HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-57 - Establish a Traffic Impact Fee - New Development, Capital Improvement PlanRESOLUTION NO. 96 - 57
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
THE 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, in June, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 93-43 and
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; and
4. WHEREAS, in 1994 and 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 94-59
and 95-35 to reestablish the traffic impact fee and conduct an annual review of the fee and
capital improvement plan; and
5. 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 the purpose for which it was charged; and
6. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66002(b) requires the City
Council to review and annually update the capital improvement plan for improvements to be paid
for by the traffic impact fee; and
7. 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
8. WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to comply with the annual review
responsibilities under the California Government Code; and
9. 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
10. 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 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
11. WHEREAS, the City conducted a Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study in 1993 and
a revised study in 1996 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
12. 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
13. WHEREAS, the traffic study and audit were available for public inspection and
review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing; and
14. 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
15. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on May 20 and June 17,
1996, 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
16. 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, June 6, 1994, May 1, 1995, May 20, 1996, and June 17, 1996,
does hereby make the following additional findings:
A. The purpose of the fee is to fund circulation/transportation
improvements within 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, 94-59. and 95-35 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
improvement plan adopted by Resolution Nos. 93-43, 94-59, and 95-35, and set
forth in Exhibit A remains adequate to provide the facilities for which the traffic
impact fee is charged 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 Section 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
improvement plan, as identified in the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study attached as Exhibit
A, pursuant to Government Code Section 66002.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1996.
Mayr of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORA
Deputy City Cl -'1k of the City of Costa Mesa
�_ CITY ATTORNEY
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. .& - 57
was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 17th day of June, 1996.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City
of Costa Mesa this 18th day of June, 1996.
I•
Deputy Cit Jerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa
I
EXHIBIT "A"
Resolution 96-57
CITY OF COSTA MEQ - _ - --
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MAY 1, 1996
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Table of Contents ............................................
i -ii
List of Exhibits .............................................
iii
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 .........................
3
(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 .............................
6
(2) Adjustment of Costs for Growth of
-- Existing Population ..............................
8
(3) Adjustment of Costs Related to
'- Excess Capacity ................................
9
(4) Adjustment of Costs for Regional
Traffic.......................................
10
(5) Summary of Adjustments ..........................
10
i (FEE96)traf
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae Number
C. Trip End Analysis .................................... 10
(1) Adjustment for Trip Chaining ....................... 11
D. Maximum Traffic Impact Fee ............................ 12
E. Baseline Traffic Impact Fee ............................. 12
5. Methodology ............................................ 12
A. Traffic Analysis ..................................... 13
6. Summary ...........................................
14
Appendix "A"
Appendix "B"
Appendix "C"
ii (FEE96)traf
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page Number
A. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
Area of Benefit .......................................... 15
B. Master Plan of Highways ................................... 16
C. Comprehensive Transportation System (Capital)
Improvement Program ..................................... 17-20
_ D. Costa Mesa Traffic Analysis Zones ............................ 21
E. General Plan Traffic Growth Analysis .......................... 22-25
F. Local and Regional Trip Ends ................................ 26
G. Allocation of Trip Ends .................................... 27
H. Traffic Impact Fee Work Sheet ............................... 28-29
I. Traffic Impact Fee Cost Summary ............................. 30
iii (FEE96)traf
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 traffic
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 City Council Member
Mark Korando
Ed Fawcett
Malcolm Ross
Kerry Smith
Gene Hutchins
Planning Commissioner
Chamber of Commerce Representative
Major Developers/Landowners
Representative
Small Developers/Landowners
Representative
At -large member representing homeowners
associations
(FEE96)traf
_ 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.
The fee study was revised based on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and
on May 1, 1995, City Council adopted a final traffic impact fee of $200 per average daily
trip end.
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:
3. 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
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.
2 (FEE96)traf
_ C. A maximum traffic impact fee of $284 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.
Max Per Daily Trip End Fee —_ Total Adiusted Cost of Facilities
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 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
3 (FEE96)traf
_ 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.
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 1996.
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.
4 (FEE96)traf
_ 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.
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
5 (FEE96)traf
_ 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 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.
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:
6 (FEE96)tra(
... ... ....
LOQ
'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
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
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:
7 (FEE96)trai
Project 17a - Southbound Bristol St. Offramp at I-405 $1,551,351
Project 17b - Braiding of Southbound Bristol St. Onramp $15,845,009
Project 25 - Northbound Bristol St. Offramp and Braid $22,075,707
Project 29 - Northbound Fairview Rd. Onramp Braid $11,085,660
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:
15. Newport Boulevard & 17th Street
$234,000
55. Harbor Boulevard & I-405 NB Ramps
Not Applicable
69. Fairview Road & Adams Avenue
$761,111
105. Harbor Boulevard & Adams Avenue
$1,788,248
The improvement cost for these intersection improvements applicable to new
developments amounts to approximately $1.1 million.
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
8 (FEE96)trai
_ 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.
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. (Ld, 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.
9 (FEE96)trat
(4) Adiustment 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
(B) Adjustments
(1) Existing Deficiencies
(2) Excess and Reserve Capacity
(3) Existing Population Growth
(4) Regional Traffic
Total Deductions
(C) Adjusted Cost Subject to Fee
C. TRIP END ANALYSIS
$177.5 million
$24.8 million
$9.9 million
$0.0 million
$78.8 million
$113.5 million
$64.0 million
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 TAZ's have reduced traffic or negative traffic growth
10 (FEE96)traf
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 232,778 new daily
trip ends and a reduction of 125,037 old daily trip ends to result in a net increase of
107,741 new daily trip ends. Of the 232,778 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 2212 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 Trips
— 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
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
11 (FEE96)traf
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 total of 11,606 daily trip ends are assumed to be resulting from linked trips.
Thus, the 232,778 new daily trip ends within Costa Mesa is reduced by the
linked trips at fast food and quality restaurants. This results in 225,794 new
daily trip ends which are included in the fee program.
A 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
225,794 daily trip ends. This results in the maximum traffic impact fee of $284 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.
5. METHODOLOGY:
As recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee, the traffic 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
12 (FEE96)trat
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 off -hour traffic and the peak traffic volumes which typically occur
during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour. Land uses which generate most of the traffic
volumes 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 new development is also based on the same trip generation rates for
13 (FEE96)traf
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 improvement 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.
C. SUMMARY:
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 2212 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 fee. The new daily trip ends
within Costa Mesa has been adjusted to account for (pass -by trips) linked trips at fast food
and quality restaurants resulting in 225,794 new daily trip ends which are included in the
fee program. The amount of $64 million is then distributed uniformly over the 225,794 new
daily trip ends to determine the maximum traffic impact fee. This results in a maximum
traffic impact fee of $284 per new average daily trip end.
14 (FEE96)traf
A rw v
MP rr . ..
......
� p
roc 1°t
tz
�_ �wl.7�.�w p wL raw.W ,\ nn�P a �-o:~ .:a r.. •.M:.
wI w] W 116 ° Q W ww M \ r W l�I• - �( �' .
www o1J 1 � a I p a . y. 1c
• � w / .wc
3"41 pS
J q .
q 7 M _
w ° wt M
w U
I . ILLJ w a ✓� �w'✓ i ��
I�wl% r�I ql
_ °
I rw w
M rww w q faY � 1 Q n a\/
..1 I wx .a� p ✓ i,' �� ti � � r
in
W �� 1•� �w
W
::I-1 � W.�l //� 'LIr ..�\:„ Vim`\ \%�\�`•' \
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
AREA OF BENEFIT
15 EXHIBIT A
OP\
4 q
14,
F_�'ggwN!4F
f!!lfff!!!f!!!ff
4 �
q p
48x8�ry
i2 q q
ax�€333�L'3u�Y�
� ffff�lffl�!!flf�
i rGT91�—
i � I
j
C13
H
m_
X
W
t0
T
w
cn
Q
O
M
z
2
LLI
cc
CL2
F-
N
O
LU
F—
z
LU
W
O
a
2
z
O
U
0
m
F -
z
LU
W
O
m
a
a
W
w
m
LL
MNCOd TCAOOf�00d MMOOM Cn 7--0004u)0
N000C0lnOlL)OOCOOln00C0OON r d 00d NO
c0mm0wN�cowww1-000N N 0r-00Ndt0_
O -:, ': L6 C6 d L6 Lf)MCOTOOd d- M d Nd'000
CO CO It 0) LOItt000f-OC) Nd f�CY)N000 Cn CM I,- TLC)I-T
OU)I-'tL000LOf-00691-TLO04LO - I- TTNCOh69
C') N om *- cn CO N T M N 61) Ici R CC N C F N M
61? 6R 61? •- 69 N T 69 69 6F? ti T ER to T
69 6Fi 6F} V!k 6F} 6F}
J
Q
F-
CL a 0
CC m
Z LL N
Ow
CL CL Cr O
w 2Q¢F-0
> �mmmm
LL LL 0
m ZZLLLLZQ
OOOOz=
0Ow0wOO
cr >��
CL acr CC<
m Q m Q U) m
w w0
oW °0°0E-0
LL Z F- FcL -
�u�a�0 c c c c c c1
Z CL 0 Q 2 Q Q F- cts cts ct5 c� N c�
>- a Z 0 w m z m LL w 000000
=m0,i wz0z0Z
m L— 0 00 0 Z m m m a) a� o
i¢�Q� Q Ommw�wO 000000
ZiDFW CL (L co �����_� EEEE EE
>mOQ°'mm �mz==<M;;m cmi) ------
m02CC2z L w
m~a-LLMO, <2wO000o0
Um20wJ0QCCQ�moC00000oC Cl)
Ua¢ w0moCu-oC u U- U- U - ,CI Z
*0mwOU)irz0zmo�n�n�nLOLn w
1: U- F - OOH I� W
OF -
b O m m=� W Q U m m m m m m >
mO��F-c�F-zmOwwwwzzz 0
2U)w_,Uwu.wF-mZU-U- -U-u - Q,
<m>oJOOQJ�Z000000 2
��-LOOw w0 C'3C�3C' Q Q .�^�
O00�mcjzZp�>M?zzzZz Q o > c 3
CC m _w �m�ZZZZ — Z ���OQ O
000 m :>ZmQmwwww,.,•,w a) a) C L cor--
WmQQQmLL(q�0�0�� LLI C � a0 c �
m—oWmmmmmm������ a �� ��U)
m¢m— Zzzzcn
z=z� c�� .c c.) -o ai..:� o oZ - 0 0
0oo0m0000000� z-
TN�OTTTNNNMd'd'd'd'd'd' z p)� ��
F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— F— Q cz � Y
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU �:E cz co
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww u. 0�:CL�:—U)—
)-»��—)-,)—»—)-���-»��
00000000000000000 Z .c����0
aCOCOCaCmoCmoCOCOCOCOCOCOCaCmoC C� r-----� c�-
mmma_CLM(LCLQ-0-CLCLCLCLCLMCL (n rr�T-NQ
17
EXHIBIT C
2
W
F-
cc
cc
as
CC Z
0W
CL �w
Z >
Q0
cc cc
a
LLI
C/) J
Za
W
wa
CC
Lv
2
O
U
N ¢COOaONO�NO�N¢¢00
O Z - OCoCo0ha000)I'-ZZOCo
V TOTCf) NCf) CAIAIAI- TN
LO T-- ►�-C)(Y)CoTU')LO OT
060TctOD0)0)Mco00 0) It
�9 (a V91 691 V). � Eli v!). F- EId9
`G
V//r/�
J
W
zz z
H It It cz
zp�Cn0Cn0Cn��0pcn0CnO
(1)(1)W � to � a) a) a) a) a) a) Q) (1) a) Uto (1)c c c c c c c c c c c c o c c
W Cts «s CLS CO Cts co cz CC M Cts C13 Co N co Cts
CoCoCoCol-f-I'CoCo�It Ned'
o
000000000000 O O O
IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
g > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
0
20202200000-V500
aaaaaaaaQCD- aac CL CL
E E E E E E E E E E E E 00 E E
3
m
Z�
LL cz
0
aD al
cz
v)
¢ � 2-0 ai
L c _ .(n cz o
o on._0Lcmom oca_Z
O = = 0 a) cu (n U) O
o ,C O O 0 0 W
Z N U O O O mC15 .- O
VQ �co
3 - app Oa)pOm
/0) LO NCa) O O2
Z cc - cu•0`,0c
U) aa0wco�_
-� aff)
—c a)(n�U
L ` n `o 0 o c —c c
Y"i��_
tcv� a c a
CO CD a) '= '= = N 'co _
a) cu � =
¢mmmmmmoLLMW w3:3:
U
I-
qe
I-000o00001l-0
M00I-CATOhqtO
N
�00toI'-M0N*-0
ReC700�'TTI�r,:&L_
O
co
co&N9NNgtN
NDN
r
J
Q
F-
O
H
m
cc
cnca
N
CD
0
H
0 m
w od
H m
'2 m�
M W otS
a)
jr
E0
M m
>
w m a
od m
co
JJ
a) E
U) M
nw °�a]
M
Qc_'
c c m W
E c
N NW
U E
-JJ'0mm
*•' a)
mmmce)
�ZmmmJ
(D
Ema�
-a�mmmm
coNNZZZ�
>m>m
o-0-t3-C)a-0-a
p>W
L -00-a
�-a-a70707010
0,070
U)
z
O_ 3
F" o
V
LL �m
L od
2 L 3 0
10 0
Z O
O 06 od 06 CU 06 �
~O O 0¢� O Y
V 0 ui CL a a 0' co c ;= off o o
N 3 �CCS O = CLS
W z z z 0 U) l— fn m m cn
H c6 c n6 6 I� r: a0 cvi 6 70
Z T T T T T N N N N
T
2
ui
z CI
00
H �
Qa
0w
CL
U) w
z >
40
F' a
za
W
wa
av
0
C)
0
`W
r
CQ
LG
r
Cl)
W
H
z
W
W
'0
M
CL
2
O O In Ct O O O O In 0 0 0 (0 O O O O T O W O In OOT ,q 0 0 M
O O T N O O O O N O O OI'- O O In O T O,tO M O O'*M M O "lt Q
O O m m 0 Ct O O O m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 T M r - T m O O m In T M N Z
L6 L6 6C70OrNC6NC6Or-OOMC66rdC6dNC6OC6COCONM
OTMT- r- OMr- ONOMIn gTTr-COMMT,q69NMMMTM
C\lU)U)TCf) NE!?Ttf)C r-LO(0(000(0M}I-LONtItT 6FM(0N(0r-
6� 6a T v). 6n 6-,-6-#.6-,-6-).T 69. 09,_ _
T T 69 6o T tet T 6-t 6-t T 6-)- T
6c#. 6 t 61).613- 69 6cl. 69 64
r v
m C
(n N
O 06
H m
m m
m Z
.o O
c F_
N m
06 Z
W m m Z
W
06
� M � m
°6 O m aC
Of J +- Z m
F- CO
zmm Hm m
w m U) 06
F- aim -cm-�W mZod F— -Wp OC
W m M��� NZ ON� U) C=co co co c co
co U) N W
a) CD
o�S �f N CO m m �m m (Z N H H m 06 cc
E o WZmm�CC ZCOZ. .00 z ° �m z
mm C Cm F— cF--HmW mmHH�mNF—HHHMM,+ F -1—m
(1 06 co co
) Z. wwOcmc co mwz���zwzcm)MMMZW3:M
"0-0 cm�mmCo a "D >>m�M002ammm2 c: c:co
nO�A�
NN O ONWc�COMMMWWZMNN>
'0'0 CD- Q-0"0v'a-0-Da-0a'aa7070.0'aa'aaav-a.0a-0-oa
aaE EaaQaaaaaaaaaaaaaa¢aQaaaaaa
O O
CV L
N O Z
/ L m
co N
7 Q Y0 :3 Y ..� N
cn d m O = CZ
'C 0. �°otoS C OC a) 0
N N CC O m CO 3: O V) CO Cn O
OQ" CL --- E tO ` Z m 0 O /�
CU E
ld
O C 5 co cc Y c�cr mm O•— S 0mQ�mmm 0...-.m>m¢li
(AF_Q c�mmm �mmcn�cnC�3Zm,��m�m�mcnc�nZ�z06 06
o�xsotsa-ozfcnv)m��ots 3otSotf�f�S 3 3Z=_Z=06ZZ C 3r. -= L
L O o 0 o o
-. cn U) cz cn C� CtS N i i &- i &-O , O fn Cn fn 3 ._ 3 cz ca
O 'L 'C CU 'C CD a) '� cr cz 'Cz CZ CO CLS CO .FU Cr Q) Cr N C ' 'C 'a. O Co O
QmmmmWmmmW2LL2222LLU-WmWmmmmZlLZ . .
T N M 4 6 O 00 M M M T N 4 M O T M 4 6 m O O T C10 0 m
N M M M It Nt It'cl, It It It It CC) CA w Co O w I- r-nFl- r- �� w m m m OO
19
2
W
H
} Q
z C'3
00
Hw
as
F- F.
°C z
0aw
C/)wz
O 2
a >
wm
> — a
Z
w
w a
av
2
0
U
Z
O
r
000000
Lf)
T
000000
O
IL
000000
T
U)
J
W
0)LOc�D�tN�
co
<D
N� NM ff? Ei9 Eft tf}
M
D
`N
m
N
h
6F}
�
H
T
N
J
J
T _J
O
zz 06
ca T
W cz— W c
¢ 06
H
> 06 a>
0 CD (ES
O
0
O
(Z 0 i CU
22 Z0C/5
H
c6 c6 4 Ld .6 f--�
m
Z
T T T T T T
M
CO)
m
m mm
U)U)
0 0606
ErcrctftcrCE
mmmmmm
wzU)U)zz
a¢aaaa
20
M
W
IL
O
J
W
W
D
m
D
W
H
V
N
0 rn
z
T _J
O
zz 06
ca T
W cz— W c
¢ 06
> 06 a>
0 CD (ES
m
-�cC
O
(Z 0 i CU
22 Z0C/5
H
c6 c6 4 Ld .6 f--�
rN N N N N
Z
T T T T T T
20
26
(263
0 240
285
COSTA MESA ZONES
239
1202 242
238 243
1-84 86-165
299
241r 247
167 - 168 170 - 175
(se
2
ti
287
(2 (30 233 243 15r175
259 220 237 I1
i� IO 14
257 258 or 219 1 17 13
' 'L` �18 12
218'��'
217 225 t
25f4 t
8 216 224 , 2824
9 9 2
111
174
ze 7
221 223 29 4'+ 5 3
t 73
33 0 '" 4
3s 2n �..3, . •
110
39 35 34 32 45 ' 64
63
270
36 V
271
3T 44 a2 82 61"/167
1
168. 272
. 43
48 52
80
39.
152
158
165
50 55«4
S3
O.l
151
_
157
184
169
51 125 g
47 78 54 8y `
150
156
183
S 80 124 49
7.MI
149
•
155
182
176
48 77 79 �•' 121
1
148
54
101
177
. 78 120
$9; 118
147
153
160
188
179
?•Os 75 117
131
137
159
f"%,
Z 178
52 s �y 73 \'S .1 `°X
68 71 1 ,, d
130
'136:
142
146
i
6� 70 \�� 'r�e�
���
11 129
rag
141
14F
181 182
66 111
85 ,�% � 105
128
134
140
144
180
90 .891,97
251 t00 104
!�4
—127
.11.
133
139
14.3
183
184
88 •.a
65 93
102
132
138
t88 273
� a387 9294 gs go128
25050
186
197
�9
86 g 1
193
195 ^185
249 191 192 194
-199
198
214
213
211
20
197 •�'
199
208 207
,
212
COSTA MESA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
215
-- 21 EXHIBIT D
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS
- CMTM ZONE
NUMBER
EXISTING
ADT
POST -2010
ADT
CHANGE
IN ADT
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
19357
19357
19357
- 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
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
- 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
22 EXHIBIT E
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS
- CMTM ZONE
NUMBER
EXISTING
ADT
POST -2010
ADT
CHANGE
IN ADT
POSITIVE
TRAFFIC
GROWTH
NEGATIVE
TRAFFIC
GROWTH
- 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
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
23
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS
'- CMTM ZONE
NUMBER
EXISTING
ADT
POST -2010
ADT
CHANGE
IN ADT
POSITIVE
TRAFFIC
GROWTH
NEGATIVE
TRAFFIC
GROWTH
- 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
_ 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
24
GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC GROWTH ANALYSIS
- CMTM ZONE
NUMBER
EXISTING
ADT
POST -2010
ADT
CHANGE
IN ADT
POSITIVE
TRAFFIC
GROWTH
NEGATIVE
TRAFFIC
GROWTH
_ 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
1220793
107741
232778
-125037
25
r
r
r
r
II
1 TRIP END 1 TRIP END
0 1 TRIP = s
ORIGIN DESTINATION
T1 TRIP END
T
0
T
n
1
1
1
1 TRIP END
1 TRIP END
1 TRIP END
TO
FROM
COSTA MESA
OUTSIDE
TOTAL
COSTA MESA
B
iJA + �B
OUTSIDE
OD
Ca + aD
TOTAL
A� + �C
@B + @D
AO+@ +QC +@D
LOCAL TRIP ENDS = �A + 1/2 aB + 1/2 C@
REGIONAL TRIP ENDS = O + 1/2 OB + 1/2 C@
LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRIP ENDS
26
EXHIBIT F
ORIGIN
TRIP
DESTINATION
TRIP TRIP
END END
DEVELOPMENT A
DEVELOPMENT B
TRIP ENDS ALLOCATED EQUALLY
TO BOTH DEVELOPMENT A AND B
NE�i�r
LAND
NEW
LAND
TRIP ENDS ALLOCATED TRIP ENDS ALLOCATED
/ TO DEVELOPMENT A TO DE'aLOPMENT S
USE
j'
USE
/p�
N
/
U100-1
TRIP ENDS EXCLUDED FROIt''I
TRIP FEE ANALYSIS
ALLOCATION OF TRIP ENDS
�_
27 EXHIBIT G
r
W
W
2
N Z
IL�
0`0 -
/ h
cn v
L
J
Q
Z
Q
LU
LU
LL
r
U o
Q^ =
a. W
Ix
M
V W
_
LL
LL.
LL/MQ
r
LU
U
O
W
1 �
L}L F
1"' y
U W
n �1y0�0(��yO O.1l--N(yyN�Ng� --- -f-X$V$�jj any� 1y` CI tO pOp CIV YO�i 1�p019 �lp�pgY��pCyJf ����<pppp b000�17 pO NfnO Cp0�1�� 1lOp�t�� lyp�N�CQOf
H S NyNONNH�au�yll e0R ya�aO �� WNOVCI (N(yy y�O(N(yyW N NN WyN �N HN �NH�KNNNH�HMHN IKN-
H H q HN H K N H N� H �gHNH H f919 th W N
<y �pNy�tO �O N((Oy�yp�tN'OI �NyN OtO (fpO (a<a(��O1�01 N NN ci
Om�Op�pi OMi p<mpm0�0 toy tp7�Ny V IpO �Np mN pW pai ONO.Ir -I�nt?t(py00Ne W {QV��ONtNy cO �D I?pa�ICp��tD {���yO f0 N�(1 pq� yN t(tpp� tymD �lmm.
N H�NONNN N^019N� OnD NepNp N�CINNK(�-10NNwN<NN NNNNN NNMNN��NNNNHI9H�H��HIA 19 ViN MN
H N N� H�� qH HNj q -N19 H WWNNNN N1I1 lY�1 fNV N N
�p ON N
epN Vdp tyyO tN�I O{pG�pD mpN rfmO ..q-1pO-�lRD ymO N C{ 01�0pN,1pO.,O�OfD I�O. qO f�tGppD�OOa!_n 0l�l ppK� �0p0�0y 1�ny0-a (RpyI O �NQj�QaO!R0 �0O W N{+OJ �Oy gOO�}O�{1 �Tp O8OOtsO�NO OO�NI(p��p�j
O NN I�VN�NN {I{p�pOON1_���yyNNNNy � �WNf�N�Dyy-f�N{O{��HN�NV0P0: t7 {t0{yy �0 ��0�pp lq NNNMNNNNdNNN�NKHyHNNNH�HH�m nN����
36
ni�pp
x
m
a6 Sup cQy'i-�Ooy chi-pmN m<ymoao
alp
H
ppn�
O
pMMIp� {tm{t��� m$mI
PNNTO W WN NCJO� V mCyl
WNWHWNNIH
qH W
' m
8��iyn yym �y�pa
yn{aiiy�m�yp tUgpil pmt {��p spy
��O ��y 1� O��NNNH ONNNNNOI(�y NNNI�NO yn C]tMy 1p Ni�(J
� NN�N
HN
N
KWWWWWW yN
N� I9
q
�
X
Duni `�
$75t'�pi$pvni_aN iG �opN c"py%ppmg n
5� g Q W
rm�Hfp�p,�i�(3y�nN�{my�d auNi Ria �i
mlci(2y5(y(n���pOy�S
---m�itp7ryO�i,
OH$�VHOOiO W^tY�r�"
WNO^�tp�HON��NH 10yNN
{'uhf'9M'_in�v3�
mpa
HNyNMNNHMaHNNNWHKHHM
�p
yb yO try�HNN�NtO
HGK H H H HNHVI V
WWW H
n �1y0�0(��yO O.1l--N(yyN�Ng� --- -f-X$V$�jj any� 1y` CI tO pOp CIV YO�i 1�p019 �lp�pgY��pCyJf ����<pppp b000�17 pO NfnO Cp0�1�� 1lOp�t�� lyp�N�CQOf
H S NyNONNH�au�yll e0R ya�aO �� WNOVCI (N(yy y�O(N(yyW N NN WyN �N HN �NH�KNNNH�HMHN IKN-
H H q HN H K N H N� H �gHNH H f919 th W N
<y �pNy�tO �O N((Oy�yp�tN'OI �NyN OtO (fpO (a<a(��O1�01 N NN ci
Om�Op�pi OMi p<mpm0�0 toy tp7�Ny V IpO �Np mN pW pai ONO.Ir -I�nt?t(py00Ne W {QV��ONtNy cO �D I?pa�ICp��tD {���yO f0 N�(1 pq� yN t(tpp� tymD �lmm.
N H�NONNN N^019N� OnD NepNp N�CINNK(�-10NNwN<NN NNNNN NNMNN��NNNNHI9H�H��HIA 19 ViN MN
H N N� H�� qH HNj q -N19 H WWNNNN N1I1 lY�1 fNV N N
�p ON N
epN Vdp tyyO tN�I O{pG�pD mpN rfmO ..q-1pO-�lRD ymO N C{ 01�0pN,1pO.,O�OfD I�O. qO f�tGppD�OOa!_n 0l�l ppK� �0p0�0y 1�ny0-a (RpyI O �NQj�QaO!R0 �0O W N{+OJ �Oy gOO�}O�{1 �Tp O8OOtsO�NO OO�NI(p��p�j
O NN I�VN�NN {I{p�pOON1_���yyNNNNy � �WNf�N�Dyy-f�N{O{��HN�NV0P0: t7 {t0{yy �0 ��0�pp lq NNNMNNNNdNNN�NKHyHNNNH�HH�m nN����
36
ni�pp
lu%ypmy
�.ii-pp�� o �M N��pp lyyo
m
a6 Sup cQy'i-�Ooy chi-pmN m<ymoao
alp
m�� yyipp y�ya 8a��
fafpN im�pp y�i
NOpn OyniO t0 NA_ N NONO�N F.
N19 ttVV�rffii lM yq Ww�H WI9W HH
ppn�
O
pMMIp� {tm{t��� m$mI
PNNTO W WN NCJO� V mCyl
WNWHWNNIH
qH W
8��iyn yym �y�pa
yn{aiiy�m�yp tUgpil pmt {��p spy
��O ��y 1� O��NNNH ONNNNNOI(�y NNNI�NO yn C]tMy 1p Ni�(J
� NN�N
HN
N
KWWWWWW yN
N� I9
q
�
q NN NHNgg19N�tl1 MMg11W VVV!!!Nq
mm app�pp tpptpp m ((�� tp� imp 8
N OCJ�MpVM tN0 tm�0-
mfVp
p ttpp m (p App �pJ S
A�N�ppO�(�(�9 9(F O�i_ W �
l� ttpp m tmp pp� (� 1}p p mp mp p� m a p �y 8 y yy
jnG
��OQm Of��pNy fYNfO t�$?j NOtmV OD GDN
fp a0 p0�
pN�� yW ((O��1�WyJ
NM0yNN0�l1 Nt0 HnID< n NN
tOn�i
^
pPE
{9
�pNp 1plp�p Nm�
�NMhfmO NN �{m{yy^tONNNVN
W�
1O�
1yy���
yp�00nCpp')n �001pp0�
tNy
NNNNN�NNNNNHNNHN^NNNNHWH
HMWH HyWWNpN NOH N92
�
MN N MKNHH NY1�N
t+i
N N
O nr�m�W-O�ONN�O
O
m
Ip CNINNNlnOt'l l7<�(D W n V P
tt7� l7 O
FO
m
t�AmN�Cf NNrN NfOtDOt'INC)rl� NNACI WN
-
IIIVVV CJ
Op��mp goy M
NN�mMbN V N'N O NN't7
G tip
t0 �0-dCl tN�)N� W�InO Cl iNlf �t7
y
l�Qj {Y��q [{�: ep ytp c��y pwp �y app p� �tpy Opp
CO<�0^OnOGm mt'1 �t7N�Na^D u0117 N10 thv) v YMIn
n ^ N N
00� W �N �fDNNNn� f7NN a
NFMF U(ynI.MN��
IIVV fffVVV - -
N
1D W NCO}} mmpmN �lmmO1�l�ppOyy
ftpp0
t2
N
OO�n 0t7
OIC NNd O� OfO f00 ^t�Wpp
t2
OtOy t(ny0-I�Rm O�{Npp �tO�OO�Q�{f�(0�R000 0000p0�00 �N ny�pf
�y0y�pp
OyOyO��
ViN(1 J.�I�p�pOOH�r�yy (�(yy�yNy Nq�
1p
L6 L6
NWHNt7HON�d0 W�0y�(�t(��D-tR S_ vp
ppNp
Cl
(Tp0V1 (0p 8Le
�Pp
N�NN�NNNOHNN^HNNNNHNgW��H��HN�19
W N Ny Ml�yHNNHN1M9NNNH
N
N N N HN
LL a J Jto
Q�f a M N
Ir O p O b
F f
OO j m y Z
aa¢O Qpo
CIE I g y N F g
Qg b
Ci ¢2,20 b� w M w m
O mf>uNf>ui`a W3 'a E ¢
LE o
Samar -'¢ Mm a h.Fm m mJ¢ z¢
�iy OLLOLLpz my ¢W 3Z0 3h-z�mMM my
zQ aOaOa0 mm Wb m m Y5m gmacb mzb
ZOLL5 �a�aam0 zz mm 3 Q mE WmmZ MaNm ¢ZON� ¢Mgm
am
0 m� M W b m 3 m 3 b b N¢ b y
gam.¢ 4¢Q v m g �a3£ ¢0O-3 mm M
>' 0 ¢LLW d� d gg �w3 + mm mb3h��
Q¢ZO 1LL.ZZ 5 G G Q5 J w Zm a mmm
OOO6pZ ____�:339..Y� NN Wmm mm 0233 mwmmbm�¢g M 3M
QQ FO p_ �eaaamlo to co lnnnalo loaaa F -$Hf
W$al- Q ¢¢�jJ �00000�00���0, 0�0,000� m_@ mW �� 03 3 mNm�p Z ylmymmmmatlm mm
Z -UM as p 00 {O. 3v5¢m¢J�m¢ Z¢wW ¢¢¢yZ3y¢ZwZ
j IZ a m- m m >. > M m p� g6 O m m m F N y Z Z Z 3 W N N m M W M M W Oz
�¢o a�a4 bmmi Z-ai3a¢¢¢ Q B S c3 A � g gmEmEEm �-SE? EEE
¢ amz WmaM aaaac n aana $$ $$$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$
D mt g6w a2�a¢aaz�� �LL EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE as a -C aaaEEaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa
6OMlt OMRaM8¢¢H¢O1�
yF o U 4¢ 13 0 N¢ Z Q O¢ Nq MQ LL NQ N Np
¢ U Yg w
W LL��¢ W m w W� p F Y 4--_ Y >
a Q¢m��WaUmmmmmmm O N
W 0MW a~iy IZ¢O¢Zmf/mo m z g g
o �aQo�$Q3�$o$opo i q o A m ro m
y Z?Wpojz WOOO iJ C7 ms :7 J _ R� q ' N N
g OmLLmm ZzpN>^ZZ ZZ a mam^ g,_g aN_ � LL atF� u aOm
N MO Zm�>�¢a¢WWWWWWg.-._ M b¢ gS`1U bCm
y$mwm�a¢mLLm3333aggg�3r9i�`v�'i8`T'o�3o s��ts g$gggm ��EgmmE�',Sa`m
v mm°ymiziiai 3 a yo¢ m s o �- z 'tl 5 5 �mdC^11
U z z 3 ro.o . 3 0 0 .. M m
nm0 W Z-... On Ob$N O bb- b �M M mZm
a cN P --NNN b b Nh' mam¢ m b gibmntlmb
'a 1� �FF FF tlF�l a �� mNa�Nd €vQ s$ b�'tla 6-baa.aa�w.�aNbmbbbb N2N2
ii i.i000 UUUii U liU iiUUU Yv g
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 1 Oamm® Tnc�3a�
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa s� aaa= w Za�mN��mLL222SLLLLM¢V¢
w aaaaaaaaCME alar aaaaaa y a` �S�mmmaCc 3� N
W
0.Z
z
m
ZU:
O�
N�
m
Z
W
n22a
f C
WLL
z¢
0
U
f
N
W
2
i
c
z
O
a
0
N ^tNLppp Olyy��Im NLN�)N�LNNLyy�I t� O {O N
N HNjWNwpWHH A O
N t+l N
N �
N
LL O z
8 S^ O w a
O W, f ¢
w
U) w a
rn Zw
N W LL
yyyym N U UN
O ^ a.
Q
N H N N K N g N N V m Q
h
�N{W{yy N('(ppnNNHHHH � N
t9��H�NN N
H H NN A
n
�yOmp� p� {� p m cryo. �
Nm O mt00000{t,��djjyy q t0
HH NHH�H2MNH19 O�
N cc
N A
N
�QOlcLu�'URyR
HNNpp �yW NMOO 1�D
L9 1HVI9HHHHH
NNG^D�00iOCANIOQ1AN O
m
aV N
(n(� � CD (ply, p� m N pNI ;�jj V LITINT
M OOD tIR��OUIN[I Q
W �gcL,6 _� ui
Iq
N H N A
N A
H
Z� g
c�mi a
Z E � rn A
� 9OH
O -y9
n n a .a
.�c33c 3c°°°°`�w ma�I
mmmJ,if2xl�i Eoi/fH
o Nim OY>fG n
J
F H
� O
m �
U)
N
0)
N
0
0
W
W
1
JL
U �
Q a
D
U)
U_ o
LJL U
LL
w
0
1
U
Q F—
O
O
O
LOr�,
6
cm LO
C6
co LO
C6
�
M
6F}
69
0
0
O
Eo
NN
O "
�o
N�
N
�o
CDIt
N
61)
M
6F}
T
64
N
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
E O
E O
O
"t C)
O
T
T
T
Cki
N
N
V
C
aO
Ira
L
�
•L
�
a
L
�
30
EXHIBIT I
APPENDIX "A"
L�
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:
7 � � l - (�� �__
Deputy C' Clerk of the City of
Costa Me
i
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
A�R@OVED :�.5 TO FORM
l�
CITY
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. 93.3(
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.
1214� T
Deputy CiClerk and ex-officio Clerk of
the City C46ndl 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 Laivl 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 or: the cumulative impacts of development and
circulation system 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 def.ic:ienciPs 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. PERFORMANCEEVALUATION
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"
9
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 22= 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 22Z 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
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
E
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
G
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
Y
Table 13-327(b)-1
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
MITIGATION
INTENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SIZE
CONDITION
IMPACT'
MEASURE(S)
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Projects generating leas
Adequate
No
Payment of impact fee
Contribute to implementation of
than 100 peak hour
(Standard Level of Service
the Comprehensive Transportation
tripends
or better)
System Improvement Program
OR
Yes
Deficient
_
(exooWs Standard Level
of Service)
Projects generating 100
Adequate
No
Payment of impact fee
Contribute to implementation of
or mon peak hour
(Standard Level of Service
the Comprehensive Transportation
tripends
or better)
System Improvement Program
OR
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 #2
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 Pian we not required as mitigation, then only the improvements determined necessary by the Director of Public
Services shall be constructed by the developer.
Y
section 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.
Li�-
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of _7A /9
ATTEST:
77
Deputy Ci y Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City oT Costa
Costa Me Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
E
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. 3 -/ was introduced and
considered section by sectippn at a regular meeting of said City
Council held on the 3 � —` day of `"?') 19_Z: and
thereafter passed and adopte4 as a whole at a regular meeting of
said Council held on the __Lj!! day of 19by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C-EAJI S 14U In PdR E Y Ea; k5nA)
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
/Jp ,) c
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
t-t-6RA) 0-A 9
3L-t�F,4
J
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, I have
hereby set my hand
nd affixed the
Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa
this IS day of
Deputy CXPy Clerk
and ex -officio
Clerk o he 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 fewer trips per vehicle. Regionwide, 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.
o �
Self-reported me -work travel times increased between 1976 and 1991 in
all counties tudied. In Los Angeles, average home -work travel time
increased 17 (from 24 minutes to 29 minutes). The largest
increases in home -work travel time were in the Inland Empire, with
Riverside County showing 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
fewer 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.
c
O
i CD
^N �
CL r
.16 c
_ o
An
CA Q
:3 C
Op
T-
CL
CL
tti
L
:3
MONO
w
T
T
M
oto
0O
o
00
N
Q
N
v
aci
c6
6
6
•-
T
CV
(o
to
i
c0
ai
u)
(o
f-:
Z
c7
6
O
C
CO
(n C
Q T
Z
Cl)
N
Cl
Q
Z
i,
T
O
T
Qll�
Z
O
v
v
Q
Z
v'
00
f-.
C)Z
Q
co
to
•-
t0
Q
Z
ice.
N
O
c�
a)
m
a)
v
•�
�
Z
T
C7
T
C7
Q
Z
�
T
V/
T
Q
Z
�
�!
�
cfi
�
Z
V
O
V
O
Q
Z
W
Lf)
4/
Il)
�
Z
�
N
/_
N
E
Qi
N
O
O
tD
O
O
to
mom
or,
O
o
(O
Q
r
i�
L
(7
N
(h
•-
r-
CV
t1i
t7p
[O
to
(p
(O
Z
N
CV
O
N
CD
(1)
0) T
C
m
W
T
V
\►/
�
V/
VI
W
W
W
Y/
o
Q_
4 J
Q
N
N
c'7
(0
I�
i�
to
Z
N
N
N
O
J
a
cno
n
rn
cro
�
rn
ctio
�
rn
c~o
ti
rn
ctio
�
rn
ctio
n
rn
�
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
'D_
s
a) .-.co
.mac
:c
a)
to
7 a)a)
= Q
=
•°'
o
a
ate°'.
c Q
aa))
~
a)
T-��
�--
a Q
..
0
a)
U
a)
L
d.
I—
L
>CL
.�
~
1
T
N
O
_ t
it
Q
.— CO)
L
> O
I— N
CD E
m O
ca _
L
W -0
> c
Q co
coQ
N N
Q.
N
O
0—
0)
N
N
00
't
O
>
N
N
M
co
N
CM
N �
E
O =
I Q
coN
W -O
O
OM
00
0
N
w
N
CD >
N
N
N
N
N
Q
co
.�
N
a)
M
N
--
O
QL
L
C
U
p
m
ID
>
o
J
�
2
a)
U
Q
N
O
In
N
aJ
_
CO
ci
Cu)
CSO
CO
�
CO
Q
N
C
F- a
LO
c(o
rn
LO
o
N
V
l
NZ
h
amF_
aa))
rn
(a
Cr)
(D
co
D
md'
N
N
N
coO
�r
N
CO
U
L
a)
r�
LO
a
(D
0)rn
qt
a) •,�
U ~
0)
N
0-
CO
CO
COO
N
N
L
0
�
c
.?�
a)
m
Cl)
rn
v
�
0
C:
Q
a'
�
m
F°
U
o
(
p
>
CO
>
0
C
ctf
f3
co
w
E
CL
�L
As
L
.i
C
(D
0)
L r
O�
O
1 �
E
0
0)
L
Q
O
c
O
.ca
Q
E
O
U
U
U
C
r
p
O
to
to
I`
LO
C
.^-
N
M
M
-
N
.r
O
21-
)
IL
T-
N
Cl)
(D
I�
N
M
N
M
CII)
m
U
C (O
o
p
'r
cj
Q
Q
},
o
(o
Z
Z
C �
N O
`
CL
(O
N
r
r
O
tt
M
O
O
N
N
N
r
r
N
r-
O
co
Q
Q
to
r
Z
Z
(3)
N
N
r
C
N
i
U
Q
N
c�
Q
m
7
C
C
(a
co
-1
O
cc
vi
>
0
Jc
N
(/)
0
L
nU
{..L
L
i
ten`
W
N
t�
O
CO
di
T
T
T
T
T
75
T
T
T
T
T
ai
ap
T
00
O
T
•—
CO
T
N
T
T
N
N
L-
< Q
o
a
�
cu
/1
�
•ice+
Q
0)
j=
ca
L
0
N
cu
.i.r
O
ioC
u3
>
T-
o 0)
r
r 00 O t0 d' � N t0 d0
A
O
N
O
N
O O
co
'O
O
O
NN
co
c�
O
�L
.O
=
L
cn
O N
..CL
O
N
O
Lf
O
O
L
N
L
Q' L
~
O
co
O
-C
N
N
j
a)
L
11 N
oco
U�
- rn
M� T
W O
o
C-
CL
U) 0
— � U
O
�L`
^W
L.L
c
O
cn
(D
C
N N m N O �—
O O O N N r
r M M M M M M
�• m o o o ao
I N N c� 6 6 CV
c
a� Q
Q m
i
O oC U) > to
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
a
1,500,000
6
`m
E 1,000,000
z
500,000
0 -t
�- N M cf Ui t0 t- CO O O•- N �- N
N r- N M th lb 1� OD •- ^ ^ N •= N
d, 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
rn
CL
F=
1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993
n
CL
O
o
0
o
e
a
�
. . ... .
o
0
0
a
o
=
r,
oo
rn
rn
(Y)
00
a)ao
M
rn
0)
rn
d
0
O
C
o
a
o
t?f
N
m
M
M
N
N
N
N
M
c7
T
N
`C,O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
p
p
p
Q
m
"T
T
to
Cl)
to
(D
N
IT
W
(D
wL
W
W
^
Go
O
O
O
O
c
p
O
�
Go
r--rn
co
O
T
O
T
rn
rn
O
T
0
T
W`
N
r
C7)
o
�
0
�
0
IR11Z01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
CA
to
(D
1'_
CF)
ti
(D
:
1n
(D
f-
�
r --(D
CL
O
�
V
N
N
0
�
0))
e-
N
N
N
N
N
Cl)
N
N
N
N
O
N
N'-
N
N
N
N
`
r
Q)
o
0
0
o
o
e
e
e
o
o
0
o
e
o
(n
N
N
N
N
m
LO
N
N
N
N
N
d
o
ti
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
ab
N
(D
t0
co
tf0
CY)
T
N
N
N
N
N
L
\\
Nr
(D
0
0
0
o
0
0
T_
�f
'T
V,
qt7
N
Cor)
t7
C�7
M
cin
Ch
Ch
Cl)�
O
t
m
E(O
O
e
o
e
o
0
IR
e
e
o o
0
r
,
T
co
M
T
IV
T
w
T
of
M
Ccn
M
C~7
C^7
Cry
N
N
N
m
C
m
E
a
�
m
a
M
m
Vo
(�°
?
m
aCi
o
o
>
cCo
a�Ci
o
m
b y
v m N
.. a
r >_a
1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993
n
1991
(j
t
o
0
0
0
0
-e0
0
O
N
Co
O
(O
N
`-
W
r
O
ti
(D
m
N
to
(O
co
N
r`
(0
I,-
to
(o
to
O
O_N
M
r
'T
O
�
r-
CO
t7
O
to
O
l7
Co
t7
C
r
(0
(0
CO
T
m
N
t0
r
to
tor
t0
N
(0
N
O
r
to
.q
T
T
to
N
C
\
t
tl)
N
V
Cl
o
O
O
C,
0
oD
0
0
O
CO
T
`-
N
N
r
O
1_
to
C
`
(0
(0
(0
to
N
�
c7
ao
T-
'R7
to
M
to
to
m
O
O
v0
M
N
O
T
m
(0
Cl)
d
r`
'T
O
N
to
N
Cl)
m
to
to
r•
t0
T
m
o
00
CD
N
r
T
tD
(0
fl -r
(0
CC)
T`
(0
T
N
h
C
t9
(ND
th
O
e
r
o
e
\°
e
tc)O
e
o
o
\
0
o
0
�
0
e
o
0
41
O
(0
Cl)
O
�
N
O
O
io
C
E
r
N
CY)'tf
I`
O
O
Rr
r
Cl
�
N
(7)
0
qCT
O
O
to
(0
N
'
t7
tT
Cl)
(0
Go
to
O
N
(0
�T
Oct �
U
`�
(0
N
(D
N
O
T
�t
C7
`tt
CO
12
Nr
to
N
e
t7
of
0
N
�
O
o
CV)'tt
CD
teA
le
o
0
0
0
O
O
N
tt
O
r
T�
to
d
COO
rn
COD
O^
CND
(ii
to
r
T
t"') Ul)
N
O
to
T
c
V
O
O
O
T
CD
to
Co
O
O
m
N
O
N
p
ti
Lf)
(D
t0
(�)
CO
t7
O
r
to
M
fl-
F.
N
T
()
r
�-
o
'
ti
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U)
(Y))
O
to
N
Ir -0
T
N
O
O
to
(O
d
C
0)
O
(7
N
OT
m
T•
T
Q)
V.-0000
rn
Cl
crl)
t`�o
O
uj
OV
to
O
r
to
N(0
r`
r
O
Cp
c7
(O
Co
V)
44
N
co
M
Go
T`
0
O
00
t
r
Lr)(O
T
o
j2
M
C
cm
N N 20
0 4D
Q
0�
E clo-
�
lo-
d
�
ot
N
L N
w
Z
H
U) 0
p
a
co
n.
F-
o
:3j
m
0
r
CL
C
~
m
cn
Q
O
�
m V
R
V ` a
E
�
d �
�
t
G
m
t a
>
a'
01--
t=
1991 Origin -Destination Survey - February, 1993
in
1991 Oigin-Destination Survey - February, 1993
11
c
0
E
0
CL
E
W
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
rn
(D
to
O
c
e
.-
co
CL
C
O
6
to
O
coo
co
(D
to
*
h
(`7
co
M
co
M
M
(D
O
O
O
N
to
A
M
C
to
O
C
o
0
0
o
~
to tU
co
Co
O
�t
O
t7/
t0
r
r
O
�-
o
r- d
N
a
r --
v 0
40
O
0 0
O
O
m
~
r-
r-
r`
M
N
.-
co
r
O
r-
O
W)
V0
4)
A
C
o
r
to
to
N
m
p
a
t`
N
O
O
t0
O)
N
to
O
r
M
O
.-
to
O
d
O)
a)
>
N
M
M
r
E
m
to
a0
t0
. -
r
Cl)
.
N
r
O
'fit
\
\
\
\
'v
\
a
aci
ti
0)0
d
o
Of
CD
•-
0
�-
r 4)
o
e
o
0
0
0
a
c
C
O
N
to
co
to
O
t`
'-
c
-
c"
N
Cl
N
pV
Ni(p7
apo
C~i
vi
m
to
to
co
r
N
ti
0)
M
N
d
\
\
\
\
r' d
O
Co
to
too
O
C
Q1 V
tD
r
r
0
O
�d
N
CL
OR
o)
Q
ta7
co
to
tVcv,
co
MO
N
M
(o
10
N
O
t7
J
o
o
N
N
r-
E
Nto
sr
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
U.
d
C"
rl-
O
et
Cl
r d
O
�-
a
0C)
n
0
000
w
(i)
c�
Mo
Cc
v
Lolcotl-
(ODto
c
M
cm
`)
w
m
Q
cyi
-
ca o
m
>.
O
O�
rn
`m
t0
U
Q
CU)
Lo
m
N
O
a 0)1 m
>
FO
1991 Oigin-Destination Survey - February, 1993
11
c
0
E
0
CL
E
W
(
c
e
.-
co
C
O
6
O
C
c
e
o
o
o
N
r --
to
C
A
m
o\.a
O
\
0
0
O
N
N
in
.
to
>
er
c0
N
p
a0
t0
r-
Cl)
.
N
r
O
'fit
d
c
o
e
o
0
0
0
c
C
O
N
to
co
to
O
t`
'-
c
-
c"
O
(D
N
co
N
d
C
o
0
0
o
N
OR
o)
Q
ta7
O
to
tVcv,
N
(.j
O
J
N
d
w
Cc
c
w
m
E
o
c
c
A
o)
c
c
o
..
Me0
E
Ct
0
L
H
A
a
_
.�
d
�
N
tm
ii
�
Q
U
C7
IL-
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of April 15, 1996
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
S. Closing Balance June 30, 1994 $69,019
FISCAL YEAR 1994/95
Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 1994 69,019
1. Revenues
Traffic Impact fees $85,498
Investment Earnings S 9,071
Revenue subtotal $94,569
2. Expenditures 0
Fund Balance June 30, 1995 5163,588
3. Refunds
Amount of funds unexpended
or uncommitted after 5 years 0
4. Administration Costs
Amount charged to account 0
S. Closing Balance June 30, 1995 $163,588
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of April 15, 1996
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 1995 163,588
1. Revenues
Traffic Impact fees $794,179
Investment Earnings S 22,757
Revenue subtotal $816,936
2. Expenditures 0
Fund Balance April 15, 1996 $980,524
3. Refunds
Amount of funds unexpended
or uncommitted after 5 years 0
4. Administration Costs
Amount charged to account 0
5. Projected Balance May 20, 1996 $980,524