Plan. All of the land uses in this option are fiscally positive, totaling about $45,000 in net revenue per year. City of Newport Beach 12 1 q iF CANNERY VILLAGE EAST (TAZ 1 454) The existing General Plan would allow additional condominium development along with a small amount of retail, office and waterfront industrial development in this area. The industrial uses contribute to a negative fiscal impact, although if the future development includes boat sales along with repair, it could actually be a positive fiscal benefit. The GPAC Option 1 would have mixed use development at greater intensities, while Option 2 focuses mainly on multi- family residential development, in place of some of the existing commercial space in the area. The mixed use development in Option 1 creates a positive fiscal impact, while the mix of land uses in Option 2 is negative. CORONA DEL MAR According to the General Plan Growth Scenario, the Corona del Mar area will add some single family residential development, with supporting commercial and professional office space. The single family units create a positive fiscal effect, and the scenario as a whole produces more than $129,000 per year in net revenue (Table 8). Options 1 and 2 introduce mixed -use space, along with the new single family units. These options have even higher fiscal benefits due to the higher intensity of residential development. LIDO ISLE The existing General Plan would allow additional growth in single family units. In addition to this option, the GPAC also defined an alternative that would keep development as it currently exists in the area. The existing General Plan development scenario would increase property values in the area and have a positive fiscal benefit of about $64,000 per year, which would not be realized with the alternative (Table 9). City of Newport Beach 13 D1 Op V ti a a d N N C O T+ y T+ H C M � m N V dE E u 0 d W N C d E CN O F V O J IC O O jp N N d L y �.r:lyyi d O V C M d � y W V `^ Q 2 CL ~ V n d m E N M 0 y N ti C Y1 n' N O � N O x W O N d � N W 3 5 5 J J 5 5 W W 3 G G o � N a na i Q 'd H t7 ZZ 0 d C c WV m LO f L V a a A C O L y i H C M Ud C d E E O u d C d LA C LT 9 O J d i V C M K V 0 C H O x i O eL: a f W 0 Q Z LL: O u N Ml:ifll LT W y J Oi !- L d m O N W � a � O O N i � I i y L H C M � V O O W � 2E 00 u y 0 0 W N C I � S I C V O J 10 O my O WF+t! N y i V C w W A •+ I d C I I O O N W 0 0 C O � � N = I O� O 1p�/1 W i O I � J u! M M � (� LO m Z O c `w o v usL n l7 O 2 U s C- LIDO VILLAGE The north and south sections of this subarea have been addressed separately in the analysis (Table 9). LIDO VILLAGE NORTH (TAZ 1452) In the northern portion of Lido Village, little growth would occur in the General Plan Scenario and there is little fiscal effect. Under the GPAC alternatives, both Option 1 and Option 3 would include mixed use development, with residential over commercial space. Option 2 focuses more on retail and visitor accommodation, although Option 1 also includes new hotel space. Due to the hotel space, Options 1 and 2 return a substantial $1.3 million annual fiscal benefit, wlvle the Option 3 fiscal impact is a much more modest $95,000 per year (Table 10). LIDO VILLAGE SOUTH (TAZ 1453) The existing General Plan for this area would alloxv some new office development and a small amount of new commercial space. The office space contributes to an overall negative fiscal impact by this scenario of more than $28,000 per year. Under the GPAC alternatives, Option 1 would increase the retail development potential and reduce office space, while Option 2 would have mixed use residential and retail space and no new office space. While both of these options are positive fiscally, Option 2 performs much better at $78,000 per year in net revenues (Table 10). MARINERS MILE In the General Plan Growth Scenario, the Mariners Mile project area is projected to include additional office space, and a small amount of hotel development. This scenario would result in a positive fiscal impact of about $103,000 per year (Table 11). The GPAC options would add mixed use development, substantially increasing the amount of housing development in the area, along with the same increase in lodging as in the existing General Plan. In addition, Option 2 would focus on marine uses in -lieu of some of the other non - residential land CRyof Newport Beach 15 {� IQ uses. This would boost the fiscal benefit of the option to more than $950,000 per year, up from $305,000 per year under Option 1. MCFADDEN SQUARE The east and west portions of this subarea have been addressed separately in the analysis (fable 12). MCFADDEN SQUARE EAST (TAZ 1 450) The existing General Plan would permit some increase in single family attached housing in this area, along with a small amount of commercial development. This land use mix produces a small fiscal benefit of about $10,000 per year. The GPAC alternatives would include mixed use development with residential over office space. There would also be additional lodging development, which substantially increases the fiscal benefit by $483,000 per year (fable 12). MCFADDEN SQUARE WEST (TAZ 14 5 1 In this area, the existing General Plan would also allow some single - family detached units along with townhouse or duplex developments. As with the east side of this area, this mix produces a modest positive fiscal benefit ($14,000 per year). The GPAC alternative would focus on lodging development with some supporting commercial space, creating net positive revenues of over $1 million annually. City of Newport Beach 16 r; C1 a al V Ot 0 O O. Wy to! L U t V m a 0 M m EW E 00 U 0 cc E 0 ii 12 cc ce -C 1] cz� -mz E E 0 rl� r4 Fs ti r4 cc O cc z U< u CC) E E ul N uku rA ct, <u A < .2t, 0 NEWPORT CENTER /FASHION ISLAND The existing General Plan would allow some increases in nearly all of the existing land uses including commercial, office and hotels. There would be no increase in residential development, however. This scenario creates a fiscal benefit of more than $860,000 per year (fable 13). The GPAC alternatives would have varying amounts of new development in the non - residential land use categories, along with potentially substantial increases in multi- family residential development. Option 1 would have significantly more hotel development than would either the existing General Plan or the other GPAC options, and would also significantly increase the amount of retail development in the area. This combination of land uses creates the best fiscal benefit in the area, at $3.9 million per year (fable 13). Option 2 significantly increases the amount of office space that would be permitted, which reduces the fiscal benefit of this scenario to $428,000. Option 3 has the same office and hotel growth as the existing general Plan, but increases retail development over Option 2, thus resulting in a mid -range fiscal benefit for this area of $927,000 per year. Also, this option has more housing than the others, and given the anticipated market segments for the housing this increases the fiscal benefit of the option. OLD NEWPORT BLVD. The existing General Plan option increases single family attached units along with some commercial and office space. This scenario would have a positive fiscal impact of about $74,000 per year (Table 14). The GPAC options focus on mixed use residential and commercial development, along with a small amount of additional lodging. In addition, Option 1 includes increased medical offices in the area. However, with the lodging and an increased component of retail development, Option 1 has a solid fiscal benefit of about $99,000 per year. Option 2 performs much better without the office space, despite having slightly less retail development. It produces about $161,000 per year. Option 3 deletes the lodging and has a fiscal benefit of only $18,000 per year. City of Newport Beach 78 r)% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL The existing General Plan would see very little additional development in this area and a modest fiscal benefit. The GPAC Option 1 adds mixed use residential and commercial development, with some reduction in the existing lodging rooms in the area. This results in a negative fiscal impact of more than $500,000 per year. Option 2 concentrates on adding some housing and more lodging to the area, and has the best fiscal benefit, at about $1.2 million annually. Option 3 adds more commercial and open space but also results in a reduction of lodging, and a resulting negative fiscal impact. Option 4 provides limited additional retail, residential and hotel development, with a positive fiscal impact of more than $340,000 per year. WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL This area features growth in industrial and office uses and expansion of the hospital. The hospital is certainly a major community resource, and in many ways is likely an economic engine in terms of fostering related medical office development and possibly medical equipment sales. However, because it is operated by a non -profit religious group, the City receives very little property tax from the hospital. The available revenues do not cover the estimated city services costs. This greatly influences the outcome of all the development scenarios in this area. The potential impact of the hospital expansion is approximately negative $1 million annually. In addition to the hospital project, the three GPAC options in this area include progressively larger components of multi- family housing development. Option 1 also includes substantial industrial development along with a moderate amount of office space, creating a negative $1.3 million annual fiscal impact (Table 16). Option 2 includes some commercial development and a very large medical office component, but reduces the amount of industrial development compared to Option 1. Option 2 has the worst fiscal impact of the three, at negative $1.5 million. Option 3 includes the most housing development of the three and actually reduces some of the existing industrial space to make room for the housing and new office development. This option has the best fiscal result, at negative $1.1 million. Cdy of Newport Beach 19 113 N 1 J to F N U m m 3 2 U ()4 p i� K IN. iAF K � _ V :Zn N U m m 3 2 U ()4 Ln co F q, , Ch cc [174 N: L ry r .3 c U 0 0 2 V O m E E 0 U tA O V E 0 O Z cc z t; 3: O V. A cc O ce Z -x 0�71 'IT < f.: T ,z c ."b %0 a 0 0 0 0 (a q, , Ch cc [174 N: L ry r .3 c U 0 0 2 V O m E E 0 U tA O V E 0 O Z cc z t; 3: O V. A NOTE ON RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUES When we analyzed new home prices for the fiscal impact of Newport Coast in 2002 and 2003, single family prices averaged $815,000 and townhouses averaged about $600,000. Our analysis of existing land uses in Newport Beach showed that there was very little new multi family product, and most of the assessed values of existing apartment units have declined substantially relative to market conditions. Our fiscal analysis indicated that existing residential units generally did not pay their way for City services because the property taxes on existing assessed values were not sufficient However, new homes such as those in Newport Coast were valued high enough to create a positive fiscal impact. For the alternative analysis in this report, the following assumptions have been made about unit values. • Single family: $900,000 • Condominium: $650,000 • Mixed Use apartments : $344,000 • Other apartments: $275,000 The land use alternatives have been defined in terms of broad land use categories. In order to prepare the fiscal analysis, we have made additional more detailed assumptions about the unit types and values. In the Airport area, Banning Ranch and Newport Center, 75 percent of the multi-family units would be condominiums. In other areas, the ownership share would be 50 percent. For mixed use residential, 75 percent would be condominiums ($650,000) and the other 25 percent are valued at $344,000. City of Newport Beach 22 /)if Newport Beach Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives May 2005 . Introduction The Fiscal Analysis is ... u Based on the fiscal model developed earlier in the process. Does not account for inflation — the analysis is intended to compare the land use mixes in the options within a common framework. The fiscal analysis is not a market analysis. Does not address infrastructure needs at this time. Overall Cost - Revenue Impact ($ Millions) Public -$6.7 TOTAL = $0.1 Million Industrial -$1.5 Office -$5.0 Residential -$6.7 _ Public -$7.4 Institutional $0.08 Service Commercial $1.8 Marine $2.4 Retail Impact of Visitors ($ Millions) TOTAL = $4.9 Million Institutional $0 Service Commercial $0.1 Marine $0.2 Industrial $0 � 1 Retail $3.2 Office $0 Residential $0.9 Lodging $7.8 Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach V Worker earnings from businesses outsitle Newppt Beach S8 L >nma. REST OF THE WORLDS ECONOMY furtlu.. Xawput BexA pmE�MS.M wvirm 1 + Net Taz D011.n for S mioY — Utco— for r *. L Yvhar spaamap ta�arc a.[T..OWi.n for Se�rim TnwCOrs .m vialmr spaml.s Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach WOAD �n�s\ hOw �s ANfa\ AABDrf �dl L tame. REST OF THE WORLDS ECONOMY 5s—...�a.n r� wrr Ir r�� Porch— fYwPart pr av� 1 Sues and icc + Net To. Dell.r% for Servir6 — ShoppfrV for �k- Buis b &moss Tn�- .aaYniors mdiy WE T— DoUrs Buis b &moss Tn�- .aaYniors mdiy WE Citywide Alternatives ($ Millions) ;12.0 $10.0 - - -- - f $8.0 - > $4.0 K 54.0 $2.0 _ ;0.0 True Minimum Alts Minimum Alts Maximum The result is partly from differences in total development and partly land use mix. Citywide Alternatives by Major Land Use $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 E $6.00 5 A Mii . e $4.00 J c AI[S Maxmum: $2.00 $0.00 Lodging drives the outcome: $1.5 mil in True Min., $6.0 mil. in Alts Min., and $9.6 mil. in Alts Max. S ' Citywide Alternatives � by Major Subarea W. M® W.r MRT HW OLD N MRT BLVD. p N PORT CTR. C MCFADDENSQ. I MARINERS MILE p LIDO VIL. I CDR. DEL MAR p CAIf6RY VIL.o BALBOA VIL.0 (s2,000) ( ;1,000) so $1,000 $2,000 ;3,000 $4,000 Annual Contribution to Akernative (000'x) := True Minimum Citywide Alternatives by Major Subarea W.MIVPpiTHWY IFHIPDRT aR. O MCFADDENSQ.� MARIlBRS MILE � COR. DM MAR ■ CAN`SRY VILK BALBOA VIL1 AIRF gRT AREA ( ;2,000) ($1,000) $0 $1,000 ;2,000 ;3,000 $4,000 Annual Contribution to Alternative (DOD's) o= Subareas Only Minimum 5 Citywide Alternatives by Major Subarea W. NEWPORT NWV NEWPORTRR. ■ MCFADDIN SQ. S MARINERS MILE - ❑DO VIL. BANNING RANCH AIRPORT AREA ($2,000) ($1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 Annual Contribution t0 Alternative (000'x) Subareas Only Maximum L1.' Subarea Options: Airport Area Existing GP �----- ------- -- ----- '-- - -- Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 ($500) $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 Annual Net Revenue (000's) Existing GP focuses on office development v Options add mixed use and lodging. N. Option 3 has less office. M Subarea Options: Balboa Village Existing G Option 1 Option Option 3 Option Option 5 ( ;1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $6,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) Existing GP is mainly multi family residential. Options 4 and 5 have mixed use but only Option 5 has lodging. Subarea Options: Banning Ranch Existing GP Option 1 Option 2 i Option 3 Option 4 - ($1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) Existing GP has office and industrial along with housing. :, Option 4 is the resort. $4,000 i 7 Subarea Options: Cannery Village West 1 ■ Fxis[in9 GP ® GPAC ARernative ($1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) Alternative has mixed use at higher intensity than Existing GP. Subarea Options: Cannery Village ` - -' West E Existing GP 10 GPAC Alter. at ive ($10) $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Annual Net Revenues (000's) Alternative has mixed use at higher intensity than Existing GP. 9 Subarea Options: Cannery Village East B isting GP l Option 1 Option ($1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 54,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) Option 1 includes mixed use while Option 2 is mainly multi - family development. K Subarea Options: Cannery Village East Option I ($100) ($50) $0 $50 $100 Annual Dist Revenues (000's) =F Option 1 includes mixed use while Option 2 is mainly multi - family development. S Subarea Options: Corona del Mar Beisting GP . Option 1 Option 2 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) :t Options add mixed use to increased single family units. Subarea Options: Corona del Mar Existing GP Option 1 Option 2 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 Annual Net Revenues (000's) <. Options add mixed use to increased single family units. 10 `` Subarea Options: Lido Isle .�� p $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 A.... I .., a.......; GDO .i t: Existing GP allows further development on existing lots. Subarea Options: Lido Village North Existing GP Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3500 $4,000 Annual Net Revnues (000's) 001 Options 1 and 2 focus on lodging and commercial, while Option 3 has mixed use. II ';`-, subarea Options: Lido Village South General plan p Growth 4 Option 1 Option 2 0 ( ;1,000) $0 ;1,000 ;2,000 ;3,000 $4,000 Annual fit Revenues (000's) 4o Existing GP adds office and commercial. v nntinn 1 has increased retail and nffice while Ontion 2 has mixed use with no office. �,_j:� ubarea Options: Lido Village South 0 Option 1 Option 2,° ( ;40) ( ;20) ;0 $20 $40 ;60 $80 ;100 Annual PYt Revenues (000's) :, Existing GP adds office and commercial. a nntinn 1 has inrreased retail and nffice while Ontion 2 has mixed use with no office. 12 Subarea Options: Mariners Mile Existing GP' Option 1 . Option 2 - $0 $500 $1,000 ;1,500 ;2,000 ;2,500 ;3,000 $3,S00 ;4,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) �= Option 1 includes mixed use. Option 2 also adds marine uses. &$ubarea Options: McFadden Square East r^.a �m Existing GP MU GPA � Altematives:: $0 $1,000 52,000 -- 53,000 ;4,000 Annual Net Revenue (000's) 0 Existing GP adds housing. v: Alternative adds mixed use with lodging. 13 `t Subarea Options: McFadden Square West 'IN ■ Fzlsting GP ®GPAC ARernalives $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $6,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) 0 Existing GP would add some housing. Alternative adds lodging and commercial. K ; Subarea Options: Newport Center /Fashion Island lusting GP — Option 1 Option 2 +_ I ' Option — $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $6,000 Annual Net Revenues (000's) :s Option 1 includes more retail and lodging. Option 2 has more office. Option 3 has more retail than Option 2 fD n .%�%%J Subarea Options: Old Newport Blvd. Existing GP Opton 1 Opton 2 I Option 3 f0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 44,00 Annual Wt Revenues (000's) c Existing GP adds housing. c; Option 1 emphasizes medical offices while Option 2 adds lodging. t: Option 3 deletes the lodging. ',,�;Bubarea Options: Old Newport Blvd. amting GP — Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 - I $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 Annwl Wt Revenues (000's) w Existing GP adds housing. Option 1 emphasizes medical offices while Option 2 adds lodging. Option 3 deletes the lodging. 15 t(�ubarea Options: West Newport Hwy Block C OM Option 3 O_ Option 4. ($1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 53,000 $4,000 Annual Mt Revenue (0001) Option 2 includes housing and lodging. Options 1 and 3 reduce lodging. Option 4 reduces the amount of housing and lodging. Subarea Options: West Newport -�" Industrial 1 d MUR N= Option ($4,000) ($3.500) ($0.000) ($3.500) ($3.000) ($1500) ($1,000) (S 5001 $0 Annual Net Revenues (000'$) :- Option 1 focuses in industrial. Option 2 emphasizes office. Option 3 adds housing. 16 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS Building the Knowledge and Resources Communities Need to Realize Their Economic Potential 17