Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
95-35 - Establish a Traffic Impact Fee
RESOLUTION NO. '76-.35- A 'S-3S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PERTAINING TO NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. enables cities to charge fees for transportation facilities; and 2. WHEREAS, on May 17, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance 93-11 authorizing the adoption of a traffic impact fee; and 3. WHEREAS, on June 7, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-43 to establish a traffic impact fee pertaining to new development in the City of Costa Mesa and related capital improvement plan for transportation improvements; and 4. WHEREAS, on June 21, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-53 to establish that the traffic impact fee shall be assessed upon all new development projects which have not received a building permit on or before August 6, 1993. 5. WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-59 to reestablish the traffic impact fee and conduct an annual review of the fee and capital improvements plan; and 6. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66001(d) requires the City Council to make findings once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of the traffic impact fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after deposit of the fee to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it was charged; and 7. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66002(b) requires the City Council to review and annually update the capital improvements plan for improvements to be paid for by the traffic impact fee; and 8. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires the City of Costa Mesa to make available to the public the beginning and ending balance for the fiscal year for the traffic impact fee and the fee, interest, and other income and the amount of expenditure and refunds of the traffic impact fee by the City of Costa Mesa during the fiscal year; and 9. WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to comply with the annual review responsibilities under the California Government Code; and 10. WHEREAS, the secondary purpose of this resolution is to reestablish a traffic impact fee program to enable the City of Costa Mesa to comply with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County Measure M Program; and 11. WHEREAS, the traffic impact fee is necessary because new development will bring an increased need for public transportation/circulation facilities in the City of Costa Mesa during peak periods and throughout the remainder of the day; the City transportation/circulation system will be burdened by the demands of carrying the vehicles of a larger number of persons and cargo due to new commercial, industrial and residential uses; the 1990 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 1044 indicate that the development of new commercial, industrial, and residential uses is expected to exceed current commercial, industrial, and residential uses and that the City transportation/circulation systems will need to be increased in capacity to carry the increase in vehicles due to new commercial, industrial, and residential uses; and 12. WHEREAS, the City conducted a Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study in 1993 establishing the costs of public transportation facilities attributed to the development of new commercial, industrial, and residential uses and the study is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein; and 13. WHEREAS, the Public Services Department has conducted an audit of the accounts for the traffic impact fee program and the audit is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein; and 14. WHEREAS, the traffic study and audit were available for public inspection and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing; and 15. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66001, 66002, 66006, 66016, and 66018, notice was mailed to all interested parties on record fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing; and 16. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 1, 1995, received testimony and evidence from the developers in the City of Costa Mesa and has evaluated justification for establishment of the fee given economic and social factors, as well as average fees charged by surrounding cities; and 17. WHEREAS, the City Council, based on the 1990 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 1044 and the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study, public testimony, opinions of its traffic engineers, and other evidence received at the public hearings on May 17, 1993, May 21, 1993, June 7, 1993, and June 6, 1994, and May 1, 1995, does hereby make the following additional findings: A. The purpose of the fee is to fund circulation/ transportation improvements with the City of Costa Mesa which are related directly to the incremental traffic/vehicle burden imposed upon the City transportation/ circulation system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses as permitted by the 1990 General Plan and identified in Environmental Impact Report No. 1044, and to comply with eligibility requirements of the Orange County Measure M Program; and B. There is a reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee's use and the development projects on which the fee is imposed because the transportation/ circulation facilities funded by the fee are needed to accommodate the incremental new traffic/vehicle burdens generated by the development of new commercial, industrial, and residential uses upon which the fee is imposed; and C. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the transportation/circulation facilities and the development of new commercial, industrial and residential projects upon which the fee is imposed because the new development projects paying the fee will receive a direct benefit from the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee; the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee will increase traffic/vehicle circulation capacity on streets and highways directly burdened by the increase in traffic/vehicles generated by new development projects upon which the fee is charged; the cost of transportation/circulation facilities attributed to existing deficiencies, existing land uses and population, excess and reserve capacity, and regional transportation needs have been excluded from the fee calculation, and such costs are not included in the fee to be paid by development; and D. There does not exist any portion of the traffic impact fee imposed under Resolution Nos. 93-43 and 94-59 remaining unexpended or uncommitted in the City of Costa Mesa accounts five or more years after the deposit of the fee, and no refunds of the fee are required; and the capital improvements plan adopted by Resolution Nos. 93-43 and 94-59 and set forth in Exhibit A remains adequate to provide the facilities for which the traffic impact fee is charges and does not need to be amended; and the audit by the Public Services Department set forth in Exhibit B accurately reflects the balance of the traffic impact fee account on the fees collected, interest, and other income and amount of expenditure and refunds of the traffic impact fee by the City of Costa Mesa during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, does hereby adopt a traffic impact fee and traffic impact fee regulations as follows: 1. The traffic impact fee shall be a fee of $200.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip end generated by all new commercial, industrial, and residential developments on a Citywide basis. 2. The traffic impact fee established pursuant to this resolution shall be collected and administered to comply with all of the requirements of Ordinance No. 93-11. 3. Once the fee is deposited with the Finance Department of the City of Costa Mesa, the fee shall be deposited in an account separate from the General Fund with interest thereon deposited back to such account. Records of the deposits, interest, expenditures, and refunds of the fees in the account shall be maintained by the Finance Department pursuant to Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006. The fee shall be used only for those transportation/circulation improvements and services identified in the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study attached as Exhibit A. The fee shall be subject to review by the Director of Public Services every twelve (12) months to determine that the fee does not exceed the cost of transportation/circulation improvements to accommodate the traffic/vehicles generated by new commercial, industrial, and residential development that pay the fee. Should the fee require adjustment, the Director shall set the fee for public hearing and adjustment by City Council as required by Government Code § 66016. Once each fiscal year, the City Council shall make findings with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after deposit of the fee as required by Government Code Section 66001. 4. The traffic impact fee shall be assessed upon all development projects which have not received a building permit on or before August 6, 1993. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, does hereby adopt the comprehensive transportation/circulation system capital improvements plan, as identified in the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to Government Code Section 66002. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 st day of May, 1995. ATTEST: 2b42�� — -L C� •._._ Deputy City Cle6 of the City of Costa Mesa Mayr of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) APf ROVED fA�S—�T-OFORM COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss '4"g4 CITY OF COSTA MESA ) CITY ATTORNEY I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. ?6--3s— was S-3Swas duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of May, 1995. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 2nd day of May, 1995. 0 Deputy Cit Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City C61incil of the City of Costa Mesa Resolution 95-35 tE XC 4; /-5/T "4" CITY OF COSTA MESA ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 1995 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i LIST OF EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Existing Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3. Fee Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. Fee Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Total Cost of Public Transportation/ Circulation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 3 — (1) Master Plan of Highways . . . . . . . . . 4 (2) Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . . 5 ' B. Adjustments of Costs for Public Transportation/ Circulation Improvements for Existing Deficiencies, Growth of Existing Population, Excess Capacity, and Regional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (1) Adjustment of Costs Related to Existing Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . 7 (2) Adjustment of Costs for Growth of Existing Population . . . . . . . . . . . 10 -� (3) Adjustment of Costs Related to Excess Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (4) Adjustment of Costs for Regional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 (5) Summary of Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . 11 C. Trip end Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 (1) Adjustment for Trip Chaining . . . . . . . 12 D. Maximum Traffic Impact Fee . . . . . . . . . . 14 E. Baseline Traffic Impact Fee . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Traffic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix "A" Appendix "B" ... Appendix "C" i LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Number A. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Area of Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Master Plan of Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. Comprehensive Transportation System (Capital) Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-23 D. Costa Mesa Traffic Analysis Zones . . . . . . . . . 24 E. General Plan Traffic Growth Analysis . . . . . . . 25-28 F. Local and Regional Trip Ends . . . . . . . . . . . 29 G. Allocation of Trip Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 H. Traffic Impact Fee Work Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . 31-32 I. Traffic Impact Fee Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . 33 ii CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY 1. INTRODUCTION This study is a revision of the 1993 City-wide Traffic Impact Fee Study which established the basis for the imposition of a city-wide traffic impact fee pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and Ordinance No. 93-11. The purpose of the fee is to fund transportation/circulation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa which are related directly to the incremental traffic/vehicle burden imposed on the City's transportation/ circulation system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses as permitted by the 1990 General Plan and identified in Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") No. 1044, and to maintain compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County Measure M Program ("Measure M"). 2. EXISTING FEES In June 1993, a city-wide traffic impact fee program was adopted to comply with the eligibility requirements of the -- Orange County Measure M Program. An interim traf f is impact fee of $228 per average daily trip end for new developments was adopted based on designated General Plan public improvements, downgrades approved by Orange County and the exclusion of any contribution towards freeway improvements. During discussions at the June 7, 1993 City Council Meeting, the development community expressed their willingness to work with staff on all aspects related to the revision of the traffic impact fees, including freeway access improvements. On July 7, 1993, City Council approved the formation and structure of an Ad Hoc Committee and directed staff to seek applications from interested parties. Appointments to the Ad _ Hoc Committee (chaired by a Council Member) were approved on November 1, 1993. The appointed Committee members and their affiliations were as follows: Mayor Sandra Genis Mark Korando Ed Fawcett Malcolm Ross Kerry Smith 1 City Council Member Planning Commissioner Chamber of Commerce Representative Major Developers/Landowners Representative Small Developers/Landowners Representative 3. I - Gene Hutchins At -large member representing homeowners associations Derald Hunt At -large member representing the residents of Costa Mesa Ralph Ringo Alternate member In June 1994, due to delays in the completion of the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model and based on the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee, the existing fee of $228 per average daily trip end was reestablished as the continued interim traffic impact fee. In addition to the city-wide traffic impact fees, the City is also required to collect and directly forward to the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee for developments within the area shown in Exhibit "A. " This study does not justify the Corridor fees. Current San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees are as follows: LAND USE FEE Single Family Residential $2,302 per Dwelling Unit Multi -Family Residential $1,343 per Dwelling Unit Non -Residential $2.95 per square feet FEE PROPOSAL Three (3) alternative traffic impact fees are proposed and justified by this study: A. A baseline fee of 0.5% of the valuation of construction work authorized by a building permit, to be paid by all new commercial, industrial and residential uses, without a requirement to a traffic impact fee study for projects generating over 100 new peak hour trip ends. This baseline fee is the minimum traffic impact fee required by Measure M. B. A baseline fee of 0.5% of the valuation of construction work authorized by a building permit, to be paid by all new commercial, industrial and residential uses, with a requirement that a traffic study be conducted for projects generating over 100 new peak hour trip ends. The traffic study would establish the traffic impact fee for the project on a site specific basis. If the traffic impact fee established by the traffic study is found to be higher than the baseline fee, the project would pay the higher 2 fee. Furthermore, the traffic impact fee established by the traffic study could exceed the maximum traffic impact fee established by this city-wide traffic impact fee study. C. A maximum traffic impact fee of $274 per new average daily vehicle trip end to be paid by all new commercial, industrial, and residential uses within the city. 4. FEE FORMULA The baseline fee and maximum traffic impact fee to be assessed on new development in Costa Mesa is based on the following formula: A. The estimate of total costs of public transportation/ circulation facilities needed to accommodate the traffic in Costa Mesa at build -out (Post -2010) of the General Plan. B. The total public transportation/ circulation facilities cost is adjusted for the following: existing deficiencies in the transportation/ circulation system attributed to existing uses and population, estimated growth of existing population, excess capacity, and regional traffic at build -out (Post -2010). _ C. The estimated total amount of new average daily vehicle trip ends generated by development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses within Costa Mesa at build -out (Post -2010) pursuant to the 1990 General Plan. D. The maximum traffic impact fee is the division of the total public transportation/circulation facilities costs in subsection A, less the adjusted costs in subsection B, by the total new average daily vehicle trip ends in subsection C. Total Adjusted Cost of Facilities Max Per Daily Trip End Fee - Total New Daily Trip Ends within City E. The baseline traffic impact fee is the minimum traffic impact fee charged by a municipality within Growth Management Area No. 8 which is the City of Irvine fee of 0.5% of the valuation of construction work authorized by a building permit. A. TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS The total cost of public transportation/circulation improvements is calculated based on the street and highway improvements shown in the Master Plan of Highways ("MPH") which is part of the 1990 General Plan. The revised 3 estimated total cost for the fee formula is $177.5 million. (1) MASTER PLAN OF HIGHWAYS (MPH) The 1990 General Plan, initiated in 1988 as a comprehensive update of the 1981 General Plan, was adopted by City Council on March 16, 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report #1044 was prepared and completed to identify impacts and mitigation measures of the 1990 General Plan. The 1990 General Plan, EIR #1044 and the 1993 City-wide Traffic Impact Fee Study are hereby incorporated by reference and can be reviewed in their entirety at the Costa Mesa City Hall, Planning Division, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, 92628. The MPH is a hierarchy of streets and highways estimated to accommodate the future build out (Post - 2010) transportation/ circulation needs of the land uses permitted in the General Plan. Initially adopted in 1963, the MPH has been revised a number of times over the years and the revision in 1992 reflects the improvements needed to accommodate _. traffic vehicles estimated to be generated by the land uses permitted due to the 1990 General Plan. The transportation/circulation improvements necessitated by the development projected to occur pursuant to the 1990 General Plan are identified in Table 10 (Pages 147-150) of EIR #1044. The 1994 MPH identified in Exhibit "B," was adopted by City Council on July 5, 1994, and reflects changes to the arterial and intersection improvements identified in EIR #1044 and forms the basis for the development of a comprehensive transportation system (capital) improvement program. The improvements, including freeway improvements, shown in Exhibit "C," are necessary for the build- out of the MPH. The MPH calls out the specific improvements needed to maintain the standard level of service at all signalized intersections specified in the 1990 General Plan and EIR #1044. The 1990 General Plan identifies Level of Service (LOS) "D" or better as the established traffic level of service for all intersections under the sole control of the City, except for the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue which has an established LOS "E" or better. LOS D represents a traffic level of service at 90% capacity on the street. LOS E represents a traffic level of service at 100% capacity on the street. 4 The total cost for all transportation circulation improvements necessary for build -out of the MPH is estimated to total approximately $177.5 million. This total cost includes an estimated cost of $76.7 million for freeway improvements, $75.4 million for arterial improvements, and $25.4 million for intersection improvements. All cost estimates which are based on 1993 dollars are substantially the same for 1995. The total cost does not include the administration costs for the construction of the improvements set forth in the MPH. The exclusion of administration costs from the fee program is a staff decision which could be overridden by City Council. If costs for administration (15%) per CalTrans' standards were included, the total costs would be estimated at $204.1 million. The total cost also excludes the regional transportation costs of the SR -55 extension from 19th to 15th Street (estimated cost $126 million) and the SR-55/SR-73 Connectors (estimated cost $6 million). Thus, if all transportation improvements and costs were included, the total cost would exceed $177.5 million. However, for the purpose of the traffic impact fee formula, the total costs of the public transportation/ circulation improvements at build out of the MPH is $177.5 million. (2) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -- The cost of transportation/circulation improvements to be funded by the traffic impact fee are only a part of the total cost of the City's Capital Improvements Program. The program documents include the MPH, the 7 -year Measure M Capital Improvement Program, the 1990 General Plan, EIR No. 1044, Ordinance No. 93-11, the 1993 Traffic Impact Fee Study, and the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program. All of these documents and this study make up the City's Capital Improvements Program. The Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program ("DPPM") adopted by City Council on May 3, 1993, and included as Appendix "A," provides the means, on an annual basis, to track land use entitlements and construction activity, monitor arterial highway volumes and intersection levels of �- service, identify deficiencies and program future capital improvements. The DPPM program will assure that improvements to the transportation circulation system will be in phase with the approved level of development. 5 In addition to the DPPM Program, Ordinance No. 93-11 (Appendix "B") adopted the Transportation Systems Management Code ("Code") to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code ("CMMC"). The Code establishes a process to monitor, update and grant waivers, adjustments and refunds of the traffic impact fee where subsequent traffic studies on a specific project justify such waiver, adjustment or refund (CMMC Section 13-326). The Code establishes a process whereby a traffic study is conducted to verify on a project by project basis the traffic/vehicle impacts generated by new commercial, industrial and residential uses (CMMC Section 13-327). Such traffic studies will be used to coordinate the new development with City and other government agencies to ensure that the construction of transportation/circulation improvements occurs in a timely manner (CMMC Section 13-327). The Code also provides for a reduction in the traffic impact fee and correlated transportation/ circulation improvements based upon the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program by the new commercial, industrial or residential use to reduce traffic/vehicle impacts of such use (CMMC Section 13-327(d)). As discussed herein, new development is charged a traffic impact fee to pay only its fair share of the cost of improvements specified in the City's Capital Improvements Program. In addition to the costs discussed below, the total cost for the MPH excludes administration ($26.6 million), SR -55 extension ($126 million) and SR-55/SR-73 connectors ($6 million). Thus, if all transportation/circulation improvement costs at build out (Post -2010) were included, the total cost would exceed $336.1 million. These excluded costs and other costs deducted from the traffic impact fee program will be funded by the City through Federal, State, and County Measure M grants, assessment districts and other financing sources which may include General Fund monies. B. ADJUSTMENTS OF COSTS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING DEFICIENCIES, GROWTH OF EXISTING POPULATION, EXCESS CAPACITY, AND REGIONAL TRAFFIC Consistent with the principles of Russ Bldg. Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco (1987) 199 Cal.App.3d 1469 (246 Cal. Rptr. 21] and Bixel Associates V. City of w- Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208, the total cost of transportation/circulation improvements ($177.5 million) for the MPH has been subject to a series of adjustments to _ assure that new development projects pay only their fair share of the cost of improvements required by such development. w T LJ In summary, the adjustments include the following improvements and assumptions: (1) The cost of improvements to correct the deficiencies in the City transportation/ circulation system due to existing land uses and population. (2) The cost of improvements to the City transportation/ circulation system due to the natural growth of population not attributed to new commercial, industrial and residential uses between now and build out (Post -2010) of the 1990 General Plan. (3) The cost of improvements to maintain the capacity of the City transportation/circulation system at Level of Service D (0.90). (4) The cost of improvements to the City transportation/ circulation system due to the regional traffic generated by uses and population outside of the City of Costa Mesa. The adjustments and methodology for these items are discussed in the following paragraphs (1) through (5), inclusive: (1) ADJUSTMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO EXISTING DEFICIENCIES Existing deficiencies include those transportation facilities that are currently operating at a level of service worse than the adopted level of service. The 1990 General Plan identifies Level of Service (LOS) "D" or better as the established traffic level of service for all intersections under the sole control of the City, except for the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue which has an established LOS "E" or better. Levels of service are defined and computed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The relationship between LOS and ICU is shown in the table below: LOS ICU A 0.00 - 0.60 B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.81 - 0.90 E 0.91 - 1.00 F > 1.01 7 Y The City of Costa Mesa does not have an adopted LOS standard for arterials or freeways. Typically, intersections need to be widened before mid -block sections. Arterial improvements, hence, are based on intersection improvements. As for freeways, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that "in no case shall the LOS standard be below the level of service "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from level of service "A," except where a segment or intersection has been designated as deficient and a deficiency plan has been adopted pursuant to Section 65089.3." Caltrans collects the necessary data and performs calculations for freeway level of service. Caltrans identified level of service "F" as the current level of service for most of the freeways in 1991 when the Orange County Congestion Management Program was first adopted. Theoretically, it could be argued that there are no existing deficiencies on the freeways as the standard level of service for freeways is the current level of service "F" identified in the CMP. However, level of service "F" is unacceptable to the City of Costa Mesa and as a result Costa Mesa has w undertaken several improvements to rectify and improve freeway access operations. The inclusion of freeway access improvements into the city-wide traffic impact fee program was extensively debated by the Ad Hoc Committee. While some viewed the freeway access improvements as a State responsibility and an unnecessary burden on Costa Mesa developments, others viewed this as a proactive approach by the City to improve local access by lessening problems on the freeways and thereby providing a better business environment. All agreed that the State would not provide any improvements on their own within the foreseeable future. The estimated cost for the 17 freeway access improvement projects is approximately $76.7 million. These improvements were identified in an I-405 Access Report adopted by the City Council in July of 1988. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended adjustments on four specific freeway access improvements to account for "existing deficiencies" on the freeways. These improvements are the three grade -separation — projects (Projects 17b, 25 & 29) and the southbound Bristol Street off ramp project (Project 17a) as shown in the table below: 1.1 IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST Project 17a - Southbound Bristol $1,551,351 Street Off Ramp at I-405 COST Project 17b - Braiding of Newport Boulevard & 17th Southbound Bristol Street On $15,845,009 Ramp - Project 25 - Northbound Bristol $22,075,707 Street Off Ramp and Braid Project 29 - Northbound Fairview $11,085,660 Road On Ramp Braid Fairview Road & Adams The cost of these freeway access improvements applicable to new developments was reduced in proportion to the ratio of existing and future traffic volumes. The intent of this adjustment is to ensure that new developments do not pay to rectify '- "existing deficiencies" on the freeways. The adjustment for "existing deficiencies" is approximately $23.7 million. The 1993 Traffic Impact Fee Study did not identify any deficiencies on arterials. However, four intersections were identified as operating worse than the standard LOS "D" and hence classified as being deficient. These intersections are shown in the table below: The improvement cost for these: intersection improvements applicable to new developments amounts to approximately $1.1 million. 9 IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST 15. Newport Boulevard & 17th $234,000 Street - 55. Harbor Boulevard & I-405 NB Not Ramps Applicable 69. Fairview Road & Adams $761,111 Avenue 105. Harbor Boulevard & Adams $1,788,248 11 Avenue 1 The improvement cost for these: intersection improvements applicable to new developments amounts to approximately $1.1 million. 9 Therefore, the cost of $24.8 million has been deducted from the total overall cost of $177.5 million to account for existing deficiencies. (2) ADJUSTMENT OF COSTS FOR GROWTH OF EXISTING POPULATION Under the Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM), the growth of existing population does not create a demand for traffic improvements. The reasons for this conclusion are two -fold. The Model assumes that the same population will reside in the same number of dwelling units. The Model addresses growth in existing population through the addition of dwelling units to house the increase in population. Due to this assumption, all increased traffic attributed to growth of existing population has been included in the increase in traffic/vehicles generated based on the increase in dwelling units. The Model does not determine growth of population in existing dwelling units due to overcrowding. This omission does not impact the fee analysis because other data is available to fill in this gap. The Model analyses vehicle trips generated by residential uses by using an average trip rate. Preliminary results from the 1991 Southern California Origin -Destination Survey (See Appendix "C") indicate that in comparison to the 1976 data, households in 1991 were larger and owned more vehicles, but made fewer trips per vehicle. Based on this information and historical data in the 1990 General Plan, City staff estimates that overcrowding of existing dwelling units would not increase demands on street capacity. Therefore, no deductions have been made to the total overall cost of $178 million, because the model addresses the growth of existing population. (3) ADJUSTMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO EXCESS CAPACITY City staff has identified two components to determine excess and reserve capacity. Reserve capacity is the current level of service at intersections and arterials which are below LOS D. The reserve capacity on the City's transportation/ circulation system is a valuable asset to the City for which new development has not been charged a traffic impact fee. Any unidentified excess capacity for a transportation improvement which may be claimed to be paid for by new development through the traffic impact fee is offset by the reserve capacity provided to new development. Furthermore, the exclusion of administration costs attributed to _ new developments also offset any unidentified excess capacity. 10 Y The City recognizes that the Russ decision provides — that the City cannot have new development pay to reserve capacity of its streets at LOS D. (Id, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1516.) Thus, the Level of Service D standard reflects a 10% capacity reserve. The cost of freeway access, arterial and intersection improvements applicable to new developments has been further reduced by 10% to account for the reserve capacity. This reduction amounts to approximately $4.9 million for freeway access improvements, $3.6 million for arterial improvements, and $1.4 million for intersection improvements, for a total reduction of $9.9 million. Therefore, the cost of improvements for reserve capacity of LOS D have been deducted from the total cost of $177.5 million of MPH improvements as part of the fee formula. ADJUSTMENT OF COSTS FOR REGIONAL TRAFFIC Based on the CMTM, the regional traffic impacts share of the cost of freeway access, arterial and intersection improvements have been identified. The regional share of freeway access improvements is estimated to cost $28 million. The regional share of arterial improvements is estimated to cost $39.6 million and the regional share of intersection improvements is estimated to cost $11.2 million. Therefore, the cost of freeway access, arterial and intersection improvements attributed to regional traffic of $78.8 million have been deducted from the total cost of $177.5 million as part of the fee formula. (5 ) SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS Based on the above -referenced analysis, the total cost of improvements subject to the traffic impact fee is calculated as follows: (A) Total Cost of MPH Improvements $177.5 million (8) Adjustments (1) Existing Deficiencies (2) Excess & Reserve Capacity (3) Existing Population Growth (4) Regional Traffic Total Deductions (C) Adjusted Cost Subject to Fee 11 $24.8 million $9.9 million $0.0 million $78.8 million $113.5 million $64.0 million Y C. TRIP END ANALYSIS After the costs of improvements to be paid for by the traffic impact fee are established, the next level of analysis under the fee formula is to establish the traffic or trip ends generated by new development. For the purpose of this analysis the CMTM uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation Manual (4th and 5th editions) to calculate the new average daily vehicle trips generated by a specific type of land use authorized by the 1990 General Plan. The City of Costa Mesa has been divided into a number of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) as shown in Exhibit "D." within each TAZ the specific amount of land uses under different land use categories have been assigned trip generation rates from the ITE "Trip Generation Manual." Exhibit "E" shows the traffic growth attributed to development in the 1990 General Plan at the traffic analysis zone level. As indicated in Exhibit "E, " a number of TATs have reduced traffic or negative traffic growth due to land use changes envisioned in the 1990 General Plan. The total traffic growth at build -out due to the 1990 General Plan results in an increase of 240,333 new daily trip ends and a reduction of 125,037 old daily trip ends to result in a net increase of 115,296 new daily trip ends. Of the 240,333 new daily trip ends, 7,481 daily trip ends are from county islands within city sphere of influence, and 14,836 daily trip ends are exempt trip ends generated by public facilities such as civic buildings, libraries, police and fire departments, etc. The new daily trip ends include trips from development projects which are exempt from the trip fee program and identified in Section 13-328 of Article 22% of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code such as public libraries, public administration facilities, public utilities, schools, hospitals, police, fire and safety facilities. (1) ADJUSTMENT FOR TRIP CHAINING (PASS -BY) Traffic generating characteristics vary depending on the land use. For the same land use, the trip lengths vary depending on the origins and destinations of the trips. A traffic impact fee based on trip ends, in essence, represents these varying trip lengths for the different land use in terms of an average trip length. This methodology has an adverse impact on some land uses due to the phenomenon of trip chaining. _ The trip chaining concept represents the behavior of people who link many trip purposes together in one outing from home or work. Thus, for example, a 12 person on the way to work from the home may stop at a fast food restaurant for breakfast. Such trips are not accurately modelled in the traffic model to reflect the true travel behavior of people. The CMTM would model the linked trip described above as two trips; one trip from the home to the fast food restaurant and another trip from the fast food restaurant to work. While this methodology does not affect how the need for improvements is determined, it does improperly allocate the impacts when the traffic impact fees for fast food restaurants are calculated. The one trip with a stop is considered in the model as two trips of average trip length. Not all of the trips to fast food restaurants are linked trips. Some estimates of the percentages of linked trips for different land uses have been provided in the San Diego Traffic Generators manual published by the San Diego Association of Governments. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended two land uses in Costa Mesa which are adversely impacted by the trip fee calculation methodology. These two land uses are fast food restaurants and quality restaurants. Quality restaurants are eating establishments of high quality and with turnover rates usually of at least one hour or longer. Generally, quality restaurants do not serve breakfast; some do not serve lunch; all serve dinner. Fast food restaurants include establishments such as McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, and Taco Bell. This type of restaurant is characterized by a large carryout clientele; long hours of service (some are open for breakfast, all are open for lunch and dinner, some are open late at night or 24 hours); and high turnover rates for eat -in customers. An estimated 40% of the total trips at fast food restaurants and 10% of the total trips at quality restaurants were identified as linked trips based on information provided in the San Diego Traffic Generators manual. The total daily trip ends generated within Cost Mesa needs to be adjusted in order to account for these linked trips at fast food and quality restaurants. Approximately 23 thousand square feet of new fast food restaurants and 121 thousand square feet of quality restaurants are anticipated based on the land use assumptions in the General Plan. Of the total of 14,558 new daily trip ends generated by _ fast food restaurants, 5,823 daily trip ends are assumed to be resulting from linked trips. For quality restaurants, 1,161 daily trip ends out of a 13 total of 11,606 daily trip ends are assumed to be resulting from linked trips. Thus, the 240,333 new daily trip ends within Costa Mesa is reduced by the linked trips at fast food and quality restaurants. This results in 233,349 new daily trip ends which are included in the fee program. D. MAXIMUM TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Having determined the adjusted cost of transportation facilities subject to the fee and the adjusted new daily trip ends included in the fee program, the maximum traffic impact fee is determined by distributing the cost of $64 million uniformly over the 233,349 daily trip ends. This results in the maximum traffic impact fee of $274 per average daily trip end. E. BASELINE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE The baseline fee is based on the minimum traffic impact fee charged by a municipality within the Growth Management Area ("GMA") No. 8. The GMA No. 8 is established by Measure M as an area of the County of Orange for the purpose of coordinating regional long-term transportation/ circulation planning. The minimum fee in GMA No. 8 is the City of Irvine fee of 0.5% of the valuation of construction work authorized by a building permit. This fee was not justified by a fee study as required by Government Code Section 66000 et seq. S. METHODOLOGY As recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee, the traf f is impact fee is based on new average daily trip ends and hence applicable to all new development projects. The impact fee could also be based on either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour trip ends depending on which peak is critical. The total cost of improvements to be financed remains the same irrespective of the basis for the assessment of impact fees. The magnitude of the fees, however, would vary. The traffic impact fee per A.M. or P.M. peak hour trip end would be higher since the total A.M. or P.M. peak hour trip ends generated are lower than the total daily trip ends generated. Traffic generating characteristics vary depending on the land use. While some land uses such as residences and offices, typically, generate a majority of the traffic volumes during -- the peak hours, other land uses such as shopping centers or night clubs generate most of the traffic volumes during the off-peak hours. Transportation facilities are designed to accommodate both of f -hour traf f is and the peak traf f is volumes which typically occur during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour. Land uses which generate most of the traffic volumes 14 during the off-peak hours would not pay traffic impact fees, if the traffic impact fees were based on either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour trip ends since the existing capacity would accommodate the demand, while still benefitting from the use of the public facilities. A traffic impact fee based on daily trip ends, however, includes analysis of traffic volumes during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours as well as during the off-peak hours. The average daily trip end based fee is considered by staff to be most equitable for all the different land uses. First, all new development would pay their pro rata share of the traffic improvements under the average daily trip end based fee. No developer would obtain a free ride based on capacity paid for by other developers. Traffic impact fees based on daily trip ends also eliminate "capacity grab" situations where a particular development which just tips the level of service to the unacceptable range is required to mitigate the impact; while other developments which occur when the level of service is within the acceptable range are not deemed to create a traffic impact. A. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic share analysis methodology in the CMTM basically identifies the new daily trip ends from pre- defined areas that use a specified transportation facility using the "select link analysis" process. The select link analysis process identifies at each of the transportation/ circulation improvements in the traffic impact fee program, the trips that are generated, distributed and assigned to the highway network from a pre -defined area, thus establishing the required nexus. Trip ends with either an origin or destination or both within Costa Mesa are considered to be local trips, while regional trips are those that neither originate nor end in the city and essentially pass through Costa Mesa. Exhibit "F" shows an illustration of the local and regional trip ends. Exhibit "G" shows a simple illustration for the allocation of the trip ends to ensure that the trip ends are not counted twice. The cost of an improvement is allocated to the different areas (regional as well as local) on the basis of the new trip ends. The total local allocation over all the improvements is deducted for excess capacity, etc., and then divided by the adjusted new daily trip ends in Costa Mesa to obtain the maximum traffic impact fee. Transportation/circulation improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts attributable to land uses in the General Plan are based on trip generation rates for the land uses. As discussed above, the ITE manual is used to calculate the trip generation rates. The fee imposed on 15 new development is also based on the same trip generation rates for the different land uses. Hence, a reasonable relationship is thus created between the need for the public facilities and the developments on which the fee is imposed. Exhibit "H" shows the work sheet for the maximum traffic impact fee. As seen in Exhibit "H," each transportation improvements is listed with its estimated cost, the local and regional trip ends, the local and regional cost allocations and the adjustments for excess capacity and existing deficiencies. Exhibit "I" summarizes the different costs in the traffic impact fee program. The amount to be funded by traffic impact fees of $64 million represents 36% of the total estimated cost. In terms of specific improvements, only 26% of the cost of freeway access improvements, 43% of the cost of arterial improvements and 46% of the cost of intersection improvements will be funded by the traffic impact fee program. The unfunded amount of approximately $113.5 million represents about 64% of the total cost of the overall improvements. This unfunded amount would be funded from outside sources such as city funds, or county, state and federal grants. If funding from outside sources are inadequate, then alternate means of financing by the city will be necessary to ensure the build -out of the MPH. This city-wide traffic impact fee study also justifies the baseline fee because under all circumstances the absolute value of the baseline fee paid by new development will be less than the maximum traffic impact fee justified by this study. Any and all deductions for existing deficiencies, population growth, regional traffic and excess and reserve capacity would be analyzed in the maximum fee and are thus deducted from the baseline fee. 6. SUNNARY This study establishes the basis for the imposition of a city- wide traffic impact fee pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and Article 221/2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. The fees are intended to fund transportation circulation improvements within Costa Mesa which are required due to traffic circulation impacts associated with build -out of development in the General Plan. A reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities, the traffic by development, and the imposition of a fee on developments is demonstrated through the trip generation rates for the land uses. The overall cost of transportation improvements has been subjected to a series of adjustments to account for excess capacity, existing deficiencies and regional traffic to determine the amount of $64 million that is subject to the 16 (FEE) fee. The new daily trip ends within Costa Mesa has been adjusted to account for (pass -by) linked trips at fast food and quality restaurants resulting in 233,349 new daily trip ends which are included in the fee program. The amount of $64 million is then distributed uniformly over the 233,349 new daily trip ends to determine the maximum traffic impact fee. This results in a maximum traffic impact fee of $274 per new average daily trip end. 17 'mss )r r�' u•1��•�� ' T- /,$' k o till ISM 15 ., �- ,..r - ��17a�1 q��� ©�• , i�i X30 - �.. �=�� �� �� --elf ��� -�� a�J ,_• •� w SAN JOAOUIN HILLS J TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AREA OF BENEFIT 18 EXHIBIT A o) .- Om L O Q a Cl) cc H LUz LUm 2 V Q m CL z 2 m 0.2 J H a H MNCOItrM00r-00ct'MMaaM O NCOCOCOLOOLoOOCDcow OOON cO It O O M O 00 N r- CO CO 0 CO r- CO O N (� C:) * 4 , Lo Co 00 11) L6 C6 (O - 06 6 "i t CO CDIt0)LOIt00CDr-00Nd f-C)NC)0O OCnr-'t'tA00LOI�00Ef3r-rt10Nlnr- w C6I&N46qr7T <0(ONr MNdg�Vy61), a 69 6 �� �� w a � Q Q Cc Z ou aacc0 �QQ�O � w <<cCcCUm p zZCC L-LLZQ OOOOz= aOWJOw�O OF- cr>c~n>'`� a a°Coc— < =ama(/)oc F- LLz 0LL 000CLLL 0 0 Q a � w oma J 2a.ga.2O W Qa01 ¢2¢2a~ > caaw 0 Z - 0o crLO 000z ¢a� w�crcrw2 ¢ Q O Ca ZWLL a as 22 m� mm>jcM mcrxTmrl- w> 2 QQ 06pCCD000W—cC �co�it�ZLL acpZ22LLm�(n Uc~na-LLC�wac2LU00coca000 o� viaaOLLO J)crU-aC LL.°iwwU-w �(°CwO�crz00Zc�c0000�o �F'OOCWmwOWp��� a0�<F-�F-zcc0wcAWwzzz 2ww_�Wawwf-a=zwwwwaw �O>o.�oOQ J�Z000000 >ccd'0 w w Z z_j— F-0Z)Z0w0C'3C'3C' 000 LU OMLLMWZZOf->M?ZZZZZ W O o C) Z cm -> Z m< m w w w w w w > ,Tm,Twm�QQmLL (go_o_o_o_oo 0 a mED ¢m�cnmzzzzc0°i����3�� a z=zCdr. 0� cit aim r- r-wC)LOM000000 rNr��rrrNNNM������ F - o Q UVUVUv��UVUVUVUvv wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww W � � � � � � --j � � � � � --7� � � w 00000000000000000 w m/(r/m/a rY a a w m cr/Ir cr m m Cc m LL 20 EXHIBIT C N Or-ccocgItO w tM Cc7��tn1-0 t` rrNCOr-d9 c c 1_ r61� 61� r c 64 69- J 0 Q 0 F- 0 0 It �t d d CO 000000 0a� N 0a� EXHIBIT C z w W c c c c c c 0 0 w 0 N 0 co It �t d d CO 000000 0a� 0a� 0a� 0a� 0- -Cc o n r- r- 00 CA N C: r t- r- r N Q O O O O O Oa� a_ a. a. a a_ a. E E E E E E EXHIBIT C z w W m CL a ca, CU o w ci) "t O Cz O CO c_ Q O - c:� 3 � ooZoC o75o Z rn.d)o(1)L Li o 3: CL U) ... C7 -Cc o n r- r- 00 CA N C: r t- r- r N Q EXHIBIT C w N - - - Z 2 w m IL m O V Q cc IL Z 2 m CL2 w Q C wl z O C.) O * OOOCA0000OLn1-* * OLO T- (0 a(00mN0LnNO1�3-Naa00 � �TO(D(D01l-0000)rl- OM N Z•-O.1-1MNcli0 L6Lfir- ZZrN 1 LO r- 't i- 0) M (D T LO LO O T 00 O 60- T- d� 00 C) O CO CD (0 CA It M Ln T r^ M601- C'7 rl (D L LLM� `r� lT^ co m J Q o- H O H -0 m 3: m M w0 Cl) zz CKS fn fn CD CA CA CA (n Cn fn w w 0 = CO CA a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 0 U 0 a) a) C C C C C C C C C C C C N C= Ca CZ Co CZ cts crs CO CSS Co CLf CTJ CZ ca a 't CD CD CD CD fl- I,- It to CD It It U It It O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 4) a) a) a a) a) 000000000000,00 aaaaaaaaaaaa= "a 8). E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 3 a) Z� U -co 0 CDcz -'0,, CO L rn c Q n 2m -m ai CO 4.5 0�^2 >mo oaa)�ao a M> 0 0 0 C 0 "� aL) 3 C C) i L Lo.0 . m y= U W 75 �_ _ a) m m Cocz � `t W � -L c a) :3 iL - U) �°�=a°=oo 4- aL o00 C Co �c cu CIS v) 0) v_) _ . Z a = c 02 w M a) a) .r- -= •L a) Ca 0) a =3 •- ammmmmmowIrU)a) )�: 21 r-00(o0000i-O OOOOf�CArp^�•p '�OOCDI�00_O_Nr0 MOdy.*-Tf�f�(flLnCA TN@'MCDTOEf?CD0N `0 63N N ltN Nd�N v7 ta 6-� 6-t 643' �•,ta cr m a) m co m o- w F-m -0 m 3: -- M w0 70� Ir co ``'m > w� Cc)gym- ° 06 co m m - 'D- co cr�mm _� 'E ac) mw o= CC N N wcr 0 E I—JJ72mm +, O mmmcoCnw N� 72 S m CO CO Co m CO cocmNZZZ� >0 o3:w "0 'a -a CL '0 a -a��-a-aa-a aaaaaaa_aa Ear z O a`) H a 3 ° 0 LL G OL `- co �-C cD 3°a) 0 Z �CC) O o oo od od CU off (n _O c U Na33�cnaCo�� ° a CL ct$ = '`- off o 0 3a)a)�cis :3aar-a w zZZO(nF-U)MM ) Z M NLnCD1�00*-ML6o6 TTr- TTNNNN _ o a a U) z H Z w cr a O V _ a 0 a z 2 LUm CL2 F— z W W O oc a m 00m19 OOOOtoOOO(Do OOOr-OM0MOO rl-00M* O O T N O O O O N O O O� O O t o O— O lrt t o O O O ,wt O m O, t' Q OOOC'7Od OOOOOOOOOOOrmr-T-CAOOCAtor00N-- to to O ao O ,- N to N CO O n O O CO L CO T CA Cfl O N to O to c0 CO N a0 Z O r 00 r T- O M r- ON O O O 'Rt --- I` W M M r- ,gt H9 N O O M r- M Nto0GprMNE!?TtoCOf-tot0c000t0MI'-totIt.- Wi-M(oN(0I- ff? d9 v tT^ T ER ffl ffi ER fA Efl 6% T Efl d9- tt' ``r^^ vfl H9 69 6-k T T 69 d9 T E v7 � vT 67 m C (n N O 06 J m m U) Z •a O c � N m ots Z Ir ED U) w z od .� o1o m 3: cc aC J �- +r Z m Co U) zwW mann w od J F- �_ Z od co O m~ Cf) U) NZd• C� mam m C m W �Z 0ZS�Nm cc ONF- aC(nNm cn N W °� m j aC °o m otf F- F- m 06 od E E4 co F- �0sZCO4- mmm zcmn�m co z �Uv� �zocmoCpg 'D ca U) Ccn�Wcr z mm c cm F- CF- HmWmmF-F- mNF- F- F- F-MM.�F I -m E E-oJzoco Cj wwomooCcmnz��c�Czwzu)Mca MMZw�m �a > �m�m��mmm>m> � ID -0 NN O ON(nC9W mCoW(nZ»1m•« C7MCMmW W Zc)NN -0-0 n. a a •a •a � a -a -a v 70 70 'D 'D io io 'a •v -a •o 'D 'a v -a "o -c _0 ¢aaaaaaaaa¢aaa¢aaaa<<<<<<Qaa ca > ca C Z N 0 a- coL � CL m O •- tiS L c Ocoac 06 � 3 co 06 006 3�� 0 a) a) C (n m (n O U CO C N (D (D c V fn c L C• cn Q- O L a� a� E Q- Z6 c• '- Z CC C] o c o C 5 tzm�Y cpm �m o- tum<ccaLo[m ami^--op�mQli tnF-Q taaLaoCC ascoCocnt5Z,6(sm�� U) �m�co 06 mz06z0sots 06 od 0 a- ot$ CO (n Co oZS U) od 3 od od od od 3 Z c Z = o� Z Z -t 3 v od otf otf OLo � O S o 0 o o - 0 to - L ° to .O 'Z .0.0.on p '� '� to = to = 0 0 o CL Q m m c L. LD 'C N •c aC m N •c CC ca a c- c0 CZ- N (� (� CC u> aC a> •c 'L. 'i CU a5 a> Qaommmcnmmmcn=IL===f:LLLL ncccnaCmmmzLLZ=2 OrC"5r N64to6006MCArN46OrM4(fl6C;O00toCA NCf) MC0q*� d ItchIt�qttotoCOCfl(oCOnr-I`I`t-I`000OCflOO 22 23 F- 000000 Ln T 0 000000 0 �p 0 000000 r V 0NM7—rl-W N N CD 69��� M N W 6-t 69 Ln LA 04 cac G T F.. W J J Q Q ~ O � O m Cl) w H cl g �Q C/)It z0 Oo p= Qa o� 0 L Q> W 0 g ac oc Ha > m 3:U)co � Lu 0oo 06 oZ5 — m0. moCmacmoC mcommmm V J2 WZ(n(nZZ ZQ 70 70,0 W ¢a¢aaa w °• Q W c IL o O w V > W D m G W I- V o rn rn Nr Z z 0)od O 0 06 rn '-' cuU Q o� ct r ots c aOZs W V L» oo�v�c�c m 0c CO c� O J o - L m2 fou) ~ r N N N N N r r T r r r Z 23 w "• 240 1265) COSTA MESA ZONES 2m (zee 242 1-84 86-165 v 238 243 see 241 f 247 167 — 168 170 — 175 (481 ,• �, z 267 260 233S 245 15 (� 288 289 259 220 237 11 ,0 14 ryY n 258 219 17 13 257 �o 172 175 rye, 21 18 12 8 � `�� 2174 225 25 24 8 218 28 9 2 171 174 28 7 221 223 29 .Y 4'+ 5 3 173 222 33 4 38 •.�� . 170 39 34 32 45 ' 64 83 un�a 270 36 31 271 37 62 81 167 1 168" 272 43 48 54 ' 00 :, pry 152158 185 e50 so, 53 o., 151 .." 157 184 169 51 125 47 78 54 .82 150 3 W 158 163 176 S 49 80 124 149 155 162 81 i 48 77 79 12 t48 154 181 177 76 118 120 1 A 147 153 180 188 179 75 117 ?•O�s ' 131 137 159 j 178 52 1'y 73 ,j � � 68 71 130 '138: 142 148 i g1 70 �� , �� 77 129 Ing 141 148 181 182 65 ,ate' 105111+ 128 134 .11" 140 144 1� .lo:• 97 100 104 251 84 _127 133 139 143 184 183 88 ,.° � 0 102 138 ,, 188 273 85 93 8511 132 8397 92 94 250 ; 129 188 ° 197 91 193 e' 195 195 'r .�" 190 249 191 192 194 ' 196 199 214 213 211 20 197 ' 199 206 207 212 _ . 200 _ 210 COSTA MESA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES 24 215 EXHIBIT D CMTM ZONE NUMBER GENERAL EXISTING ADT PLAN TRAFFIC POST -2010 ADT GROWTH CHANGE IN ADT ANALYSIS POSITIVE TRAFFIC GROWTH NEGATIVE TRAFFIC GROWTH 1 5856 6118 262 262 2 6499 8785 2286 2286 3 10822 14364 3542 3542 4 13308 9183 -4125 -4125 5 8469 6448 -2021 -2021 _ 6 1310 1310 0 0 7 2457 6374 3917 3917 8 7002 8143 1141 1141 _ 9 10673 11211 538 538 10 8305 10493 2188 2188 11 4 8607 8603 8603 _ 12 7925 4617 -3308 -3308 13 7229 9465 2236 2236 14 0 6032 6032 6032 15 3 10891 10888 10888 16 9196 8188 -1008 -1008 17 11681 15792 4111 4111 18 14954 17126 2172 2172 19 6173 6835 662 662 20 6173 6835 662 662 21 12347 13670 1323 1323 22 12347 13670 1323 1323 23 6173 6835 662 662 24 12347 13670 1323 1323 25 6173 6835 662 662 26 26912 26912 26912 27 18874 18874 0 0 28 6832 6943 111 111 29 7672 6571 -1101 -1101 .- 30 1488 1488 0 0 31 2644 2644 2644 32 321 3516 3195 3195 33 3353 8745 5392 5392 34 1811 1811 1811 35 5587 4681 -906 -906 36 5792 11757 5965 5965 37 12198 15603 3405 3405 r 38 5098 4390 -708 -708 39 3586 5920 2334 2334 40 1721 9255 7534 7534 _ 41 1383 1425 42 42 42 18795 13093 -5702 -5702 43 30718 20856 -9862 -9862 44 6198 7485 1287 1287 45 10523 11287 764 764 25 EXHIBIT E GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS CMTM ZONE NUMBER EXISTING ADT POST -2010 ADT CHANGE IN ADT POSITIVE TRAFFIC GROWTH NEGATIVE TRAFFIC GROWTH 46 2977 3144 167 167 47 3244 3462 218 218 48 12281 13350 1069 1069 _ 49 8401 8001 -400 -400 50 4830 5366 536 536 _ 51 7532 10310 2778 2778 52 16998 11618 -5380 -5380 53 18358 13542 -4816 -4816 _ 54 9214 8627 -587 -587 55 15220 19736 4516 4516 56 37510 41850 4340 4340 _ 57 4092 4441 349 349 58 6431 8538 2107 2107 59 1800 1800 0 0 60 2228 3024 796 796 61 194 1675 1481 1481 62 9067 9072 5 5 63 3266 3434 168 168 64 3786 6924 3138 3138 65 3951 5238 1287 1287 66 2601 3083 482 482 67 2155 2240 85 85 68 2666 3960 1294 1294 - 69 3382 3382 0 0 70 2225 2421 196 196 71 2558 3140 582 582 72 1198 1610 412 412 73 2294 2904 610 610 74 6482 6904 422 422 ' 75 6248 6362 114 114 76 11580 11366 -214 -214 77 17784 18662 878 878 _ 78 24826 17965 -6861 -6861 79 30695 21220 -9475 -9475 _ 80 5824 6600 776 776 81 6959 11609 4650 4650 82 2082 2082 0 0 ,.. 83 296 343 47 47 84 4899 3927 -972 -972 85 _ 86 1374 1968 594 594 87 1451 2817 1366 1366 88 4175 3496 -679 -679 89 2812 2812 0 0 90 2094 2588 494 494 GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS POSITIVE NEGATIVE - CMTM ZONE EXISTING POST -2010 CHANGE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC NUMBER ADT ADT IN ADT GROWTH GROWTH 91 2889 3853 964 964 92 2563 3344 781 781 _ 93 3598 4292 694 694 94 2750 3051 301 301 95 2724 3821 1097 1097 _ 96 9705 6482 -3223 -3223 97 7799 4744 -3055 -3055 98 4219 4541 322 322 _ 99 3702 4074 372 372 100 7460 7342 -118 -118 101 1575 1875 300 300 -- 102 3563 9246 5683 5683 103 6835 3313 -3522 -3522 104 2673 4241 1568 1568 - 105 5719 5887 168 168 106 5595 4680 -915 -915 107 3285 2890 -395 -395 - 108 3943 5044 1101 1101 109 3410 5918 2508 2508 110 3774 3259 -515 -515 - 111 14038 9564 -4474 -4474 112 5649 5586 -63 -63 113 4999 4789 -210 -210 - 114 15412 14482 -930 -930 115 1467 7223 5756 5756 116 9739 15082 5343 5343 - 117 4045 8493 4448 4448 118 13608 9694 -3914 -3914 119 6835 8839 2004 2004 _ 120 5870 11758 5888 5888 121 5689 7859 2170 2170 _ 122 7268 4722 -2546 -2546 123 4239 4407 168 168 124 7668 8745 1077 1077 _ 125 10723 12307 1584 1584 126 3173 4118 945 945 127 11359 8893 -2466 -2466 _ 128 11325 11503 178 178 129 11200 8685 -2515 -2515 130 5129 4299 .-830 -830 - 131 5995 8115 2120 2120 132 1970 2505 535 535 133 14715 9568 -5147 -5147 - 134 13304 10381 -2923 -2923 135 1966 1966 0 0 27 GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS - CMTM ZONE NUMBER EXISTING ADT POST -2010 ADT CHANGE IN ADT POSITIVE TRAFFIC GROWTH NEGATIVE TRAFFIC GROWTH - 136 1996 1993 -3 -3 137 2071 1833 -238 -238 138 1323 1883 560 560 _ 139 9175 7546 -1629 -1629 140 8592 6154 -2438 -2438 _ 141 1739 1380 -359 -359 142 1749 1450 -299 -299 143 10550 6175 -4375 -4375 _ 144 13647 6403 -7244 -7244 145 1700 1700 0 0 146 2538 2300 -238 -238 -. 147 5803 6537 734 734 148 4946 5420 474 474 149 8638 6049 -2589 -2589 - 150 4816 7730 2914 2914 151 4814 9290 4476 4476 152 4651 9701 5050 5050 - 153 1905 2074 169 169 154 1849 1520 -329 -329 155 1361 2140 779 779 - 156 1939 2065 126 126 157 1970 2411 441 441 158 1907 2214 307 307 - 159 1978 2582 604 604 160 1436 1948 512 512 161 1210 1210 0 0 - 162 1651 1940 289 289 163 2466 3301 835 835 164 2460 3665 1205 1205 _ 165 1630 3011 1381 1381 166 _ 167 5117 8999 3882 3882 168 12305 16530 4225 4225 169 _ 170 26161 16751 -9410 -9410 171 1372 2161 789 789 172 3979 6134 2155 2155 _ 173 9712 14444 4732 4732 174 3282 3445 163 163 175 5843 9413 3570 3570 TOTAL 1113052 1228348 115296 240333 -125037 28 TO 777� FFROM COSTA MESA OUTSIDE TOTAL COSTA MESA OA aB OA + �B OUTSIDE o a -+- TOTAL TOTAL AQ + C @ + + @B + + @D LOCAL TRIP ENDS = �A + 1/2 �B + 1/2 C� REGIONAL TRIP ENDS = @D + 1/2 �B + 1/2 C� LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRIP ENDS 29 EXHIBIT ORIGIN TRIP DESTINATION TRIP TRIP END END DEVELOPMENT A DEVELOPMENT B TRIP ENDS ALLOCATED EQUALLY TO BOTH DEVELOPMENT A AND B NEW LAND T NEW LAND TRIP ENDS ALLOCATED TRIP ENDS ALLOCATED / TO DEVELOPMENT A TO DEVELOPMENT B �, USE USE I I G I I N N E U TRIP ENDS EXCLUDED FROM TRIP FEE ANALYSIS ALLOCATION OF TRILL ENDS 30 EXHIBIT G 3J WV Z0 r W W 2 N Y� 3: Cl) fN J Z a W W LL U a Ca C V LL LL H W 0 L� 1'- V Z w LL, > °m a co w U Q a W ulLL GDNOOtGGOppONOqq�eVeJ�rr V ORtpp?�UI O oOftfpp�R NNNtO Nt?C NCnD_ O n (O R,%oq nD_(my n N(Gq� c,,kNN V N� W N9((�tp0�� O NOt9N�NI:nON�NNf:N ^�m'��ON�Ot71��r'OD�y^ � � mN N�O�a�j H�HppR Va pnp V_�tN"lnN WO��6�p � tCyy�NfD NN(ppO ^ {tp�O yN,.I; (t V1�NI�Q Nm mnl�00t7�nN�O�NNfp �nJn�NnN1�Nt'p � NNC�N Ht�V/HH�HyyWHN��HfVO/NH�NHHHHW N H H� Hy� WW H N yVy yW f9H H Ny NHNNHVlH �y a HN y ONl pN� Oni mmN O�GD�pN�Tpn {D mtO mN �Oy Of f_OCCDJJ .-tGtppD �O m�1D N N�N�pp �t:f :{1+��� f7 �1� CO 1a: fD t?O C(a)d OO�i_I�O n V t7 V f�Om O�t7 d N(D� Of. V . . . NNN...OmPNO� . V � l7N� typ m t'�pp t0 �gqqq'tnp p0p�� O Wt�NW �N Oa f0 Nf� WN NW ID �p mmm pp ��pp OmOma� �����ppppp y'O� V H�HNOO (�Ny�N N � �Cl� � a+� a� a� �Na�pp� ep�a� ypOOff {t�pJ fp tll N�^Nm O t� HON N��'aN � N NNN m^m �Qf n � N Ny a9 N �a9 N W N H H �N N O I� t'l���N � N 19 f9�� KN NHNNN�HHyK HHRH N N HN N NNHNH H HH t9 N V MNN00a")IAN OIpY V hOD �n m NtNV ��yp V f0 ^�Ny tU+�f ^ HNOm W �00Of'1NOtnD_aD O�cNpNn nNOmin < OD typ T � ONy�f'l fit'OQGDONN�fD�1�ntOnpN8t�O N(npN n_OOi 'Q�N {� pNYNO mp�lG Nl�n ta+� . . �N�pO-�pN ID pOypD .. NN N19^N^O�N�O t�N�O.-�NNf9 N y N� N� yN y tD {��Q] NVK�� R C1'�N�K�M)yf9 Vf N N HH NNHy H HyN NKNN�^wNNNN�H��oWKWf9 Yl�NNN N H y O N � y y fO O� f�0p t0 t0 t�yD<mO O^ mN n{tN �thO �T N aO ����yyy mN p� �Rp �Op N O N CD 000 H^�wNNy� tt+Y 1�. ^Y O O tD tNOO pD.O Oen pO c") Z ^ HO y 5 V O� R Q 'tNO.b O� O pONp t+! MONO Otbpm OH�pNOOO <OOO�Wp 8O OpO OOOO.^-�mnp� tNpN N�N Ry(�Y NR i!I �H�NyNNNy qNn INO, mM tO M r NRO NN Yf �p N.- chN < N N� NNN� NH N �D N NOi tV t� ah ifi .-��t��tt�� nffpp yN N� N NNHNH NWN19 Yl M Y! Ny�y WNy�N H��H��NM/�19� N H N HN N N O N �D� AR GaND_V N NNHOo��N tNp_KV $���N��QQjj pWppppp 88a KHNWKNNOo'p8 OpNHOHnHWnDN��NNt p?NVON y�p 19NyNtyyNttyy wO yNyyzL6 N�w N NNH HyN N yV/ H y N HNNH t0�1 NNt��� N y a+l M NNN t� nQ V n YCD.p �N NNm� 10 O(� A Ol N NmN Otht00 d ypn l(p W �N�-m Ol Q� d mO t')n'N(ONO m (Om N �00^tN'l.^ N N �p fN0�iD 01 ttlpNpNp�7 t t HH ,t RNN q SUN �~NHyN 4 SUNKNNIn N�yN NNyHNa m O y�;; ct NN NH y� � Hwvoal* NN ^^NOD O�NN�<�NHN�R O tOMON W N�fD �t'l lel V n��nQ� O t�l^�mN�Cln l'��N1O W 1�ID Oln�N W T^fn0����t'1�O�t0 n noD m On lll"' N nn n0 t') m m N ppp, �y app tp p� NR-wowq@qam}�ppNn NqN �fmWfR O��N(ptOy��N�ONORp� 0,022 Of �Ny R$��j N {N�N�Nc�in T(npN Ot'l�N�N m� 29 R MIEN V Nn NNON(�IDN V N'NtD'NN� tON'Yf�l7m��tD�fO �DNN �t+I ODY'm'O'�i00m V W ft'V t'O N a CO 'OC Tl9� ONi O�1NNNNN� OI O�I00' �Rl pwl n' ONiHN�ON�H�^^I���YYOty9Dff t��HOpp N;;V OtmN� yQ(NN�.-tl7� nn IWp n 4N 2n;(71 QXjOsm --N(.�.Na� nNE'-HnN �ppy��pg�m��N K MN^HI_���q��pW�_ Ky�pm�p��_p�OsSOoo-O� a� N ^ V N NN O�pp �OOy.��Htna���wNppNH A yNA Nt�a�� H� V m W tO(���' fNa0+�_fHD_� tV�pp tm�ppy �Np"y �y N��yDa NCNN NN_ stD ORN� NttNpV f� Yf mN t' m nN0 a0� HNN H� NN' NH W n NH H� H NNNNW�HHNV! A N NgHN N�tyVNNjny H�N NNHNN��HyyNN�N� CL ba N NN N N N y aD OQ N f O ad - m ~ Q m m m N z o >Q� O H H FF N m ¢� tL u w Q m ad Z O ZZLLLLz: 3 m m m �j 00000 m edF w y m z Mm 0 ¢>y>�� wm — ad c m a =¢m¢m� «¢ mm mIm m mJ¢ z¢ LL LL ¢m co � mmm zmm I_m �Z QaaQaasO zm m� m3 E imm«z m m Nzawad yc¢ glad¢ 2Ig¢-Q`�U m <e 9p Fmm a m�l-F3 mN¢adw matlFN rQ ¢Ww ���md�%���%��� mw3 E wmmmad 3Odzm£ 3mmm x¢z0 LLzzzzLLzo� ,dz33 m¢¢,dma gm3y cc OOOOpz �________ �� pmm J� m Fy mwmm F'¢NF.HF- 1-O 0 3 p maeaefmm�ommnnaemaaa mm�mmw maL r�n�zadm ��mm^dmmm ug$aF' ¢¢w�30 «««««««««««««««««o z3 33 3 H z—Qn as ago m$>�°—'� mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 3 s0C0Cm�@¢¢yyv��vJz¢ww¢¢aQmz3 ¢zwz w- Lo- m_ ¢¢¢y¢>n > > zzz3 3mati9; A. w wyz3#vm 3:mmm ¢¢o� ammz4xlw<m '2 '2'E�Q�'EB����� $$$$$$$a $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ p��aag am anaaa44annnaaaaanaa a� a�aZZLLa azf� LL EEEEEE�EEEEEE�EEEE aaaaaa �caaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa UyNa3LL¢`mo ~ Q4u. � LLp� z. � NNNNN 00 o�to$$$$$$H W gG-p --m- > a03zc¢y�-z¢Owrmi wzzz ¢ zfeujg g �magFOj�wo vzzzzpz J —'9'9 wmmzz F >�,----z_ a N¢HN¢Ow H¢nZZZZZZ m r.-.oa =_-'T�/...:�¢'3 N.." mad¢ o&118 d�atl gal O m O Z m Q -Q Q m LL m 0 0 w 0 w C�C m c= x Q Cp N a H O m ad m C m m ,= y q v W mS O-�O r Q e N mm.m. «LL O 3 V �H 6 m nm n`m mam�Hmclo mmm 3 �;3 o_ oiho¢ m m « oda« z �.e ` �� 6 n� E�g r7� ng -5 zxz3 A o c @Q 3 m¢ d�F �N_ ~ Fdan mu¢im m.ad. W W oadm Mmad F -1-f F -FF F FHFi-/-F1-F- a@yq� E Nz `N r W �d m�aQ U C �bN NNNHNNatl ded fA 2 e_ze_ U U UUUU� U �UUUUUU�UU U L' ¢ �`�CC `� W � a _aa aN a_ kk �5 N2 w wwwww W ww W ww W ww W w IL O D- N..��' `-' Q"" N Cq �1 m viz z¢' z¢' q $¢ 8 .t_. "'a�C� ��gaaax�S S ¢ zZZ�NHNaa++��m mpQ� mama��ppmfO�mN2LLxa�Dxp�22a�LLyLLV1 ¢N.¢ a a a a a a 4 l R d n d a aL n. as H K� Nammm�ILmNSS = m"^ ^^ N^ NN NNNP NOd v`a a`�� d ul N tp tO tD tOD RIS nr z� � N N fpNfppp pp�� IOppq���� Amp tfpO l� (p} 1(f�1 Owl. H�NH NH N�NH I�ywH19�19 1� Lei za H M H M H ; Jw � N Oai M 9N! Ni m h i� W a zU < {r�. ro �o rn �-m mam gi mm ���pep TT �O�pp - N 0y HyOOD paN �Qj NVyHHH til N N c7 19 H H H H f9 ffOO tC ��Opp N H N H W ZLL azzcri 8 m N O W W = S r F a OyU m � N U � H• J J UJ C H N m �+ W H a U N z W 0N W LL H H pp tmmt�� pp�� 8 as ��pp U cn Q LN aNa V fO���an�arr NO�Nmm�pp N�l1�ONi f�� 10 Q Q a XLL H102 WH19HHNy O F Q O �UJa a H Vi�H�HH yj N H Z o q �J N O^^mp NNNpNp ^mm NN�pp� N t0 Q= lD�NNC000 V tpN W C OONm�0 cid Oil)tm. ID �O��V�{{ OO HH W IAS t22 RH W a ¢ H H n H N N O a tyyy7 Ntn`7_�¢Npp� W Wa Nt^+1Q0Cs b O H N N N N N N H H N H d N cn H J m F Z p y Hmmm H ^pO � N Np� R � N 7N Oamai t�mOOD b�N(I^��DNY W Z2 J O NO�(I tD tpNONN NN m W HKH�Vl�HH HHH t+! NN a H H H A H H m W J J F Q O 0 H h M 7 H H m 3 m m N N W z FFm°tl Q uj z Z� ¢¢ p m > �MM_��m3 NN o mmaawmw3°O 00 ¢a 922co 2ZvvM MM QfL [C2¢Q M MM W W Z M N ppN p Wp 2 N p Np Z Z M C Z C c g=m 0 Z60 > $ z atl ap W otl rn ep NNZ atlz H Z Z ap m m J mmm zl!zM i Z ONH O N N N 33 EXHIBIT I C O O O Oit C r- N lqt L 19t (D G^ c6 ... Cj CjM .. _ a fr W (r a_ 0 F- 00 4) �.a p mLL CC O O C O c C W w �� Rf _ o _ 0 = -00, _ 0 _ W - E N v N co LL >c � � �D Q 619� 03- t - I— QF LU N LL 0 Q C C C p (n LL! V O O O _ — U U. +�+ d —o Ep =-0-0, E = o Ep •� o p V Cl) cpm �� �� ti w 69.6 lL CL Q cc CL ~ LL ° o - W Cl) C 0 0 •N � Q L 0CL i _ V E LL a 33 EXHIBIT I APPENDIX "A" RESOLUTION NO. qJ - 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND PERFORMANCE MONI- TORING PROGRAM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance was approved by the County of Orange voters in November 1990; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan requires such a program to be adopted; WHEREAS, adoption of the program is necessary in order to be eligible for additional sales tax monies; and WHEREAS, this program has been determined to be exempt from the California — Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby adopts the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program as shown in Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May, 1993. ATTEST: 1. Deputy C' Clerk of the City of Costa Me Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa OVED TO FORM 1� CITY A <'..:�EY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 93 - 3o was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 1993. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 4th day of May, 1993. T Deputy Citq Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City C66ncil of the City of Costa Mesa EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAM I. INTRODUCTION Phasing of land use development and circulation improvements to support development -generated traffic has long been a concern in California. The importance of the relationship between land use entitlements and circulation system capacity is recognized at the state, regional and .local levels. At the state level, Section 65302(b) of the Government Code requires correlation between the Land Use and the Circulation Elements of local government general plans. At the regional level, the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (Measure M) approved by county voters in November 1990 requires cities to adopt development and circulation phasing plans to be eligible for the additional 1/2 cent sales tax increase authorized by the ordinance. Finally, at the local level, both the Larid Use and the Growth Management Elements of the 1990 General Plan require similar phasing programs. II. PURPOSE This Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program (DPPMP) has been developed to fulfill the mandates of the County Measure M funding eligibility requirements and the Growth Management Element of the city of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan. The purpose of the program is to conduct an annual review oC the cumulative impacts of development and circulation sy-ctem capacity. The program will track current land use entitlements and construction activity and will monitor arterial highway traffic volumes and intersection levels of service. The goal of the program is to ensure that infrastructure is added as development proceeds so that the established level of service standard (LOS "D") is maintained throughout the community. The program would also serve to identify potential deficiencies and corrective measures, if needed. While the focus of the DPPMP is, on cumulative or city-wide performance, project -specific analysis is also critical to ensure that the established level of service standard is -- maintained. This level of analysis is mandated by the city's Transportation Systems Management Ordinance (Article 22.1/2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal 'Code). Project -specific monitoring to ensure adequate mitigation of project impacts was mandated by AB 3180, codified as Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. III. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY This section of the DPPMP will inventory two levels of land use development activity. The first inventory will consist of construction activity completed during the past year. The inventory will be provided by major land use type (residential, commercial, industrial and institutional) and location (street address and Traffic Analysis Zone). The second inventory will consist of land use entitlements which will result in future construction activity or major changes of use. The inventory will be divided into major land use types (residential, commercial, industrial and institutional) and will be identified by location. As construction generally follows the initial land use entitlement by several months, this inventory will allow land use and transportation planners the opportunity to identify trends or to develop projections which may result in changes to traffic demand or generation patterns and provide an early warning of potential future circulation system impacts. In this sense, the program will serve both monitoring and predictive purposes. IV. CIRCULATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This section of the DPPMP will inventory two aspects of the city's circulation system performance. The fist will inventory the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values of all signalized intersections within the community. �. Intersection ICUs will be calculated on an annual basis and will be conducted during the spring season of each year. The second section will consist of identifying the average daily traffic volumes on major arterials throughout the community. As annual changes in traffic volumes are generally not very significant, these counts will be conducted on a biennial basis and will be taken during the spring season of each odd -numbered year. In addition to inventorying existing conditions, this section will also compare the results of the current year with past years and will provide an analysis of changes which have occurred since the last inventory. As with the land use inventories, this analysis may pinpoint any major trends or potential problem areas which should be watched to avoid future deficiencies. V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION While the last two sections have been primarily descriptive in nature, this section of the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program will be more analytic. This section will take the information provided by the land use and circulation system inventories and compare the results to the established level of service standard. The analysis shall not only evaluate existing performance, but will also identify potential deficiencies based upon an comparative analysis of past performance evaluations. VI. ACTION PLAN The primary purpose of this section of the Development Phasing and Monitoring Program will be to summarize the results of the previous sections and to develop recommendations to address any identified deficiencies. The recommendations should identify needed circulation system improvements which can be incorporated into the city's capital improvement program. As with the previous sections, some analysis of trends and projections should be developed to identify any future potential problem areas or to address emerging trends which may lead to future problems. VII. IMPLEMENTATION The Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program shall be jointly prepared by the Planning and Transportation Services Division on an annual basis. The program shall be prepared on a fiscal (or calendar year) basis and shall be presented to the Planning Commission, the Transportation Commission and the City Council for review and comment. The first Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program shall be prepared in the summer of 1993. Costs associated with the annual monitoring program may be an eligible expense of Measure M funds. (MONffOR.PRO) APPENDIX "B" L ORDINANCE NO. 93-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE IN REGARDS TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.: The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa finds and declares as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa General Plan was adopted by City Council Resolution #92-27 on March 16, 1992; and WHEREAS, adoption of the 1990 General Plan included amendments to the City's policies regarding transportation system management; and WHEREAS, inconsistencies did result between the 1990 General Plan and Article 222 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in regards to the transportation system management procedures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (c), inconsistent zoning ordinances and maps shall be amended within a reasonable time to be consistent with the General Plan as amended; and WHEREAS, based on the evidence in the record a Negative Declaration and DeMinimis Finding have been prepared and are adopted in conjunction with the amendment to the Municipal Code; ACCORDINGLY, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby amends Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Codes as follows: Section 2.: Article 222 of Chapter II of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE 22-1/2. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Sec. 13-324, Definitions. (a) Existing Lot: (1) A parcel of real property shown as a delineated parcel of land with a number or designation on a subdivision map _ recorded in the office of the county recorder and/or created in conformance with the subdivision laws of the State of California and applicable local ordinances. 1 (2) A parcel of real property shown on a record of survey map or deed filed in the office of the county recorder, when such map or deed was filed as the result of and was made a condition of a lot division approved under the authority of prior ordinances. (b) Development Project: This article applies to the following development project approvals: general plan amendments, specific plans, master plans, rezones, development reviews, variances, use permits, administrative adjustments, development agreements, and preliminary and final development plans, unless otherwise exempted by Section 13-328. (c) Intersection: The general area where two or more roadways join or cross. (d) Master Plan of Highways: The graphic representation of the City's ultimate circulation system contained in the City of Costa Mesa General Plan. It illustrates the width and general alignment of the City's major, primary, secondary and collector highways. (e) Measurable Traffic: A volume of traffic which will result in a 0.01 or greater increase in the peak period volume to capacity ratio at any given signalized intersection. (f) Potentially Deficient Intersection: An intersection identified in the City of Costa Mesa General Plan for which the standard level of service may not be feasible upon General Plan buildout. The intersection volume to capacity ratios identified in the General Plan shall not be exceeded for these intersections. (g) Pro Rata: A proportionate share based on a development project's impacts. (h) Standard Level of Service: The Standard Level of Service shall be Level of Service "D" or better (0.90 or less volume to capacity ratio) for all signalized arterial intersections within the.City of Costa Mesa during peak hours Monday through Friday with the exception of those intersections identified as potentially deficient in the General Plan. Levels of service shall be defined and computed using the Intersection Capacity Y, Utilization (ICU) methodology. (i) Transportation Demand Management Program: A series of required and/or voluntary actions which reduce the vehicle - trip generation rate of a specific use or uses of land. Sec. 13-325. Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program (a) Purpose: The Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement 2 Program shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council which addresses the cumulative impacts of development in a defined impact area. This program shall mandate circulation improvements, including freeway improvements, to ensure that the Master Plan of Highways is constructed and that the Standard Level of Service is achieved and will be maintained at all intersections in the defined impact area in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan. For those intersections identified as potentially deficient, the program shall identify the maximum improvements feasible in accordance with the General Plan. The program shall address the funding, construction and maintenance of transportation facilities to implement the Master Plan of Highways. The program shall be updated on an annual basis. (b) Relationship to Development Fee Program: The Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program shall be utilized to determine the pro rata share of the cost of necessary improvements attributable to development projects as described in Section 13-326. (c) Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Report: Each year the City shall prepare a Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Report which shall be used to update the Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program. (d) Interim Approval Procedure: Until such time as this program is adopted, development projects not exempted pursuant to Section 13-328 may be approved if the City adopts findings that the development projects are consistent with the provisions of this article. Sec. 13-326. Development Impact Fee Program (a) Establishment of Development Impact Fee Program: A development impact fee program shall be established by resolution adopted by the City Council based on the Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program. The program shall set forth the basis for the fee as required by California Government Code Section 66001. The program shall establish guidelines for payment, accounting, and refund of the fees collected as required by California Government Code Sections 66001, 66006, and 66007. (b) Updates of Fee: On an annual basis, the City Council shall review this fee program, as required by California Government Code Section 66002, to determine whether the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development projects and whether the described public facilities are still needed. �3 (c) Limited Use of Fees: The revenues raised by payment through this fee program shall be placed in a separate and special account and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be used solely to: (1) Pay for the City's future construction of facilities or to reimburse the City for those facilities, described or listed in the program, constructed by the City with funds advanced by the City from other sources, or (2) Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install such listed facilities to the extent the actual cost of the facilities installed by the developer exceeds the impact fee obligation of the development project. (d) Developer Construction of Public Facilities: Whenever the conditions of approval of a development project require direct construction of a public transportation facility (see Section 13-327(c)) described or listed in the Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program, a credit or reimbursement, as applicable, shall be given against the development impact fee, which would have been charged to the development project under the program, for actual construction costs incurred by the developer. The reimbursement and/or credit amount shall not include any improvements the City can require from the development project under the Subdivision Map Act, or the portion of the improvement deemed to be an on-site improvement that is not included in the Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program. (e) Fee Adjustments: A developer of any development project subject to the fee program provided in this article may apply to the City Council for: (1) A waiver of the fee, or portion of the fee, based upon adequate documentation of the absence of any reasonable ' relationship or nexus between the circulation impacts of that development project and either the amount of the fee - charged or the type of facilities to be financed; or (2) A reduction of the fee based upon the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program, as described in Subsection (d) of Section 13-327. The application for a fee waiver shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than: 1) ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on the development permit application for the project, or 2) if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the request for a building permit. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver. The City Council shall consider the application at the public hearing on the permit application held within 60 days after the filing of the application. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a waiver is granted, any change in use or increase in building intensity within the development project shall invalidate the waiver of the fee, and the developer shall be obligated to pay the full amount of the fee attributed to the development project, including the change in use or increase in intensity, as provided by this article. (f) Fee Refunds: A refund shall be made when a building permit expires and no extensions have been granted for a development project for which the funds have been collected and the development project has not been constructed. (g) Fees for Phased Development Projects: Where there is a requirement imposed upon a phased development project pursuant to this article for the payment of traffic impact fees into a Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program, such fees may be payable on a pro -rata basis as each phase of the project is completed, in conjunction with the improvements accomplished. Sec. 13-327. Development Project Review Procedures. (a) Traffic Study Required: A traffic impact study shall be required for all development projects estimated by the Director of Public Services to generate 100 or more vehicle trip ends during a peak hour. Traffic studies may also be required for smaller projects at the discretion of the Director of Public Services. The cost of the study shall be paid for by the developer. The study area and number of intersections to be analyzed shall be determined by the Director of Public Services and the study area shall be reasonably related to the estimated impacts attributed to the -' development project. The traffic study shall also identify mitigation measures that are reasonably related to the development project's traffic impacts. (b) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures for development projects shall consist of either payment of a development impact fee and/or construction of circulation improvements. The necessary circulation improvements may be designed and constructed by the developer as determined by the City. These mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of the development project's approval. Table 13-327(b)-1 indicates the criteria for either requiring payment of a development impact fee and/or construction of circulation improvements. (c) Approval Criteria: A development project may be approved if as a condition of approval it is required to construct a circulation improvement and/or pay a development impact fee, as shown in Table 13-327(b)-1, and if a finding is made that the development project's impacts will be mitigated at all 5 affected intersections within three years of issuance of the first building permit for said development project, as described in Section 13-327(b), unless additional right-of-way or coordination with other government agencies is required to complete the improvement. If right-of-way acquisition or coordination with other governmental agencies delays the improvement construction, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the improvement construction occurs in a timely manner. Circulation improvements may be required sooner if, because of extraordinary traffic generation characteristics of the development project or extraordinary impacts to the surrounding circulation system, the circulation improvements are necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts. For phased development projects, the construction of circulation improvements may be phased as well based upon the findings of the traffic study. When a development project affects a potentially deficient intersection, the development project's impacts shall be mitigated such that the intersection volume to capacity ratios identified in the General Plan shall not be exceeded. (d) Transportation Demand Management Program: Where a Transportation Demand Management Program is used to reduce vehicle trips related to a development project, said program shall comply with the following: (1) A conditional use permit for the development project and program must be approved by the Planning Commission consistent with the requirements of Subsection (c). An annual report shall be prepared for the City at the expense of the property owner, to show whether the vehicle trip reduction identified in the program has been achieved and maintained. (2) If the annual report demonstrates that the vehicle trip reductions identified in the program have not occurred, the conditional use permit shall be reevaluated and additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in order to meet the requirements of this article. (3) The traffic impact development fees required under this article shall be based on the trip generation forecast without consideration of estimated reductions associated with a Transportation Demand Management Program. An application for a fee reimbursement may be approved by the City Council pursuant to Subsection (e) of Section .- 13-326 based upon documentation of average annual trip reduction over a three year period as reported in the annual monitoring report referenced in Section 13-325(C). (e) Change of Use: Each development project approved under this article shall be reevaluated by the Director of 0 Public Services when any change in use occurs which may increase the project's traffic generation. -The purpose of this reevaluation is to assure that traffic capacity is available in the transportation system. Any increase in traffic generation by the change of use shall be subject to review by the appropriate reviewing authority who may impose additional conditions on the development project for the mitigation of the increased traffic generation. Sec. 13-328. Exemptions. (a) Exempt Development Projects: Projects which fall within any of the categories listed below shall be exempt from the provisions of this article= (1) Any residential construction that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding an existing house or units. Granny units and assessory apartments are also exempt. (2) Any industrial or commercial construction that neither increases the footprint nor square footage or changes the use on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding an existing structure, and does not increase peak hour trip generation. (3) Public benefit facilities limited to public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. 4) Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, limited to hospitals, police, fire and safety facilities. 7 Table 13-327(b)-1 PROJECT INTERSECTION Payment of impact fee MITIGATION INTENT OF DEVELOPMENT SIZE CONDITION IMPACT' MEASURE(S) MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Projects generating las Adequate No Payment of Impact fee Contribute to Implementation of than 100 peak hour (Standard Level of Service of Service) the Comprehensive Transportation tripends or better) System improvement Program footnote #F2 OR 1. A I% or greater Increase In the Intersection Capacity Utilization 2. When the project contributes 50% or more of the incremental impact at the intersection and all of the improvements Identified in the General Plan at the subject location are required as mitigation. if all of the improvements identified in the Yes Services shall be constructed by the developer. Deficient (exceeds Standard Level of Service) Projects generating 100 or more peak hour tripends Adequate (Standard Level of Service or better) OR No Payment of impact fee Contribute to implementation of the Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program Yes Payment of impact fee Contribute to implementation of Deficient and improvement the Comprehensive Transportation (exceeds Standard Level construction by developer System Improvement Program and of Service) under conditions listed in mitigate development project's footnote #F2 impacts 1. A I% or greater Increase In the Intersection Capacity Utilization 2. When the project contributes 50% or more of the incremental impact at the intersection and all of the improvements Identified in the General Plan at the subject location are required as mitigation. if all of the improvements identified in the General Plan are not required as mitigation, than only the improvements determined necessary by the Director of Public Services shall be constructed by the developer. 8 Bection 3.: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15 ) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. ,� L'�- PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ATTEST: Deputy C y Clerk of the City of or of the City of Costa Costa Me Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��o�lt 5.13 -i3 City Attorney 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, MARY.T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. _q,3-11 was introduced and considered section by sectin at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3 day of `� 19 73, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at ad regular meeting of said Council held on the __LLL!! day of 19_L.3, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: (-;EA)! 5� 14U Pi4R E Y� t,Q;e KsoA) NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: /J"' )E ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: { 6RA)1.3ua l-, 3u ri=-4 J IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby sq$ my hand nd affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 1j' day of 1993. Deputy CXPy Clerk and ex -officio �- Clerk of./the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa 10 APPENDIX "C" _ Preliminary 1991 Southern California Origin -Destination Survey KEY FINDINGS ° In comparison to the 1976 data, households in 1991 were larger and owned more vehicles, but made fever trips per vehicle. Regionvide, the average number of trip per household (all types, purposes) increased slightly by six (6) percent. ° The percentage of both total and vehicle driver trips that were for home -work (H -W) and other -work purposes increased in all county study areas between 1976 and 1991. Other -work trips increased six (6) percent across all county study areas. ° Home -work trips had the lowest average vehicle occupancy rate (1.08) and, correspondingly, the highest percentage of drive -alone trips, 94 percent. Compared to 1976, vehicle occupancy for H -W trips decreased slightly by 5%. ° The largest percentage of total trips originated or ended at "home" (36 percent); work was the second most frequent trip origin or destination (15 percent). The remaining 49 percent of trips originated or ended at "other" locations. ° Self-reported work travel times increased between 1976 and 1991 in all counties tudied. In Los Angeles, average home -work travel time increased 17 Aga (from 24 minutes to 29 minutes). The largest Increases in home -work travel time were in the Inland Empire, with Riverside County shoving a 39 percent increase (from 19 minutes to 32 minutes) and San Bernardino County residents indicating a 37 percent increase (from 19 minutes to 31 minutes). ° Compared to 1976, there were slightly more drive alone trips, and slightly fever vehicle passenger trips. ° Peak periods of home -work travel have widened, with the am peak extending from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and the pm peak starting earlier than 3:00 p.m. and continuing until after 6:00 p.m. When non -home -work trips are Included, the region appears to have a relatively flat peak that lasts throughout the day, with a slight lull in the late morning. W W co _ h 0 0 T > o _ 0 AD CD WL to cam. � C 00 =U � ^L cx co N cd c 6 6 O O O N Q N c6 T T cV (O In v: (A of td (D fZ Z 6 (7 O C co (tsQ (/) L Z T ci NNQOyd}• •"J Z T T Z V V Q Z �M W 1/`� V/ Q Z '0/0� y J 'T� W z N m m .D •` Q Z T C'7 T C7 Q Z 1_ r V/ r Q Z � �T W C7 Q Z V Co V co Q Z CO 0 �/ 0 Q Z 1� N 1 N CC a) C 0 C7 N c7 •- •- N 4 Ni 6 6 O 6 (O (O Z N N N N N C) CO T V W r O) O) r v W W (o to VJ Q W Y Q N N m T r r 4 4 6 (O O J L (� r- co co i` T ai ti co (O P- *- rn i� (O CO 1,.- r rn ti co CO ti r- ai f- co CO % T of f- co (O ti T of O Cl) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r T r r r T r r r r r T T T r r T O O U �_ s V L tOnN :3 N t O > n O L ai O O O i Ci� N y .O rn _ O 1--�` • a :3 o Z °- 2 u1 c ¢ CO) _ co _ N a 'L O a� U � r Q. �` > ~ 0- > 1 N O -- a) I— Q '— N 0 -CL F— ~ _ Y > O. 0 _ � N m E CD O 0 _ Q to N N co O Y � — f` N cq �t O >0 ? > N N ch N cV) N � E O = Z Q cn N -O O O 02 00 c0 � N 00 N > N N N N T- N Q _ Q co N c o Q .> m 2 N -C a N O In N 0o .- CO ? - - q) co co co 4t Q c U) f`- a LO rn c(o o r--. V 't It qt � N qt A� l� ^L^` a/'') A ^0) W ( rn(D co o o m( O N N CO � N C7 U L L CD LL T CO LO W Vl V -L N 0 C9 cr) N N t O c N as O C Q cN i C H U o p m > 0 c t� CD 13 N U T o o Up tq c t^O r N M -- N O ,T T Qi U U C t0 Lm � o co OZ 4.0 O M Z r r iT a. N N r r N O co Q Q LQ T Z Z r N N r C N� CU 44) C �. / Qtm m = 'aQ C L ++ O vC0 0 _j o > cc (5 Cl) 0 > N 1�• O (� O — l.f) 00 tom• t` 00 T T r r T a� Q75 d- r T r r r CO r (y r T N as i Q o CU 0 U 0 ..� O •> cr ai U) (1) > T O r- 00 O c0 d• 1` N c0 00 Ln T O c6 CV M 0 a� 0 T N T 0 CV r O r In N O 6 N A 0 a) °0 vami a Cl) -a = O c� o .o a-_ Q Z y 5 O tO 'a O O- = N$ C N O O O NCL ~ O Cl) -� O N N Q. CCl)L 2 � 0 N O O L P N 2 D.. _ > N O' OCL N L CO co a o. Q. Q C N O Nf— •Q. • O U h— C U U N V) CL -— > LL N J :E t > > O F— RS H RS A cu L Q 0 4-0 U N N :3 cc 0� U0) M�T- o o 0 a) X -Q VI E �U 0 L P1 0 cn L aD CL N N w N o �-- o o o N N •- r M M M M M M r` m 0 o o ao N N M M M N W � W L LD L Q Q CO �. L O E w > «� IX. TRIP START TIMES This section presents analyses of trip purposes, trip types, and selected modes of transportation by start time. Figure 28 Distribution of Vehicle Driver Trips By Start Time 2,500,000 2.000,000 N CL FC 1,500.000 O W E 1.000.000 i Z 500.000 0 -t �- N M qq to (0 1- 00 O) O N N t7 e* to t0 n Co O O N CV .- CV 6 tb f.� ai — d N 4 N M 4 t6 tb f�L 06 —d Time of Day Figure 28 illustrates the distribution of vehicle driver trips by trip start time. The morning peak travel occurred between 6:00am and approximately 8:30am, and midday travel peaked between 11:00am and 2:00pm. The evening peak period began at about 3:00pm and lasted until just after 6:00pm, and at the highest point comprised almost 2,50 million trips. 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 R m N O CL a CL t= 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 .i 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 a0 O (m01 c0 O <: CO O DfCD r OD O N m E 0 (D ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 e 0 Of N M M M N N N N M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 M V �- .- In Cl) ([) (O (A ¢t CO (D 0 1 L m ♦r ~ O O O O O O O \ \ p p O ao rn r` rn O o o rn rn O C► N m O o O 0 O O O O O O O O O O Os M (D t- O P (D < W) (� t� O t� tD C w r �- '— '— r V— O � n. m � a ti 0 rsa 0 O r N O N N M �- N N N N N s: N N N N N N r O O O O O O `' O Ie O O O o r N N (O CO O ?'%` v M SIR N M (n ? N??g.:; is N N N N N N E 0 t- o \ 0 \ 0 0 0 0' o 0 0 0 0 0 (n r-- O w w 0 00 < r M O O O r N N N N N r N O O O <`IR rr>:: O O O O O L df N to N M (p to M M O d' M O m E< o (o o a o 0 0 f>: 0�- CD 'R: ;K r, tt t 1�_ r y:: N tq aN C <? f m �+ Q C N "'" ``At`? C y y �9 C Q Df m .%;: Q C ILl m w 7 V C p Z O: ^< N N d tD d O Fes— F= > O I- 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 .i 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 in e M \ qT o c 0 0 0 0 tr N CO O co N r" to �- O 1-- <D co w CD CDCD M .N- �- M to ^ CO r O O M f - C (D ti to M co tD Obi tD N tD N > *. M (D r- co � - N 't � 0 to �-- CD N O eq.ro o o p o 0 0 0 0 C O to N O r st N N �-to O to ►C. (O (D co C) N f` IRT M co ti qtr CD c+) to to Cl) O (D IT M O N O 'Rt (D f_ N! M N to N Cl) C7 to W) m �.. N .- N (D tD (D r N ti to H00 O M N g e e o o e o 0 to cn O co O O N O O to C d � •- N 0 f` Ct O 0 O O "'tr GoM— O a N tD w "f M Oa to (D 0 Cl) O Cl) (D CO to O N (D qT r to C�0 O (� j2to ;� p ti 0 N •- (D N (D �! cl st CD 12 N e e o -.-,z eo \ o C t N t•7 to m O C O O N 0) 0) CO O f` N co M to (D to V�- 7 (D Cry to N (D O O) to to T- (7) ` O O O r (D to CO O O CO N (D N O e0 t-- N ti to (D N r- (0 m_ qcT W M O r tri e \ o o a e o o 0 0 0 M OMj to N ti �r. I� (D to (D N �- O O to d dCl) O O N M t` O CGo 00) � W O � O C Q to 0 r- tc) N O ti r O CO M (D C0D �o th O Cp O rn O N r to to W) M tD r - .- p O (n C. N J C N Q — E cm O ac) d N w O y = N m N 0 0 d 0- ~ d m U L T �: m tm p V 1C d ~> Fes. Y N O O d m CLH 3 00 (n t .p c m V d (3~ V m H > > n. O i= 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 in 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 11 i+ c d E 0 CL E W C 0 0 0 0 0 r, tT (D tri O cl ` 0 c O r � (D T CL O cl O to Co CCOO `c , co �- (o to 'lT tl t7 cn C) co rn 03 rn m (D co C O 4m N to a w t i •- to O � 2-.,z ~ o 'V w t0 m Co Co 0 0 ►. O T T ti p t` N N a O to ov o Cp 0 O O o vj 0 o (O T T C o ti co ' m oo Co T to t`7 U) C 0 0 0 0 0 r Co to O ` to N T p T r m a o o L; O O O N to N (D C) N to �! t7) O T CO p m to � N co /0 r N co N T T _E" m a Wm ^ 0) o v o C I ` to T r p r m O T r - O a O T (D N CO OM N Cot (n C7 t•i wto Co r CDm 0 0 0 C • d O OO tD to O 0 N r m CC o OR rn Q c6 a O O tV to coo tp7 CD N cD (D N O m cn as O ai N t: O m � t- N ti E Op0 f~+ N m tO d 0) 1- o V o a 00 n o00 T u rn iD Go O~f o c w o tD t7 T t+i c m w Cl) < �'. off O �. 4) c O C N co m NN E C 4D O m > FO - 1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993 11 i+ c d E 0 CL E W 0 0 c co (D 0 m ►� M Co t",i Cj Cj nj O C a � 2-.,z o 'V 0 -. 0 0 0 ►. N N ti p t` N N O to m O O T vj T T C m U) m ;o o�O o o L; O N N to � Uf m > �! CO CO to T M N N CO cT m o o \ o ggo C N O T O O T (D N CO tt N m C o 0 0 0 N CC o OR rn Q c6 O O tV to t7 J m w o c w � N t0 w V m 4D E o m c V c 0 N m O ~ C c +' c R E V ~V CL m V H m d N z c o > CITY OF COSTA MESA EXHIBIT "B" CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT Fund Balance as of April 15, 1995 FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 Beginning Fund Balance, collection from August 6, 1993 0 1. Revenues Traffic Impact fees $65,930 Investment Earnings $ 3,089 Revenue subtotal $69,019 2. Expenditures 0 Fund Balance June 30, 1994 $69,019 3. Refunds Amount of funds unexpended or uncommitted after 5 years 0 4. Administration Costs Amount charged to account 0 5. Closing Balance June 30, 1994 $69,019 FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 1994 69,019 1. Revenues Traffic Impact fees $143,801 Investment Earnings $ 2,227 Revenue subtotal $146,028 2. Expenditures 0 Fund Balance April 15, 1995 $215,047 3. Refunds Amount of funds unexpended or uncommitted after 5 years 0 4. Administration Costs Amount charged to account 0 S. Projected Balance May 1, 1995 $215,047