HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27 - Adjusting Citywide Traffic Impact Fee for New DevelopmentRESOLUTION NO. Q,;2 -,P_17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA
MESA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING AND ADJUSTING THE
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN
THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND THE RELATED ANNUAL
REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. enables cities
to charge fees for transportation facilities; and
WFJEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 93-11 and 97-11
authorizing the adoption of a traffic impact fee; and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 94-59, 95-35, 96-57,
97-51, 98-64, 99-35, 00-52 and 01-34 to re-establish the traffic impact fee and to
conduct an annual review of the fee and capital improvement plans; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66001(d) requires the City
Council to make specified findings every five years with respect to any portion of
the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended or uncommitted in its
account 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 charges; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66002(b) also requires a
separate annual review of the City's capital improvement plan for improvements to
be paid for by the traffic impact fee; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires the City
of Costa Mesa to make available to the public, certain information, including but
not limited to the amount of the fee, the amount of fees collected and the interest
earned thereon and the beginning and ending balance of the traffic impact fee for
the previous fiscal year.
WHEREAS, the City Council has opted to conduct the review of traffic
impact fees required by California Government Code Section 66001(d) on an
annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan as
required by California Government Code Section 66002(b) and the annual
accounting as required by California Government Code Section 66006(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of this resolution is to comply with the
annual review requirements under California Government Code Section 66000 et
seq.; and
WHEREAS, the secondary purpose of this resolution is re-establish and
adjust the traffic impact fees based on the 2002 Traffic Impact Fee Study and to
enable the City to continue the traffic impact fee program and to comply with the
eligibility requirements of the Orange County Measure M Program; and
WHEREAS, the traffic impact fee is necessary because new development
increases the need for public transportation/circulation facilities in the City of Costa
Mesa not only during peak periods, but throughout the day; the City transportation
/circulation system will be burdened by the demands of carrying vehicles of a larger
number of persons and cargo due to new commercial, industrial, and residential
uses; the 2002 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 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 the number of vehicles due to new commercial, industrial and residential
uses; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a new Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2002 (the
"Traffic Study") to review the costs of public transportation facilities attributed to
the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses based on the
2002 General Plan and the Environment Impact Report No. 1049; and
WHEREAS, the Public Services Department has conducted an audit of the
accounts for the traffic impact fee program and the audit is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Study was available for public inspection and review
fourteen 0 4) days prior to the public hearing held on April 15, 2002; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66001, 66002, 66006
and 66018, notice was mailed to all interested parties on record fourteen (14) days
prior to the public hearing held on April 15, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 15, 2002,
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
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby make the following findings based
on the 2002 General Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 1049, the Traffic
Study, public testimony, opinions of its traffic engineers and other evidence
received at the public hearing held on April 15, 2002:
1. 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 upon the City transportation/circulation
system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses as
permitted by the 2002 General Plan and identified in Environmental Impact Report
No. 1049 and to comply with eligibility requirements of the Orange County
Measure M Program; and
2. 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
3. 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
4. There does not exist any portion of the traffic impact fee imposed
under Resolution Nos. 93-43, 94-59, 95-35, 96-57, 97-51, 98-64, 99-35, 00-52
and 01-34 remaining unexpended or uncommitted in the City of Costa Mesa traffic
impact fee accounts five or more years after the deposit of the fee, and no refunds
of the fee are required; the capital improvement plan adopted by this Resolution is
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 "A" accurately reflects the balance of the traffic impact fee account
on the fees collected, the interest thereon, and other income and amount of
expenditures and refunds of the traffic impact fee made by the City of Costa Mesa
during the prior fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Costa Mesa, California, does hereby incorporate by reference the foregoing
recitations as findings and that said findings are true and correct.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa,
California, does hereby re-establish the traffic impact fee and traffic impact fee
regulations as follows:
1. The traffic impact fee shall be a fee of $177.00 per each new average
daily vehicle trip end generated by all new commercial, industrial and residential
developments.
2. The traffic impact fee established pursuant to this resolution shall be
collected and administered to comply with all requirements of Ordinance Nos. 93-
11 and 97-11.
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 2002 Traffic Impact Fee Study. 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 of Public Services shall set the
fee for public hearing and adjustment by City Council as required by Government
Code Section 66018.
4. The traffic impact fee shall be assessed upon all development projects
that have, not received a building permit on or before August 6, 1993.
5. There is a need for a partial exemption from traffic impact fees
consistent with Resolution 99-2 to serve as an incentive to allow the private
market the capability of developing projects that result in community development
consistent with the goals and objective of the Costa Mesa 2002 General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa,
California, does hereby adopt an incentive for developments within Costa Mesa as
follows:
1. The traffic impact fee for all new residential, commercial and industrial
developments shall be assessed on an incremental basis as shown below:
Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) Traffic Impact Fee
0 to 25 ADT $ 0/ADT
26 to 50 ADT for incremental trips exceeding 25 ADT $ 50/ADT
51 to 75 ADT for incremental trips exceeding 50 ADT $ 75/ADT
76 to 100 ADT for incremental trips exceeding 75 ADT $100/ADT
> 100 ADT for incremental trips exceeding 100 ADT $177/ADT
2. The above incremental assessment is also available for expansion or
modification of existing residential, commercial and industrial developments.
However, the applicable increment to be used for expansion or modification of an
existing development shall be based on the combined total of ADTs for the existing
development plus any additional ADTs that the expansion or modification will
generate. If an existing development already generates 100 ADTs or more, the
above incremental incentive program shall not apply to an expansion or
modification of that existing development.
3. , The adopted incentives for developments in the Newport Boulevard
Specific Plan area would continue to be in effect but shall only be applicable for
projects that generate .more than 100 new average daily trip ends.
4. The incentive for new developments shall be effective until June 30,
2003 or the next annual review of the traffic impact fee program whichever is
earlier.
BE IT FINALLY 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 2002 Traffic Impact Fee Study
pursuant to Government Code Section 66002.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15' day of April, 2002.
ATTEST:
r
Deputy City lerk of the City of Costa Mesa Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
APPROVEDAST FORM
V y
CITY AT RiVEY
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. aL a% was duly and regularly passes and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15t' day of April, 2002, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dixon, Monahan, Robinson, Steel
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cowan
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of
the City of Costa Mesa this 16th day of April, 2002.
Deputy Ci Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City C ncil of the City of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of April 1, 2002
FISCAL YEAR 200,1-2002
Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2001
$-1,633,706
1. Revenues
Traffic Impact Fees
$561,038
Investment Earnings
$99,243
Revenue Subtotal
$660,281
2. Expenditures (Projected)
$200,000
Fund Balance as of April 1, 2002
$2,093,987
3. Refunds
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years
$0
4. Administrative Costs
$0
5. Projected Balance as of June 30, 2002
$2,093,987
6. Project Appropriations
$2,093,987
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
1 UPDATE
Transportation Services Division
City of
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ .
2.0
Reference Documents......................................................................................................... 1
3.0
Background.........................................................................................................................1
4.0
Existing Fees.......................................................................................................................
2
5.0
Ad -HOC Committee...........................................................................................................
2
6.0
Study Methodology.............................................................................................................
3
7.0
Incentive Program.............................................................................................................
14
8.0
Recommendation..............................................................................................................
15
LIST OF TABLES
1. Land Use and Trip Generation Comparison.......................................................................5
2. List of Improvements in 2002 Traffic Impact Fee Analysis...............................................6
3. Traffic Impact Fee Analysis - 2002....................................................................................12
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Transportation System Mnagement Article from Municipal Code
B. Land Use and Trip Generation Information By Zone
C. Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element
D. Year 2001 Traffic Conditions
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact fee study is a revision of the 1997 Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study
conducted in June 1998, which established the basis for the imposition of a citywide traffic
impact fee pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and Ordinance No. 93-11 and
No. 97-11. The Transportation Section Management section of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code,
which discusses the trip fee program, is included in Appendix A. 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 system by
the development of a new commercial, industrial and residential uses as permitted in the General
Plan, and to maintain compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County
Measure M Program (Measure "M").
2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
This study has been prepared to update the traffic impact fees for Fiscal Year 2001-02. The
documents that are incorporated by reference into this study are as follows:
A. General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #1049 (on file with Planning
Division)
B. Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) 3.1 (on file with Public
Services Department)
C. Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study of June 2, 1997 (on file with Public Services
Department)
D. Ordinance #s 93-11, 97-11 (on file with City Clerk Office)
E. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors (on file with Public Services
Department)
F. Measure M 7 -Year Capital Improvement Program Annual Report (on file with Public
Services Department)
G. 7 -Year Capital Improvement Program prepared annually for City Budget (on file with
Public Services Department)
H. Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program Annual Report (on file
with Public Services Department)
3.0 BACKGROUND
In June 1993, an interim traffic impact fee of $228 per average daily trip end (ADT) for new
developments was adopted by City Council based on designated General Plan public
improvements. The City Council also approved the formation of a Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc
Committee consisting of representatives from various stakeholders in July 1993 to work with
staff on all aspects related to the revision of traffic impact fees.
In June 1994, the interim fee of $228 per ADT was reestablished as continued interim traffic
impact fee pending revision of fee study. On May 1, 1995, based on the results of revised study
and Ad Hoc Committee recommendation, a traffic impact fee of $200 per ADT was adopted as
citywide traffic impact fee.
In June 1997, a Citywide Traffic Impact Fee analysis was conducted recommending a maximum
fee of $281 per ADT and a minimum fee of $133 per ADT. The City Council recommended a
citywide traffic impact fee of $150 per ADT. The City Council continued the traffic impact fee
of $150 per ADT in June 1998.
In January 1999, the City Council approved a recommendation by the Traffic Impact Fee Ad
Hoc Committee, to establish an incentive for all new residential, commercial, and industrial
developments in Costa Mesa. The incentive was based upon the assessment of traffic impact
fees on an incremental basis for the first 100 trips generated by new developments. According to
the proposed fee structure, the first 25 ADT of each project would be exempt from the fee
program. A fee of $50 per ADT would be assessed for developments with traffic generation
between 26 and 50 ADT. A fee of $75 per ADT would be assessed on traffic generation
between 51 and 75 ADT, and a fee of $100 per ADT would be assessed on traffic generation
between 76 and 100 ADT. Trips exceeding 100 ADT would be assessed at $150 per ADT.
In June 1999, the City Council adopted traffic impact fees of $149 per ADT, with the tiered
structure as described above, for trips less than 100 ADT.
On June 19, 2000, City Council adopted a two -district traffic impact fee for new developments in
the City of Costa Mesa. District 1, areas north of I-405 and SR -73 Freeways, was approved with
traffic impact fees of $195 per ADT, whereas District 2, areas south of I-405 and SR -73
Freeways, was approved with traffic impact fees of $149 per ADT. The City Council also
approved continuation of the incentive program for the first 100 ADT.
4.0 EXISTING FEES
On June 4, 2001, City Council recommended continuation of the two -district traffic impact fees
of $195 per ADT for District 1 and $149 per ADT for District 2, and the incentive program for
trips less than 100 ADT. City Council also directed staff to update the traffic impact fee study
following adoption of the General Plan Update.
5.0 AD-HOC COMMITTEE
An Ad -Hoc Committee consisting of members representing large and small developers, Chamber
of Commerce and Homeowners Association and appointed by City Council assisted staff in the
development of the proposed traffic impact fee. The current Ad Hoc Committee members and
their representation are:
►a
Gary Monahan
Walter Davenport
Ed Fawcett
Bruce Garlich
George Sakioka
Kerry Smith
Vacant
City Council Liaison
Planning Commission Representative
Chamber of Commerce
Homeowners Association Representative
Major Developers Representative
Small Developers Representative
At -large member representing Costa Mesa residents
Members of the Ad Hoc Committee met as needed to discuss the study methodology,
assumptions and results.
6.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
The traffic impact fee study incorporated the following methodology based on discussions with
Ad Hoc Committee.
A. Determine the transportation network improvements needed to accommodate the
projected traffic demand in Costa Mesa in year 2020 as determined in the General
Plan Update;
B. Estimate total costs of transportation/circulation improvements needed;
C. Adjust transportation/circulation improvements cost that is attributed to - existing
deficiencies in the transportation/circulation system due to existing uses; estimated
growth in population; excess capacity; and regional traffic.
D. Estimate the number of new average daily vehicle trip ends generated by
development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses within Costa Mesa by
Year 2020 based on the General Plan Update.
E. The maximum traffic impact fee is the total transportation/circulation improvement
costs in subsection B, less the adjustments in subsection C, divided by the new
average daily trip ends in subsection D.
F. The baseline traffic impact fee is the minimum traffic impact fee adopted by Growth
Management Area No. 8, which is 0.5% of the valuation of construction work
authorized by a building permit.
6.1 LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS
The General Plan Circulation Element includes Master Plan of Highways (MPH), a hierarchy of
streets and highways that would accommodate the future transportation demand that is expected
by year 2020 due to buildout of land uses in the City and surrounding region. Improvements
needed to maintain standard levels of service at all City intersections are determined based on the
MPH.
3
The City's General Plan, including the Circulation Element, was updated and approved by the
Planning Commission on October 22, 2001 and by the City Council on January 22, 2002. Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) # 1049, which identified impacts and mitigation measures of
the General Plan Update, was prepared and approved concurrent with the General Plan.
Table 1 provides a comparison of land use and trip generation estimates between Year 2000 and
General Plan in Year 2020. As shown in the table, the trip generation is expected to increase by
approximately 20 percent to 1,277,683 average daily trips (ADT). These are trips generated
within the City and doesn't account for regional traffic. Appendix B includes the detailed land
use and trip generation information by zone as analyzed in the General Plan Update. The
updated Circulation Element, which includes the City's MPH and Master Plan of Bikeways, is
included in Appendix C.
The improvements required with the General Plan Update, and eligible for inclusion in traffic
impact fee analysis, are identified in Table 2. The changes in the improvements compared to the
earlier traffic impact fee analysis are also highlighted. Certain improvements were deleted as
they are either complete, or not needed by year 2020 based on the General Plan Update. A few
additional improvements were identified as needed by year 2020 due to changes in travel
patterns with the new regional model. The additional improvements are due to re -distribution of
traffic with the updated regional model. These improvements are within the scope of the current
city's MPH. Therefore, an upward revision of the designation of any arterial is not required. In
fact, the General Plan Update recommended initiation of downgrade process for some arterials in
the City.
6.2 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
The Transportation Services Division developed detailed cost estimates of the improvements that
are part of traffic impact fee study in March 2001. In order to estimate the costs of
improvements, preliminary layout plans of improvements were prepared and most recent unit
costs were used.
The total cost for arterial improvements is estimated to be approximately $49.5 million. The
intersection modifications are estimated to cost approximately $18.4 million.
Several freeway improvements have already been funded using grant sources from Federal, State
and Local agencies. In addition, the City in April 2000 contributed its share towards four
freeway access improvement projects. These improvements were included in the traffic impact
fee program. The four projects are:
• Anton Boulevard onramp;
• Avenue of the Arts offramp;
• Bristol Street offramp braid; and
• Hyland Avenue onramp.
The cost of the above freeway improvement projects is approximately $16.5 million.
S
TABLE 1
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Land Use Category
Units
Existing
Amount
ADT'
2020 General Plan
Amount ADT
Net Increase
Amount ADT
Residential
DU
40,330.00
316,499
42,469.00
339,093
2,139.00
22,594
Commercial (Retail & Office)
TSF
17,397.42
539,029
23,579.30
700,146
6,181.88
161,117
Industrial, R&D
TSF
14,416.19
124,432
17,550.51
151,931
3,134.32
27,499
Otherz
--
--
81,725
—
86,513
--
4,788
Total
1,061,685
1,277,683
215,998
Notes:
1. Average Daily Traffic
2. Uses quantified in units other than dwelling units or square feet
TABLE 2
LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
LOCATION
IMPROVEMENT
FREEWAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Anton Avenue Onramp
Avenue of the Arts Offramp
Bristol Street North Braid
Hyland Avenue Onramp
SIGNIFICANT ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS
17th (Superior to e/o Santa Ana Orange to IpAne-)
Improve to 6 Lanes
17th (Placentia Whittier to Pomona SupefiaF)
Improve to 4 Lanes
17th (City Limits to Placentia)
Improve to 4 Lanes
improve to 4 1 nnpF;
19th (Whittier to Monrovia)
Improve to 4 Lanes
Anton (Sunflower to Sakioka)
Restripe to 6 lanes
BakeF (Bear to Red Hill)
rove to 6 Lanes
Bear (@ SR 73)
IFpFsve to 6 Lanes
Bear Street Overcrossing
Improve to 6 Lanes
Bristol (1-405 to Baker)
Improve to 7 Lanes (4 NB)
Bristol (Bear to Randolph)
Reconstruct for 3 Lanes SB
Del Mar (Elden to Santa Ana)
Improve to 4 Lanes
Fairview (Wilson to Avocado SR -56)
Improve to 6 Lanes
Hyland (South Coast to Sunflower)
Improve to 4 Lanes
improve to 6 carted'.
Santa Ana (Mesa to Del Mar)
Improve to 4 Lanes
Wilson (College to Fairview)
Improve to 4 Lanes
Wilson (Fairview to Newport)
Improve to 4 Lanes
Wilson (Rlasentia Pomona to Harbor)
Improve to 4 Lanes
INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS
N�e�.�.`ipe
Ne'rfcwpeFF-Oe--t-F7ti�
3rd VVBT- 2nd to 3F d EBT- & free VV
L 0 .190'
/Add X96 pEBR
ftdd-2"-i-raa--N K, 2nd EK & SBR
Newp9F#& 117t';
Add:2nd nt,-. R I
Orange & 17th
Add NBR, SBR, EBT, WBT and WBR
Santa Ana & 17th
Add NBR, SBR, EBR, WBR, 3rd EBT & WBT
Tustin & 17th
Add NBR. EBR, WBR, 3rd CRT & VV9T
Superior & 16th
Add WBL
Add-WBR
,Add FRR
Anton & Sunflower
Add 2nd WBL
Bristol & Town Center
Add 2nd WBL & fee EBR
Bristol & Paularino
Add 4th NBT, 2nd WBL'
SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino
Add SBLSP4
Bear & Baker
Add CG[? 2nd nIGT >:. 3rd WBT
Bristol & Baker
Add 3rd EBT, EBL, WBT, & 4th NBT
TABLE 2
LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
LOCATION
IMPROVEMENT
SR -55 SB Ramps &Baker
Add 3rd EBT-, WBT, 913L, BR, #ee EBR, & 2nd SI3T- to
,BT -1913R free SBR
Harbor & Sunflower
Add EBR, WBR & NBR
Fairview & Sunflower
Add SBR & EBR
Harbor & South Coast
Add ISIRR, 513R, VV 2nd WBL, &-4th SBT WBR, 2nd
EBR; Convert SBT to SBR and EBT+R to EBT
Harbor & Gisler
Add WBR, SBR, & 5th NBT
Harbor&rNutmeg
limber& Baker-
Add 4th NST-, SRT �A 2nd F=gl
Faiwiew R-, -Raker
Add 3rd WBT, 4th car & GenyeFt cco to 3r -d ERT
Fairview & Adams
Convert SBR to free flow SBR
SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino
Add WBR A 2nd WIRR
SR -55 NB Ramps &Baker
d
Add Ud CRT VVBT- 2R NBT- N ' NBR & AIGI NEST to
NBL EBL, NB Lane
Bristol & Bear
Add 3rd SBT
Newport NB & Del Mar
Add ffee WBR Convert WBT to W8T+R
Fairvew & Wilson
Add 3rd NBT, 2nd EBT, WBT; Convert SBR to SBT+R
Newport NB & Victoria/22nd
Add 2nd EBT, WBT+R; Convert NBR to NBT+R and
NBL to NBT+L
Harbor & Adams
Add NBR, EBL; Remove EBR; Convert SBT to SBT+R
Harbor & Wilson
Add €BP-&-WBR
Add NBR
Ifvine &19th
Add SBR
9faf}ge & 1 gth
Add SBR
Add NBR & SBR
Tustin & 19th
Add NOR & 5914
Newport SB & Victoria
Add 4th EBT, Convert SBR to free SBR
Harbor & 19th
Convert NBR to NBT+R and SBR to SBT+R
Newport & Industrial
Add SBR
Bristol & Sunflower
Add NBL and WB T,- Convert NBT to NBT+R
Fairview & South Coast
Add SBT, WBR; Convert EBT to EBT+R
Harbor & 1-405 NB Ramps
Add NBT
Fairview & 1-405 SB Ramps
Convert NBT to NBT+R; Convert EBR to EBL+R; Add
SBL
Mesa Verde E & Adams I
Convert SBT to SBT+R
Note: All new improvements are italicized and deleted improvements are striked out.
7
The total cost of all improvements (arterial, intersection and freeway access) is approximately
$84.4 million. Compared to the earlier traffic impact fee analysis, the cost of future
improvements were reduced by approximately 50 percent.
6.3 ADJUSTMENTS TO COSTS
Consistent with the principles of Russ Bldg. Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco
(1987) 1999 Cal.App.3d 1469 [246 Cal. Rptr. 21] and Bixel Associates v. City of Los Angeles
(1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1208, the total cost of all transportation improvements, including arterial,
intersection and freeway access, of $84.4 million 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:
• The cost of improvements to correct the existing deficiencies in the City
transportation/circulation system due to existing land uses and population;
• 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
developments between now and buildout (Post -2010) of the 1990 General Plan;
• The cost of improvements to maintain the "reserve" capacity of City
transportation/circulation system; and
• 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 of these items are discussed below:
Existing Deficiencies
The 1990 General Plan and the Update identifies LOS "D" or better as the established
traffic level of service at all signalized intersections under the sole control of the City.
LOS is determined using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. 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.
The relationship between LOS and ICU is shown in table below:
Level of Service
Intersection Capacity Utilization
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
> 1.00
The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division, in conjunction with
Development Services Department, prepares an annual report titled Development Phasing
and Performance Monitoring Program (DPPMP). This report provides the means to track
land use entitlements and construction activity, monitor arterial highway volumes and
intersection levels of service, and identify deficiencies and program future capital
improvements. The DPPMP will ensure that improvements to the transportation
circulation system will be consistent with the approved level of development.
Existing deficiencies include those transportation facilities that are currently operating at
a level of service (LOS) worse than adopted standard acceptable level of service. The
most recent DPPMP completed in October 2001, identified two intersections as deficient.
These are:
• Newport Boulevard Northbound Frontage Road & Victoria Street/22°d
Street; and
• Newport Boulevard Southbound Frontage Road & Victoria Street.
Appendix D includes a table from October 2001 DPPMP providing existing ICU values
and LOS at all intersections.
The proposed improvement at Newport Boulevard Northbound Frontage Road & Victora
Street/22°d Street intersection would result in improving the ICU to acceptable conditions
(LOS D). The proposed improvement consists of only restriping and presents nominal
cost.
For the Newport Boulevard Southbound Frontage Road & Victoria Street intersection,
the City is proposing a southbound free-flow right -turn lane consistent with the General
Plan configuration. The cost of this improvement is estimated to be approximately
$330,000. With the proposed improvement, the intersection of Newport Boulevard
Southbound Frontage Road & Victoria Street would operate at an ICU value of 0.60
(improvement of 0.33). The existing deficiency is 0.03. Therefore 9 percent of the cost
of the improvement (0.03/0.33), $29,700, would be deducted from the total cost of
improvements.
Existing Population Growth
Based on the Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM), the growth of existing traffic does not
create a demand for traffic improvements. The amount of growth in population is
achieved by increasing the number of dwelling units in the City. These increases in
dwelling units are also subject to traffic impact fee. Therefore, no deduction will be
made to the total cost of improvements attributable to developments subject to traffic
impact fee because the model addresses the growth of existing population.
E
Excess Capacity
City staff has identified two components to determine excess and reserve capacity.
Excess capacity is the current level of service at intersections and arterials, which are
below LOS D. The excess 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 system improvement,
which may be paid for by developers through the payment of traffic impact fee, is offset
by the reserve capacity provided to new development. Furthermore, the exclusion of
administrative 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 for its system at LOS D (Id, supra, 199 Ca.App.3d at
p.1516). As LOS E represents true capacity, LOS D standard reflects a 10 percent
capacity reserve. Therefore, the cost of freeway access, arterial and intersection
improvements applicable to new developments was further reduced by 10 percent to
account for reserve capacity. This reduction amounts to approximately $4.3 million.
Regional Traffic
The amount of regional traffic using the City's transportation system was determined
using the Costa Mesa Transportation Model (CMTM). A trip is considered regional if
both ends of the trip are outside the city limits. If one end of the trip is within the city,
one-half of that trip is considered regional. Approximately 201,148 new regional trips
are estimated to create the need for freeway, arterial and intersection improvements
required by year 2020 in the City of Costa Mesa.
The share of freeway access, arterial and intersection improvements attributable to
regional traffic was estimated at $8.6 million, $24.1 million and $9.0 million,
respectively. These costs have been deducted from total cost of improvements
attributable to new developments subject to traffic impact fees.
Existing Fund Balance
The traffic impact fee account balance as of April 1, 2002, is $2,093,987. This amount
has been subtracted from the total cost of improvements, as these funds would be used on
projects listed in the traffic impact fee calculation. The amount was proportionally
distributed between Districts 1 and 2 based on number of trips.
Summary of Adjustments
The total cost of improvements subject to the traffic impact fee is calculated by
subtracting the adjustments from the total cost of all improvements. Based on the above
analysis, total amount of adjustments is $48.1 million. Subtracting this amount from the
10
total cost of improvements of $84.4 million, results in a total amount of $36.3 million
subject to traffic impact fees.
6.4 TRAFFIC GENERATED BYNEW DEVELOPMENTS
The traffic impact fee could be based on the number of trips generated by the new developments
during the A.M. peak hour, P.M. peak hour or on a daily basis. Upon careful consideration of all
aspects of a variety of alternatives, a trip fee based on Average Daily Trips (ADT) is determined
to be the most equitable for all different land uses.
The traffic share analysis methodology in the CMTM identifies the number of new daily trip
ends from pre -determined areas that use a specified transportation facility using the "select link"
analysis process. The pre -determined areas include districts within the City and regional areas
outside the City. The number of regional trips estimated earlier was determined using this
methodology. The select link process identifies each trip using a specified street by the origin
end and destination end. If both ends of a trip are within the City, this trip is considered a local
trip. If both ends are outside the City, i.e., the trip essentially passes through Costa Mesa using
the specified street, then it is considered as a regional trip. Trips that have one end in the City
and another outside are divided between regional and local trips.
Based on this methodology, the total number of new trips that create the need for improvements
is 405,949. Regional trips account for 201,148 trips of the total 405,949 new trips, resulting in a
net total of 204,801 trips, generated by new developments in the City of Costa Mesa.
The number of trips estimated above can be further subdivided into separate districts. The
current trip fee program consists of two districts. District 1 includes areas north of the I-405 and
SR -73 Freeways and District 2 includes areas south of I-405 and SR -73 Freeways. The number
of trips in District 1 and District 2 that create the need for improvements is estimated to be
119,007 and 85,794, respectively.
Table 3 on Pages 12 and 13 of this study provides details on each improvement including its
estimated cost, the number of local trips by district, regional trips, cost allocations, and
adjustment for excess capacity and existing deficiencies.
6.5 CALCULATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The maximum traffic impact fee is the cost of the total transportation/circulation improvements
'r- —�- in subsection B, less the adjustments in subsection C, -divided by the new average daily trip ends
4 in subsection D.
The total improvement costs were estimated to be approximately $84.4 million. The total
adjustments were estimated to be $48.1 million, resulting in a net cost of $36.3 million that is
subject to traffic impact fees imposed on new developments in the City. The total number of
new trips that will be generated by new developments in the City of Costa Mesa is estimated to
be 204,801. This results in a "citywide" traffic impact fee of approximately $177 per average
daily trip.
11
TABLE 3
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS - 2002
LOCATION
IMPROVEMENT
TOTAL
ESTIMATEDCOST
New Trip Ends
Cost Allocation
District 1
District 2
Regional
Total
District 1
District 2
Regional
Total
FREEWAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Anton Avenue On ramp
$4,533,291
1,613
111
996
2,720
$1,739,163
$119,682
$2,674,446
$4,533,291
Avenue of the Arts Offramp
$1,012,797
311
0
958
1,269
$506,399
$0
$506,399
$1,012,797
Bristol Street North Braid
$10,517,168
574
0
1,891
2,465
$5,258,584
$0
$5,258,584
$10,517,168
Hyland Onramp
$450,000
1,053
29
842
1,924
$218,970
$6,030
$225,000
$450,000
Subtotal
$16,513,256
$7,723,115
$125,713
$8,664,429
$16,513,256
SIGNIFICANT ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS
17th (City Limits to Pomona)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$6,000,000
66
1,508
1,474
3,048
$129,921
$2,968,504
$2,901,575
$6,000,000
19th (Whittier to Monrovia)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$3,000,000
56
955
4,981
5,992
$28,037
$478,138
$2,493,825
$3,000,000
Anton (Sunflower to Sakioka)
Restripe to 6 lanes
$40,000
8,318
265
3,281
11,864
$28,045
$893
$11,062
$40,000
Bear Street Overcrossing
Improve to 6 Lanes
$5,141,680
1,724
807
3,728
6,259
$1,416,242
$662,939
$3,062,499
$5,141,680
Bristol (IA05 to Baker)
Improve to 7 Lanes (4 NB)
$2,670,000
4,701
1,147
5,083
10,931
$1,148,264
$280,166
$1,241,571
$2,670,000
Bristol (Bear to Randolph)
Reconstruct for 3 Lanes SB
$480,000
3,032
1,150
3,132
7,314
$198,983
$75,472
$205,546
$480,000
Del Mar (Elden to Santa Ana)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$6,750,000
182
943
870
1,995
$615,789
$3,190,602
$2,943,609
$6,750,000
Fairview (Wilson to Avocado)
Improve to 6 Lanes
$775,000
599
1,039
684
2,322
$199,925
$346,781
$228,295
$775,000
Hyland (South Coast to Sunflower)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$30,000
601
145
496
1,242
$14,517
$3,502
$11,981
$30,000
Santa Ana (Mesa to Del Mar)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$3,000,000
185
846
1,019
2,050
$270,732
$1,238,049
$1,491,220
$3,000,000
Wilson (College to Fairview)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$7,619,187
261
1,644
1,355
3,260
$610,002
$3,842,314
$3,166,871
$7,619,187
Wilson (Fairview to Newport)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$1,516,000
129
637
493
1,259
$155,333
$767,031
$593,636
$1,516,000
Wilson (Pomona to Harbor)
Improve to 4 Lanes
$12,440,000
225
735
824
1,784
$1,568,946
$5,125,224
$5,745,830
$12,440,000
Subtotal
$49,461,867
$6,384,735
&18,979961
$24,097,518
$49,461,867
INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS
Orange & 17"'
Add NBR, SBR, EBT, WBT and WBR
$470,000
561
5,151
3,557
9,2691
$28,446
$261,190
$180,364
$470,000
Santa Ana & 17th
Add NBR, SBR, EBR, WBR, 3rd EBT & WBT
$852,000
409
3,380
2,989
6,778
$51,412
$424,869
$375,720
$852,000
Tustin & 17th
Add NBR. EBR, WBR
$870,000
327
2,841
2,698
5,866
$48,498
$421,355
$400,147
$870,000
Superior & 16th
Add WBL
$7,000
276
2,043
2,462
4,781
$404
$2,991
$3,605
$7,000
Anton & Sunflower Add 2nd WBL
$250,000
5,867
60
5,855
11,782
$124,491
$1,273
$124,236
$250,000
Bristol & Town Center Add 2nd WBL
$410,000
2,260
667
6,357
9,284
$99,806
$29,456
$280,738
$410,000
Bristol & Paularino
Add 2nd WBL', 4 NBT
$25,000
4,569
1,328
4,789
10,686
$10,689
$3,107
$11,204
$25,000
SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino Add SBR
$185,000
1,566
372
4,989
6,927
$41,823
$9,935
$133,242
$185,000
Bear& Baker Add -3rd WBT
$232,000
4,653
471
3,961
9,085
$118,822
$12,028
$101,150
$232,000
Bristol & Baker Add 3rd EBT, WBT, NBL, SBL, 4th NBT'
$582,500
6,458
1,519
6,915
14,892
$252,604
$59,416
$270,480
$582,500
SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker Add free SBR
$365,0001
3,656
1,0751
6,824
11,555
$115,486
$33,957
$215,557
$365,000
Harbor & Sunflower Add EBR, WBR & NBR'
$262,5001
3,019
1,2711
6,733
11,023
$71,894
$30,267
$160,339
$262,500
Fairview & Sunflower Add SBR & EBR
$637,0001
4,2381
1,2301
9,5361
15,0041
$179,926
$52,220
$404,854
$637,000
12
TABLE 3
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS - 2002
LOCATION
IMPROVEMENT
TOTAL
ESTIMATEDCOST
District 1
New Trip Ends
District 2 Regional
Total
District 1
Cost Allocation
District 2 Regional
Total
Harbor & South Coast
Add 2nd WBL, WBR, 2nd EBR; Convert SBT to
SBR and EBT+R to EBT
$1,722,000
6,989
1,734
7,790
16,513
$728,823
$180,824
$812,353
$1,722,000
Harbor & Gisler
Add WBR, SBR, & 5th NBT
$939,000
6,509
3,088
8,854
18,451
$331,253
$157,153
$450,594
$939,000
Fairview & Adams
Convert SBR to free flow
$260,000
3,1651
2,271
3,958
9,394
$87,598
$62,855
$109,547
$260,000
SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino
Add WBR
$425,000
1,389
489
4,659
6,537
$90,305
$31,792
$302,903
$425,000
SR -55 NB Ramps & Baker
Add EBL, NB Lane
$255,000
2,044
1,026
5,391
8,461
$61,603
$30,922
$162,475
$255,000
Newport NB & Del Mar
Convert WBT to WBT+R
$150,000
946
3,355
3,397
7,698
$18,433
$65,374
$66,193
$150,000
Fairvew & Wilson
Add 3rd NBT, 2nd EBT, WBT; Convert SBR to
SBT+R
$1,286,130
1,346
3,184
2,737
7,267
$238,218
$563,511
$484,400
$1,286,130
Newport NB & Victoria/22nd
Add 2nd EBT, WBT+R; Convert NBR to
NBT+R and NBL to NBT+L
$612,800
688
3,890
2,713
7,291
$57,826
$326,950
$228,024
$612,800
Harbor & Wilson
Add WBR
$295,000
1,816
5,843
2,737
10,396
$51,531
$165,803
$77,666
$295,000
Harbor & Adams
Add NBR, EBL; Convert SBT to SBT+R
$1,332,000
3,725
5,020
4,321
13,0661
$379,741
$511,759
$440,500
$1,332,000
Newport SB & Victoria
Add 4"' EBT; Convert SBR to free SBR (9% of
total cost)
$610,270
815
6,178
3,483
10,476
$47,477
$359,894
$202,899
$610,270
Harbor & 19"'
Convert NBR to NBT+R and SBR to SBT+R
$10,000
1,003
6,465
5,643
13,111
$765
$4,931
$4,304
$10,000
Newport & Industrial
Add SBR
$350,000
875
2,582
8,526
11,983
$25,557
$75,415
$249,028
$350,000
Bristol & Sunflower
Add NBL and WBT; Convert NBT to NBT+R
$1,180,000
4,313
628
8,509
13,450
$378,390
$55,096
$746,514
$1,180,000
Fairview & South Coast
Add SBT, WBR; Convert EBT to EBT+R
$942,000
6,781
1,348
9,283
17,412
$366,856
$72,928
$502,216
$942,000
Harbor & 1405 NB Ramps
Add NBT
$3,275,000
6,822
2,381
8,767
17,970
$1,243,297
$433,933
$1,597,770
$3,275,000
Fairview & I-405 SB Ramps
Convert NBT to NBT+R; Convert EBR to
EBL+R; Add SBI -2$100,000
6,026
1,735
8,247
16,008
$37,644
$10,838
$51,518
$100,000
Mesa Verde E & Adams
Convert SBT to SBT+R
$2,500
2,266
1,208
2,361
5,835
$971
$518
$1,012
$2,500
Subtotal
$18,424,7
$5,262,144
$4,191,37
$89971918
$18,424,709
TOTAL
$84,399,823
119,007
85,794
201,148
405,94
$19,369,995
$23,296,696
$41,733,132
$84,399,823
Existing Balance $950,637 $1,143,350 $2,093,987
New Daily Trip Ends 119,007 85,794
District Fee per ADT $138 $231
Citywide Fee per ADT $177
1) The earlier General Plan improvement of 2 right -turn lanes was $25,000. Provision of 2 left -tum lanes is part of Town Center project. This is projected to cost an additional $198,000.
2) A portion of these improvements were conditioned to the Home Ranch Project and were not included in trip fee calculation.
13
If the two district plan is selected, the improvement cost for each district needs to be allocated in
proportion to the number of trips in that district. The total cost of approximately $36.3 million
that is subject to traffic impact fee would be segregated to District 1 and District 2. The District
1 share is approximately $16.5 million and the District 2 share is approximately $19.8 million.
The number of trips generated by new developments within District 1 and District 2 is estimated
to be 119,007 and 85,794, respectively. This results in a traffic impact fee of $138 per average
daily trip for District 1 and a traffic impact fee of $231 per average daily trip for District 2.
The District 2 traffic impact fee is higher than District 1 due to higher cost of improvements in
District 2 and the fewer number of trips that would utilize and pay for these improvements.
6.6 BASELINE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The baseline traffic impact fee is the minimum traffic impact fee charged by a municipality
within the 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. The 0.5% building valuation
compares with approximately $133 per trip end.
7.0 INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Further adjustments to traffic impact fee have been approved by the City Council to reduce the
overall financial burden on developers and to provide an incentive for certain types of
development in specific areas of the City. Reductions in the traffic impact fee are currently
provided for the following cases:
• All projects receive a reduced traffic impact fee rate for the first 100 trips generated
through the application of a tiered fee structure. Under this structure, the first 25 trips
pay no fee. For trips between 25 and 50, the traffic impact fee is $50 per trip. For trips
between 50 and 75, the traffic impact fee is $75 per trip, and for trips between 75 and
100, the traffic impact fee is $100 per trip. Staff estimated that this reduces the traffic
impact fee revenue by approximately $150,000 per year.
• All developments within the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan area receive a reduction in
the traffic impact fee as an incentive to encourage certain types of development within
the Specific Plan area. Staff estimated that there were three qualifying projects over the
past five years that resulted in a reduction in traffic impact fee revenue of approximately
$200,000. At present there are no pending projects in the Newport Boulevard Specific
Plan area that have a net increase in average daily trips where payment of traffic impact
fee is required.
• Public benefit facilities, including schools, libraries, parks, utilities, administration and
related facilities are exempt from payment of traffic impact fee.
• New developments or changes in use within existing developed properties receive credit
for trip generation based on prior use.
[[!
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the City Council appointed Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee recommend that the
City Council adopt a "citywide" traffic impact fee of $177 per average daily trip. It is also
recommended that the above incentive program be continued with the exception that the credit
for first 100 trips should be applied only to new developments and not to expansions. Where an
expansion of a project is being considered, the first 100 trips from the entire project, including
the existing development should be considered to determine whether it qualifies for the incentive
program.
15
ARTICLE 3. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Sec. 13-271. PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to set forth the provisions for assuring an adequate transportation system
in conjunction with new development.
Sec. 13-272. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
Development proiect. This article applies to the following development project approvals: general
plan amendments, specific plans, master plans, rezones, development reviews, variances, use permits,
administrative adjustments, minor modifications and development agreements, unless otherwise
exempted by Section 13-276 EXEMPTIONS.
Intersection. The general area where 2 or more roadways join or cross
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.
Potentially deficient intersection. An intersection identified in the 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.
Pro rata. A proportionate share based on a development project's impacts.
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 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.
Transportation Demand Manaqement 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. 13-273. COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(a) Purpose. The Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement 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 General Plan. For those intersections .identified ii-`
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 13-274
DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM.
(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
1 Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program.
r
177
(d) Interim Approval Procedure. Until such time as this program is adopted, development projects
not exempted pursuant to Section 13-276 EXEMPTIONS may be approved if the City adopts
findings that the development projects are consistent with the provisions of this article.
Sec. 13-274. DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM
(a) Establishment of Development Impact Fee Program. A development impact fee program shall
be established by resolution of the City Council based on the Comprehensive Transportation
System Improvement Program. The program shall set forth the basis for the fee as required
by State Government Code Section 66001. The program shall establish guidelines for
payment, accounting, and refund of the fees collected as required by State 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 State 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.
(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
13-275(c) DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW PROCEDURES) 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 Section 13-275(d)- DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REVIEW PROCEDURES.
(3) The application for a fee waiver shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk
not later than:
a. 10 days prior to the public hearing on the development permit application for
the project; or
178
b. If no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the request for
a building permit.
(4) 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. 13-275. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW PROCEDURES
(a) Traffic study required. A traffic impact study shall be required for all development projects
estimated by the Public Services Director 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
Public Services Director. 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 Public Services
Director 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 13-275 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 13-275, and if a finding is made that the development project's impacts will
be mitigated at all affected intersections within 3 years of issuance of the first building permit
for the development project, as described in subsection (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.
179
(d) Transportation Demand Management Program. Where a Transportation Demand Management
Program is used to reduce vehicle trips related to a development project, the 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 Section 13-274(e)-
DEVELOPM.E.NT FEE PROGRAM based upon documentation of average annual trip
reduction over a 3 year period as reported in the annual monitoring report referenced
in Section 13-273(c) COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
(e) Change of use. Each development project approved under this article shall be reevaluated by
the Public Services Director 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.
180
pec. 13-L/b. 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 lot where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or -.
rebuilding an existing house or units. Granny units and accessory -apartmen.ts are -
also exempt.
' (2) Any industrial or commercial construction that neither increases the footprint nor
5 square footage or changes the use on the lot 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 toublic libraries
arks P , 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.
181
Table 13-275
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CRITERIA
PROJECT DEVELOPNSENT
SIZE
INTERSECTION
CONDITION
ICU
INCREASE'
MITIGATION
AIEASURE(S)
INTENT OF
MITIGATION MEASURES)
Projects generating less
than 100 peak hour trip
Adequate
(Standard Level of Service
Less than
1 %
Payment of impact fee
Contribute to implementation of the
ends
or better)
Comprehensive Transportation
System Improvement Program
OR
Deficient
1% or
(exceeds Standard Level
greater
of Service)
Projects generating 100 or Adequate
more peak hour tripends (Standard Level of Ser-
Less than Payment of impact fee
1 %
Contribute to implementation of the
vice or better)
Comprehensive Transportation
System Improvement Program
OR
Deficient
(exceeds Standard Level
of Service)
1 % or Payment of impact fee and
Contribute to implementation of the
greater improvement construction
Comprehensive Transportation
-
by developer under condi-
System Improvement Program and
tions listed in footnote #2
mitigate development project's
impacts
1. ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
2. ' When the project contributes 50% or more of the incremental impact at the intersection and all
the General Plan at the subject location are required
of the improvements identified in
as mitigation. If all of the improvements identified in the General Plan are
not required as mitigation, then only the improvements determined necessary by the Public Services Director shall be
by
the developer.
constructed
pec. 13-L/b. 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 lot where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or -.
rebuilding an existing house or units. Granny units and accessory -apartmen.ts are -
also exempt.
' (2) Any industrial or commercial construction that neither increases the footprint nor
5 square footage or changes the use on the lot 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 toublic libraries
arks P , 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.
181
.. 0
ADT AND PEAK HOUR TRIP RATE SUMMARY
ADT AND PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION EQUATION SUMMARY
EQUATION FORM: LN(T)=A*LN(X)+B
WHERE: X=LAND USE AMOUNT & T=DAILY TRIPS
-- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour --
- Coefficients - Pk/ADT Pk/ADT
Land Use Type Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio In Out
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Regional Commercial (EQ) TSF 0.643 5.866 0.022 61% 39% 0.095 48% 52%
oc ,aol
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
1.
Low Density Residential
DU
0.18
0.55
0.73
0.64
0.35
0.99
9.41
2.
Medium Density Residential
OU
0.12
0.46
0.58
0.47
0.26
0.73
7.50
3.
High Density Residential
OU
0.09
0.44
0.53
0.43
0.22
0.65
6.85
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
TSF
1.19
0.59
1.78
2.28
2.75
5.03
53.77
5.
General.Commercial
TSF
1.11
0.63
1.74
1.85
2.12
3.97
40.60
6.
Commercial Center
TSF
1.09
0.39
1.48
1.63
2.22
3.85
38.67
8.
Urban Center Commercial
TSF
1.04
0.19
1.23
0.47
1.16
1.63
14.26
9.
Light Industry
TSF
0.86
0.16
1.02
0.31
1.03
1.34
11.07
10.
Industrial Park
TSF
0.79
0.16
0.95
0.20
0.79
0.99
7.40
11.
Golf Course
ACRE
0.16
0.05
0.21
0.10
0.20
0.30
5.04
12.
School (K-12)
STU
0.23
0.14
0.37
0.03
0.04
0.07
1.32
13.
Public Facility
ACRE
0.16
0.02
0.18
0.04
0.19
0.23
2.57
14.
Fairground
ACRE
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
12.30
15.
Storage
TSF
0.09
0.06
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.26
2.50
16.
Community College
STU
0.13
0.01
0.14
0.12
0.05
0.17
1.54
17.
Cultural Arts Center
TSF
1.20
0.25
1.45
0.44
1.12
1.56
13.57
18.
Movie Theater
SEAT
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.02
0.26
1.76
19.
Performance Theater
SEAT
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.10
1.23
20.
South Coast Metro
TSF
1.05
0.17
1.22
0.31
0.98
1.29
10.20
21.
Metro Pointe
TSF
1.03
0.45
1.48
1.61
1.86
3.47
38.05
ADT AND PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION EQUATION SUMMARY
EQUATION FORM: LN(T)=A*LN(X)+B
WHERE: X=LAND USE AMOUNT & T=DAILY TRIPS
-- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour --
- Coefficients - Pk/ADT Pk/ADT
Land Use Type Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio In Out
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Regional Commercial (EQ) TSF 0.643 5.866 0.022 61% 39% 0.095 48% 52%
oc ,aol
264
263
c 240 265
v'
239
262 242
238 243
,i 26fi
261 `q 241 247
246 267
260 233 2 245
15 268 269
259 220 237 11
c3 Y0 14
257 258 1" 219 8 1 17
13
'
218 ? 211. 18 172. 175
217
256 216 224 24 $ 9 2 171 174
26 7 .
221 223
6
5 3 173
38 222 X <'� " 4 170
39 35 32 45 EP 64
270
36 31 '° A, 63 erte*a
255 37
271
44 62 61 167 - 168
272
s 43 a�
254 48 52 e's cj1 tea.
60
59 152 158 165
�
50 53 $$ 56 e an �.n
169
151 157 164
51
125 n
47 54
78 82 ; 150 158 163
253
49 80 124 176
81 149 155 162
N
r �
46 77 79 .- � 121 148 54 161 177
69 76
118 120 147 153 160 166
A
75 117 131 137 159
179
252 12 73
178
68 1, 77 �j 6' 130 136 142 146
0
70 ,1
� � 7� 115
6 129 135 141 145
181 182
o a � �
as+'�90 105 — 128 134 140 144
180
251 97 100 1O4r 127 �
184
0 133 139 143
84 ,m 96
183
99
85 93 95 �'� .c 132 138
188 273
250 `9 83 97 92 94 98 126
187 s
186
_ 86 1�
91 ` .--
�t85
193 _
.!
F 190 215
4
249 191 192 194 196 189
214
211 213
0
197 199 203 N 206 207
248 200 210
198
212
209
208
COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MODEL
ZONE SYSTEM
lzneiea
Figure B-1
CMTM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
{
l
City of Costa Mesa Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015rptfigB-I.dwg
i
a
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
C _.90.1
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1.
Low Density Residential
235.00
DU
42
129
171
150
82
232
2211
3.
High Density Residential
487.00
DU
44
214
258
209
107
316
3336
13.
Public Facility
2.48
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
86
343
429
359
189
548
5553
2
3.
High Density Residential
258.00
OU
23
114
137
111
57
168
1767
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
1.82
TSF
2
1
3
4
5
9
98
5.
General Commercial
135.42
TSF
150
85
235
251
287
538
5498
9.
Light Industry
103.88
TSF
89
17
106
32
107
139
1150
SUB -TOTAL
264
217
481
398
456
854
8513
3
3.
High Density Residential
716.00
OU
64
315
379
308
158
466
4905
5.
General Commercial
204.72
TSF
227
129
356
379
434
813
8312
SUB -TOTAL
291
444
735
687
592
1279
13217
4
5.
General Commercial
131.46
TSF
146
83
229
243
279
522
5337
9.
Light Industry
197.58
TSF
170
32
202
61
204
265
2187
SUB -TOTAL
316
115
431
304
483
787
7524
5
3.
High Density Residential
534.00
DU
48
235
283
230
117
347
3658
5.
General Commercial
64.65
TSF
72
41
113
120
137
257
2625
13.
Public Facility
0.81
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
120
276
396
350
254
604
6285
6
1.
Low Density Residential
132.00
DU
24
73
97
84
46
130
1242
13.
Public Facility
6.34
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
16
SUB -TOTAL
25
73
98
84
47
131
1258
7
1.
Low Density Residential
269.00
DU
48
148
196
172
94
266
2531
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
11.00
TSF
13
6
19
25
30
55
591
5.
General Commercial
71.08
TSF
79
45
124
131
151
282
2886
SUB -TOTAL
140
199
339
328
275
603
6008
8
5.
General Commercial
193.26
TSF
215
122
337
358
410
768
7846
SUB -TOTAL
215
122
337
358
410
768
7846
9
5.
General Commercial
949.48
TSF
1054
598
1652
1757
2013
3770
38549
SUB -TOTAL
1054
598
1652
1757
2013
3770
38549
10
3.
High Density Residential
770.00
DU
69
339
408
331
169
500
5275
5.
General Commercial
448.37
TSF
498
282
780
829
951
1780
18204
SUB -TOTAL
567
621
1188
1160
1120
2280
23479
11
13.
Public Facility
0.69
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
12
17.
Cultural Arts Center
642.28
TSF
771
161
932
283
719
1002
8716
SUB -TOTAL
771
161
932
283
719
1002
8716
C _.90.1
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
20.
South Coast Metro
749.23
TSF
787
127
914
232
734
966
7642
SUB -TOTAL
787
127
914
232
734
966
7642
16
17.
Cultural Arts Center
390.26
TSF
468
96
566
172
437
609
5296
18.
Movie Theater
1862.00
SEAT
0
19
19
447
37
484
3277
SUB -TOTAL
468
117
585
619
474
1093
8573
17
17.
Cultural Arts Center
464.50
TSF
557
116
673
204
520
724
6303
19.
Performance Theater
3668.00
SEAT
37
0
37
293
73
366
4512
SUB -TOTAL
594
116
710
497
593
1090
10815
18
17.
Cultural Arts Center
976.99
TSF
1172
244
1416
430
1094
1524
13258
18.
Movie Theater
1700.00
SEAT
0
17
17
408
34
442
2992
SUB -TOTAL
1172
261
1433
838
1128
1966
16250
19
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
609.78
TSF
167
107
274
568
615
1183
12453
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF
)
SUB -TOTAL
167
107
274
568
615
1183
12453
20
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
203.26
TSF
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF
)
SUB -TOTAL
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
21
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
203.26
TSF
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF
)
SUB -TOTAL
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
22
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
203.26
TSF
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF
)
SUB -TOTAL
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
23
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
203.26
TSF
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
24
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
609.78
TSF
167
107
274
568
615
1183
12453
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
167
107
274
568
615
1183
12453
25
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
203.26
TSF
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
(Equation base =
2926.20 TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
56
36
92
189
205
394
4151
26
18.
Movie Theater
2500.00
SEAT
0
25
25
600
50
650
4400
21,
Metro Pointe
540.26
TSF
556
243
799
870
1005
1875
20557
SUB -TOTAL
556
268
824
1470
1055
2525
24957
27
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
690.35
TSF
189
121
310
643
696
1339
14098
(Equation base = 2926.20 TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
189
121
310
643
696
1339
14098
- 'go Ll
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C - "2dS-
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28
1.
Low Density Residential
414.00
DU
75
228
303
265
145
410
3896
3.
High Density Residential
296.00
DU
27
130
157
127
65
192
2028
8.
Urban Center Commercial
80.00
TSF
83
15
98
38
93
131
1141
13.
Public Facility
10.00
ACRE
2
0
2
0
2
2
26
SUB -TOTAL
187
373
560
430
305
735
7091
29
1.
Low Density Residential
491.00
DU
88
270
358
314
172
486
4620
2.
Medium Density Residential
90.00
OU
11
41
52
42
23
65
675
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
14.82
TSF
18
9
27
34
41
75
797
13.
Public Facility
2.79
ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
117
320
437
390
237
627
6099
30
2.
Medium Density Residential
244.00
DU
29
112
141
115
63
178
1830
SUB -TOTAL
29
112
141
115
63
178
1830
32
10.
Industrial Park
28.23
TSF
22
5
27
6
22
28
209
SUB -TOTAL
22
5
27
6
22
28
209
33
8.
Urban Center Commercial
717.00
TSF
746
136
882
337
832
1169
10224
SUB -TOTAL
746
136
882
337
832
1169
10224
35
10.
Industrial Park
472.73
TSF
373
76
449
95
373
468
3498
12.
School (K-12)
350.00
STU
81
49
130
11
14
25
462
SUB -TOTAL
454
125
579
106
387
493
3960
36
5.
General Commercial
128.54
TSF
143
81
224
238
272
510
5219
10.
Industrial Park
944.03
TSF
746
151
897
189
746
935
6986
12.
School (K-12)
525.00
STU
121
74
195
16
21
37
693
SUB -TOTAL
1010
306
1316
443
1039
1482
12898
37
10.
Industrial Park
1528.19
TSF
1207
245
1452
306
1207
1513
11309
SUB -TOTAL
1207
245
1452
306
1207
1513
11309
38
10.
Industrial Park
418.68
TSF
331
67
398
84
331
415
3098
SUB -TOTAL
331
67
398
84
331
415
3098
39
10.
Industrial Park
646.07
TSF
510
103
613
129
510
639
4781
SUB -TOTAL
510
103
613
129
510
639
4781
40
5.
General Commercial
101.29
TSF
112
64
176
187
215
402
4112
15.
Storage
41.11
TSF
4
2
6
5
5
10
103
SUB -TOTAL
116
66
182
192
220
412
4215
41
1.
Low Density Residential
74.00
DU
13
41
54
47
26
73
696
12.
School (K-12)
550.00
STU
127
77
204
17
22
39
726
13.
Public Facility
1.84
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
SUB -TOTAL
140
118
258
64
48
112
1427
C - "2dS-
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
42
3.
High Density, Residential
40.00 DU
4
18
22
17
9
26
274
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
40.45 TSF
48
24
72
92
111
203
2175
5.
General Commercial
122.01 TSF
135
77
212
226
259
485
4954
9.
Light Industry
225.63 TSF
194
36
230
70
232
302
2498
15.
Storage
6.14 TSF
1
0
1
1
1
2
15
SUB -TOTAL
382
155
537
406
612
1018
9916
43
1.
Low Density Residential
35.00 DU
6
19
25
22
12
34
329
2.
Medium Density Residential
80.00 OU
10
37
47
38
21
59
600
5.
General Commercial
414.46 TSF
460
261
721
767
879
1646
16827
SUB -TOTAL
476
317
793
827
912
1739
17756
44
1.
Low Density Residential
580.00 DU
104
319
423
371
203
574
5458
12.
School (K-12)
370.00 STU
85
52
137
11
15
26
488
13.
Public Facility
13.15 ACRE
2
0
2
1
2
3
34
SUB -TOTAL
191
371
562
383
220
603
5980
45
1.
Low Density Residential
753.00 DU
136
414
550
482
264
746
7086
2.
Medium Density Residential
282.00 OU
34
130
164
133
73
206
2115
12.
School (K-12)
429.00 STU
99
60
159
13
17
30
566
13.
Public Facility
2.23 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
269
604
873
628
354
982
9773
46
1.
Low Density Residential
293.00 DU
53
161
214
188
103
291
2757
13.
Public Facility
18.00 ACRE
3
0
3
1
3
4
46 -
SUB -TOTAL
56
161
217
189
106
295
2803
47
1.
Low Density Residential
180.00 DU
32
99
131
115
63
178
1694
2.
Medium Density Residential
57.00 DU
7
26
33
27
15
42
428
11.
Golf Course
140.20 ACRE
22
7
29
14
28
42
707
SUB -TOTAL
61
132
193
156
106
262
2829
48
1.
Low Density Residential
761.00 OU
137
419
556
487
266
753
7161
3.
High Density Residential
140.00 DU
13
62
75
60
31
91
959
5.
General Commercial
53.11 TSF
59
33
92
98
113
211
2156
12.
School (K-12)
1406.00 STU
323
197
520
42
56
98
1856
13.
Public Facility
6.33 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
16
SUB -TOTAL
533
711
1244
687
467
1154
12148
49
1.
Low Density Residential
491.00 DU
88
270
358
314
172
486
4620
5.
General Commercial
56.72 TSF
63
36
99
105
120
225
2303
12.
School (K-12)
528.00 STU
121
74
195
16
21
37
697
13.
Public Facility
5.81 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
15
SUB -TOTAL
273
380
653
435
314
749
7635
50
1.
Low Density Residential
435.00 OU
78
239
317
278
152
430
4093
SUB -TOTAL
78
239
317
278
152
430
4093
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51
1.
Low Density Residential
346.00
DU
62
190
252
221
121
342
3256
5.
General Commercial
72.72
TSF
81
46
127
135
154
289
2952
13.
Public Facility
4.55
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
12
SUB -TOTAL
144
236
380
356
276
632
6220
52
1.
Low Density Residential
50.00
DU
9
28
37
32
18
50
471
3.
High Density Residential
405.00
DU
36
178
214
174
89
263
2774
5.
General Commercial
175.11
TSF
194
110
304
324
371
695
7110
13.
Public Facility
35.58
ACRE
6
1
7
1
7
8
91
SUB -TOTAL
245
317
562
531
485
1016
10446
53
1.
Low Density Residential
26.00
DU
5
14
19
17
9
26
245
3.
High Density Residential
206.00
DU
19
91
110
89
45
134
1411
5.
General Commercial
195.17
TSF
217
123
340
361
414
775
7924
SUB -TOTAL
241
228
469
467
468
935
9580
54
3.
High Density Residential
450.00
OU
41
198
239
194
99
293
3083
5.
General Commercial
144.57
TSF
160
91
251
267
306
573
5869
SUB -TOTAL
201
289
490
461
405
866
8952
55
3.
High Density Residential
770.00
DU
69
339
408
331
169
500
5275
5,
General Commercial
210.37
TSF
234
133
367
389
446
835
8541
9.
Light Industry
104.54
TSF
90
17
107
32
108
140
1157
SUB -TOTAL
393
489
882
752
723
1475
14973
56
16.
Community College
25000.00
STU
3250
250
3500
3000
1250
4250
38500
SUB -TOTAL
3250
250
3500
3000
1250
4250
38500
57
3.
High Density Residential
686.00
OU
62
302
364
295
151
446
4699
SUB -TOTAL
62
302
364
295
151
446
4699
58
3.
High Density Residential
188.00
OU
17
83
100
81
41
122
1288
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
50.99
TSF
61
30
91
116
140
256
2742
9.
Light Industry
401.74
TSF
345
64
409
125
414
539
4447
13.
Public Facility
2.81
ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
423
177
600
322
596
918
8484
59
14.
Fairground
146.39
ACRE
0
0
0
293
293
586
1801
SUB -TOTAL
0
0
0
293
293
586
1801
60
12.
School (K-12)
1785.00
STU
411
250
661
54
71
125
2356
13.
Public Facility
2.67
ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
411
250
661
54
72
126
2363
61
12.
School (K-12)
864.00
STU
199
121
320
26
35
61
1140
13.
Public Facility
97.16
ACRE
16
2
18
4
18
22
250
SUB -TOTAL
215
123
338
30
53
83
1390
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
c-QQ8
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
62
1.
Low Density Residential
506.00
DU
91
278
369
324
177
501
4761
3.
High Density Residential
350.00
DU
32
154
186
151
77
228
2398
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
34.16
TSF
41
20
61
78
94
172
1837
SUB -TOTAL
164
452
616
553
348
901
8996
63
1.
Low Density Residential
362.00
DU
65
199
264
232
127
359
3406
3.
High Density Residential
32.00
DU
3
14
17
14
7
21
219
12.
School (K-12)
377.00
STU
87
53
140
11
15
26
498
SUB -TOTAL
155
266
421
257
149
406
4123
64
3.
High Density Residential
39.00
DU
4
17
21
17
9
26
267
5.
General Commercial
77.40
TSF
86
49
135
143
164
307
3142
SUB -TOTAL
90
66
156
160
173
333
3409
65
2.
Medium Density Residential
650.00
DU
78
299
377
306
169
475
4875
3.
High Density Residential
8.00
DU
1
4
5
3
2
5
55
13.
Public Facility
51.35
ACRE
8
1
9
2
10
12
132
SUB -TOTAL
87
304
391
311
181
492
5062
66
1.
Low Density Residential
147.00
DU
26
81
107
94
51
145
1383
2.
Medium Density Residential
194.00
DU
23
89
112
91
50
141
1455
SUB -TOTAL
49
170
219
185
101
286
2838
67
1.
Low Density Residential
170.00
DU
31
94
125
109
60
169
1600
2.
Medium Density Residential
56.00
DU
7
26
33
26
15
41
420
SUB -TOTAL
38
120
158
135
75
210
2020
68
12.
School (K-12)
1319.00
STU
303
185
488
40
53
93
1741
13.
Public Facility
217.23
ACRE
35
4
39
9
41
50
558
SUB -TOTAL
338
189
527
49
94
143
2299
69
1.
Low Density Residential
446.00
DU
80
245
325
285
156
441
4197
13.
Public Facility
2.70
ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
80
245
325
285
157
442
4204
70
1.
Low Density Residential
140.00
DU
25
77
102
90
49
139
1317
12.
School (K-12)
572.00
STU
132
80
212
17
23
40
755
SUB -TOTAL
157
157
314
107
72
179
2072
71
2.
Medium Density Residential
310.00
DU
37
143
180
146
81
227
2325
13.
Public Facility
5.11
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
13
SUB -TOTAL
38
143
181
146
82
228
2338
72
2.
Medium Density Residential
166.00
DU
20
76
96
78
43
121
1245
5.
General Commercial
6.60
TSF
7
4
11
12
14
26
268
13.
Public Facility
2.16
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
27
80
107
90
57
147
1519
c-QQ8
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73
1.
Low Density Residential
117.00
DU
21
64
85
75
41
116
1101
2.
Medium Density Residential
121.00
DU
15
56
71
57
31
88
908
SUB -TOTAL
36
120
156
132
72
204
2009
74
1.
Low Density Residential
42.00
DU
8
23
31
27
15
42
395
2.
Medium Density Residential
338.00
DU
41
155
196
159
88
247
2535
3.
High Density Residential
79.00
DU
7
35
42
34
17
51
541
5.
General Commercial
86.68
TSF
96
55
151
160
184
344
3519
SUB -TOTAL
152
268
420
380
304
684
6990
75
1.
Low Density Residential
66.00
DU
12
36
48
42
23
65
621
2.
Medium Density Residential
99.00
DU
12
46
58
47
26
73
743
3.
High Density Residential
139.00
DU
13
61
74
60
31
91
952
5.
General Commercial
44.45
TSF
49
28
77
82
94
176
1805
SUB -TOTAL
86
171
257
231
174
405
4121
76
1.
Low Density Residential
202.00
DU
36
111
147
129
71
200
1901
3.
High Density Residential
1019.00
DU
92
448
540
438
224
662
6980
11.
Golf Course
292.01
ACRE
47
15
62
29
58
87
1472
13.
Public Facility
18.33
ACRE
3
0
3
1
3
4
47
SUB -TOTAL
178
574
752
597
356
953
10400
77
3.
High Density Residential
500.00
DU
45
220
265
215
110
325
3425
SUB -TOTAL
45
220
265
215
110
325
3425
78
3.
High Density Residential
42.00
DU
4
18
22
18
9
27
288
5.
General Commercial
336.06
TSF
373
212
585
622
712
1334
13644
SUB -TOTAL
377
230
607
640
721
1361
13932
79
3.
High Density Residential
508.00
DU
46
224
270
218
112
330
3480
5.
General Commercial
275.93
TSF
306
174
480
510
585
1095
11203
SUB -TOTAL
352
398
750
728
697
1425
14683
80
1.
Low Density Residential
153.00
DU
28
84
112
98
54
152
1440
3.
High Density Residential
123.00
OU
11
54
65
53
27
80
843
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
40.95
TSF
49
24
73
93
113
206
2202
5.
General Commercial
45.59
TSF
51
29
80
84
97
181
1851
13.
Public Facility
1.29
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
SUB -TOTAL
139
191
330
328
291
619
6339
81
1.
Low Density Residential
542.00
DU
98
298
396
347
190
537
5100
3.
High Density Residential
99.00
DU
9
44
53
43
22
65
678
5.
General Commercial
137.91
TSF
153
87
240
255
292
547
5599
12.
School (K-12)
444.00
STU
102
62
164
13
18
31
586
13.
Public Facility
3.13
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
8
SUB -TOTAL
363
491
854
658
523
1181
11971
82
1.
Low Density Residential
306.00
DU
55
168
223
196
107
303
2879
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
82
13. Public Facility
2.20 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
55
168
223
196
107
303
2885
83
13. Public Facility
75.97 ACRE
12
2
14
3
14
17
195
SUB -TOTAL
12
2
14
3
14
17
195
84
1. Low Density Residential
65.00 DU
12
36
48
42
23
65
612
2. Medium Density Residential
151.00 DU
18
69
87
71
39
110
1133
4. Neighborhood Commercial
66.10 TSF
79
39
118
151
182
333
3554
5. General Commercial
2.08 TSF
2
1
3
4
4
8
85
9. Light Industry
22.42 TSF
19
4
23
7
23
30
248
13. Public Facility
0.91 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
130
149
279
275
271
546
5634
86
9. Light Industry
229.46 TSF
197
37
234
71
236
307
2540
SUB -TOTAL
197
37
234
71
236
307
2540
87
1. Low Density Residential
67.00 DU
12
37
49
43
23
66
630
2. Medium Density Residential
92.00 OU
11
42
53
43
24
67
690
9. Light Industry
135.86 TSF
117
22
139
42
140
182
1504
13. Public Facility
2.40 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
140
101
241
128
187
315
2830
88
1. Low Density Residential
344.00 DU
62
189
251
220
120
340
3237
13. Public Facility
35.27 ACRE
6
1
7
1
7
8
91
SUB -TOTAL
68
190
258
221
127
348
3328
89
1. Low Density Residential
280.00 DU
50
154
204
179
98
277
2635
SUB -TOTAL
50
154
204
179
98
277
2635
90
1. Low Density Residential
124.00 DU
22
68
90
79
43
122
1167
3. High Density Residential
80.00 DU
7
35
42
34
18
52
548
12. School (K-12)
423.00 STU
97
59
156
13
17
30
558
SUB -TOTAL
126
162
288
126
78
204
2273
91
9. Light Industry
371.00 TSF
319
59
378
115
382
497
4107
SUB -TOTAL
319
59
378
115
382
497
4107
92
1. Low Density Residential
92.00 DU
17
51
68
59
32
91
866
9. Light Industry
180.64 TSF
155
29
184
56
186
242
2000
SUB -TOTAL
172
80
252
115
218
333
2866
93
2. Medium Density Residential
1.00 DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3. High Density Residential
460.00 DU
41
202
243
198
101
299
3151
4. Neighborhood Commercial
2.08 TSF
2
1
3
5
6
11
112
9. Light Industry
8.10 TSF
7
1
8
3
8
11
90
12. School (K-12)
575.00 STU
132
81
213
17
23
40
759
SUS -TOTAL
182
285
467
223
138
361
4120
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C - of A/
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94
9.
Light Industry
374.08
TSF
322
60
382
116
385
501
4141
SUB -TOTAL
322
60
382
116
385
501
4141
95
9.
Light Industry
591.43
TSF
509
95
604
183
609
792
6547
SUB -TOTAL
509
95
604
183
609
792
6547
96
1.
Low Density Residential
41.00
DU
7
23
30
26
14
. 40
386
3.
High Density Residential
387.00
DU
35
170
205
166
85
251
2651
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
9.26
TSF
11
5
16
21
25
46
498
5.
General Commercial
49.61
TSF
55
31
86
92
105
197
2014
9.
Light Industry
65.34
TSF
56
10
66
20
67
87
723
SUB -TOTAL
164
239
403
325
296
621
6272
97
3.
High Density Residential
55.00
DU.
5
24
29
24
12
36
377
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
8.13
TSF
10
5
15
19
22
41
437
5.
General Commercial
13.55
TSF
15
9
24
25
29
54
550
9.
Light Industry
370.84
TSF
319
59
378
115
382
497
4105
SUB -TOTAL
349
97
446
183
445
628
5469
98
9.
Light Industry
634.07
TSF
545
101
646
197
653
850
7019
SUB -TOTAL
545
101
646
197
653
850
7019
99
3.
High Density Residential
366.00
DU
33
161
194
157
81
238
2507
9.
Light Industry
173.51
TSF
149
28
177
54
179
233
1921
13.
Public Facility
0.17
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.
Storage
48.16
TSF-
4
3
7
6
6
12
120
SUB -TOTAL
186
192
378
217
266
483
4548
100
3.
High Density Residential
365.00
DU
33
161
194
157
80
237
2500
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
4.87
TSF
6
3
9
11
13
24
262
5.
General Commercial
58.24
TSF
65
37
102
108
123
231
2365
SUB -TOTAL
104
201
305
276
216
492
5127
101
9.
Light Industry
157.75
TSF
136
25
161
49
162
211
1746
SUB -TOTAL
136
25
161
49
162
211
1746
102
5.
General Commercial
84.78
TSF
94
53
147
157
180
337
3442
9.
Light Industry
111.53
TSF
96
18
114
35
115
150
1235
15.
Storage
100.93
TSF
9
6
15
13
13
26
252
SUB -TOTAL
199
77
276
205
308
513
4929
103
5.
General Commercial
114.13
TSF
127
72
199
211
242
453
4634
9.
Light Industry
12.94
TSF
11
2
13
4
13
17
143
SUB -TOTAL
138
74
212
215
255
470
4777
104
1.
Low Density Residential
29.00
DU
5
16
21
19
10
29
273
3.
High Density Residential
177.00
DU
16
78
94
76
39
115
1212
5.
General Commercial
45.41
TSF
50
29
79
84
96
180
1844
C - of A/
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
104
9.
Light Industry
117.31 TSF
101
19
120
36
121
157
1299
13.
Public Facility
1.09 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
SUB -TOTAL
172
142
314
215
266
481
4631
105
3.
High Density Residential
315.00 DU
28
139
167
135
69
204
2158
5.
General Commercial
46.47 TSF
52
29
81
86
99
185
1887
13.
Public Facility
0.94 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
80
168
248
221
168
389
4047
106
3.
High Density Residential
274.00 OU
25
121
146
118
60
178
1877
5.
General Commercial
13.73 TSF
15
9
24
25
29
54
558
9.
Light Industry
247.48 TSF
213
40
253
77
255
332
2740
SUB -TOTAL
253
170
423
220
344
564
5175
107
1.
Low Density Residential
60.00 DU
11
33
44
38
21
59
565
3.
High Density Residential
40.00 OU
4
18
22
17
9
26
274
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
31.42 TSF
37
19
56
72
86
158
1689
SUB -TOTAL
52
70
122
127
116
243
2528
108
3.
High Density Residential
367.00 DU
33
161
194
158
81
239
2514
5.
General Commercial
16.25 TSF
18
10
28
30
34
64
660
12.
School (K-12)
588.00 STU
135
82
217
18
24
42
776
SUB -TOTAL
186
253
439
206
139
345
3950
109
1.
Low Density Residential
112.00 DU
20
62
82
72
39
111
1054-
3.
High Density Residential
323.00 OU
29
142
171
139
71
210
2213
5.
General Commercial
24.54 TSF
27
15
42
45
52
97
996
12.
School (K-12)
654.00 STU
150
92
242
20
26
46
863
SUB -TOTAL
226
311
537
276
188
464
5126
110
1.
Low Density Residential
18.00 DU
3
10
13
12
6
18
169
2.
Medium Density Residential
6.00 DU
1
3
4
3
2
5
45
3.
High Density Residential
2.00 DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
14
5.
General Commercial
66.05 TSF
73
42
115
122
140
262
2682
SUB -TOTAL
77
56
133
138
148
286
2910
111
3.
High Density Residential
235.00 DU
21
103
124
101
52
153
1610
6.
Commercial Center
198.65 TSF
217
77
294
324
441
765
7682
13.
Public Facility
12.60 ACRE
2
0
2
1
2
3
32.
SUB -TOTAL
240
180
420
426
495
921
9324
112
1.
Low Density Residential
69.00 DU
12
38
50
44
24
68
649
3.
High Density Residential
433.00 OU
39
191
230
186
95
281
2966
5.
General Commercial
18.05 TSF
20
11
31
33
38
71
733
6.
Commercial Center
9.86 TSF
11
4
15
16
22
38
381
13.
Public Facility
0.52 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
82
244
326
279
179
458
4730
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C-ot'3
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
113
2. Medium Density Residential
327.00 DU
39
150
189
154
85
239
2453
3. High Density Residential
142.00 DU
13
62
75
61
31
92
973
5. General Commercial
18.24 TSF
20
11
31
34
39
73
740
12. School (K-12)
0.00 STU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13. Public Facility
2.05 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
SUB -TOTAL
72
223
295
249
155
404
4171
114
3. High Density Residential
378.00 DU
34
166
200
163
83
246
2589
5. General Commercial
127.70 TSF
142
80
222
236
271
507
5185
6. Commercial Center
47.56 TSF
52
19
71
78
106
184
1839
SUB -TOTAL
228
265
493
477
460
937
9613
115
6. Commercial Center
185.00 TSF
202
72
274
302
411
713
7154
SUB -TOTAL
202
72
274
302
411
713
7154
116
2. Medium Density Residential
24.00 DU
3
11
14
11
6
17
180
3. High Density Residential
263.00 DU
24
116
140
113
58
171
1802
5. General Commercial
75.92 TSF
84
48
132
140
161
301
3082
6. Commercial Center
412.17 TSF
449
161
610
672
915
1587
15939
13. Public Facility
0.83 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
560
336
896
936
1140
2076
21005
117
1. Low Density Residential
32.00 DU
6
18
24
20
11
31
301
2. Medium Density Residential
150.00 DU
18
69
87
71
39
110
1125
3. High Density Residential
125.00 DU
11
55
66
54
28
82
856
5. General Commercial
74.51 TSF
83
47
130
138
158
296
3025
SUB -TOTAL
118
189
307
283
236
519
5307
118
2. Medium Density Residential
68.00 OU
8
31
39
32
18
50
510
5. General Commercial
246.55 TSF
274
155
429
456
523
979
10010
SUB -TOTAL
282
186
468
488
541
1029
10520
119
5. General Commercial
104.52 TSF
116
66
182
193
222
415
4243
15. Storage
4.20 TSF
0
0
0
1
1
2
11
SUB -TOTAL
116
66
182
194
223
417
4254
120
1. Low Density Residential
14.00 DU
3
8
11
9
5
14
132
2. Medium Density Residential
27.00 DU
3
12
15
13
7
20
203
3. High Density Residential
49.00 DU
4
22
26
21
11
32
336
5. General Commercial
182.21 TSF
202
115
317
337
386
723
7398
SUB -TOTAL
212
157
369
380
409
789
8069
121
3. High Density Residential
534.00 DU
48
235
283
230
117
347
3658
5. General Commercial
59.22 TSF
66
37
103
110
126
236
2404
13. Public Facility
2.59 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
SUB -TOTAL
114
272
386
340
243
583
6069
122
1. Low Density Residential
22.00 DU
4
12
16
14
8
22
207
C-ot'3
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-df
q
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
122
3.
High Density Residential
633.00 DU
57
279
336
272
139
411
4336
5.
General Commercial
11.08 TSF
12
7
19
21
23
44
450
13.
Public Facility
1.63 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
SUB -TOTAL
'73
298
371
307
170
477
4997
123
5.
General Commercial
71.14 TSF
79
45
124
132
151
283
2888
SUB -TOTAL
79
45
124
132
151
283
2888
124
3.
High Density Residential
928.00 DU
84
408
492
399
204
603
6357
5.
General Commercial
1.11 TSF
1
1
2
2
2
4
45
13.
Public Facility
2.49 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
85
409
494
401
206
607
6408
125
3.
High Density Residential
184.00 DU
17
81
98
79
40
119
1260
13.
Public Facility
9.45 ACRE
2
0
2
0
2
2
24
16.
Community College
950.00 STU
123
10
133
114
48
162
1463
SUB -TOTAL
142
91
233
193
90
283
2747
126
2.
Medium Density Residential
27.00 DU
3
12
15
13
7
20
203
5.
General Commercial
46.08 TSF
51
29
80
85
98
183
1871
SUB -TOTAL
54
41
95
98
105
203
2074
127
3.
High Density Residential
58.00 DU
5
26
31
25
13
38
397
5.
General Commercial
106.58 TSF
118
67
185
197
226
423
4327
15.
Storage
96.05 TSF
9
6
15
12
12
24
240
SUB -TOTAL
132
99
231
234
251
485
4964
128
3.
High Density Residential
247.00 DU
22
109
131
106
54
160
1692
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
18.29 TSF
22
11
33
42
50
92
983
5.
General Commercial
143.06 TSF
159
90
249
265
303
568
5808
SUB -TOTAL
203
210
413
413
407
820
8483
129
3.
High Density Residential
256.00 OU
23
113
136
110
56
166
1754
5.
General Commercial
115.43 TSF
128
73
201
214
245
459
4687
SUB -TOTAL
151
186
337
324
301
625
6441
130
1.
Low Density Residential
42.00 DU
8
23
31
27
15
42
395
2.
Medium Density Residential
177.00 DU
21
81
102
83
46
129
1328
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
15.87 TSF
19
9
28
36
44
80
853
5.
General Commercial
25.71 TSF
29
16
45
48
55
103
1044
13.
Public Facility
0.23 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
77
129
206
194
160
354
3621
131
1.
Low Density Residential
29.00 DU
5
16
21
19
10
29
273
2.
Medium Density Residential
178.00 DU
21
82
103
84
46
130
1335
3,
High Density Residential
178.00 DU
16
78
94
77
39
116
1219
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
27.37 TSF
33
16
49
62
75
137
1471
5.
General Commercial
2.90 TSF
3
2
5
5
6
11
118
-df
q
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C s O �s�-
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
131
13.
Public Facility
1.13
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
SUB -TOTAL
78
194
272
247
176
423
4419
132
2.
Medium Density Residential
270.00
DU
32
124
156
127
70
197
2025
13.
Public Facility
4.27
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
11
SUB -TOTAL
33
124
157
127
71
198
2036
133
2.
Medium Density Residential
3.00
DU
0
1
1
1
1
2
23
3.
High Density Residential
296.00
DU
27
130
157
127
65
192
2028
5.
General Commercial
179.80
TSF
200
113
313
333
381
714
7300
SUB -TOTAL
227
244
471
461
447
908
9351
134
2.
Medium Density Residential
279.00
DU
33
128
161
131
73
204
2093
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
32.85
TSF
39
19
58
75
90
165
1767
5.
General Commercial
158.50
TSF
176
100
276
293
336
629
6435
13.
Public Facility
0.41
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
248
247
495
499
499
998
10296
135
1.
Low Density Residential
239.00
OU
43
131
174
153
84
237
2249
SUB -TOTAL
43
131
174
153
84
237
2249
136
1.
Low Density Residential
221.00
DU
40
122
162
141
77
218
2080
13.
Public Facility
4.13
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
11
SUB -TOTAL
41
122
163
141
78
219
2091
137
1.
Low Density Residential
205.00
DU
37
113
150
131
72
203
1929
5.
General Commercial
3.55
TSF
4
2
6
7
8
15
144
SUB -TOTAL
41
115
156
138
80
218
2073
138
2.
Medium Density Residential
189.00
DU
23
87
110
89
49
138
1418
SUB -TOTAL
23
87
110
89
49
138
1418
139
2.
Medium Density Residential
230.00
DU
28
106
134
108
60
168
1725
5.
General Commercial
114.32
TSF
127
72
199
212
242
454
4642
13.
Public Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
155
178
333
320
302
622
6373
140
2.
Medium Density Residential
196.00
DU
24
90
114
92
51
143
1470
3.
High Density Residential
115.00
DU
10
51
61
49
25
74
788
5.
General Commercial
72.90
TSF
81
46
127
135
155
290
2960
SUB -TOTAL
115
187
302
276
231
507
5218
141
1.
Low Density Residential
206.00
DU
37
113
150
132
72
204
1938
5.
General Commercial
11.50
TSF
13
7
20
21
24
45
467
13.
Public Facility
0.36
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
50
120
170
153
96
249
2406
142
1.
Low Density Residential
199.00
DU
36
109
145
127
70
197
1873
SUB -TOTAL
36
109
145
127
70
197
1873
C s O �s�-
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143
1.
Low Density Residential
143.00
DU
26
79
105
92
50
142
1346
2.
Medium Density Residential
20.00
DU
2
9
11
9
5
14
150
S.
General Commercial
136.29
TSF
151
86
237
252
289
541
5533
SUB -TOTAL
179
174
353
353
344
697
7029
144
1.
Low Density Residential
84.00
DU
15
46
61
54
29
83
790
5.
General Commercial
97.69
TSF
108
62
170
181
-207
.388
3966
13.
Public Facility
9.11
ACRE
1
0
1
0
2
2
23
SUB -TOTAL
124
108
232
235
238
473
4779
145
1.
Low Density Residential
169.00
DU
30
93
123
108
59
167
1590
SUB -TOTAL
30
93
123
108
59
167
1590
146
1.
Low Density Residential
275.00
DU.
50
151
201
176
96
272
2588
SUB -TOTAL
50
151
201
176
96
272
2588
147
1.
Low Density Residential
29.00
DU
5
16
21
19
10
29
273
2.
Medium Density Residential
242.00
DU
29
111
140
114
63
177
1815
3.
High Density Residential
128.00
DU
12
56
68
55
28
83
877
5.
General Commercial
81.17
TSF
90
51
141
150
172
322
3295
SUB -TOTAL
136
234
370
338
273
611
6260
148
2.
Medium Density Residential
268.00
DU
32
123
155
126
70
196
2010
3.
High Density Residential
3.00
DU
0
1
1
1
1
2
21
5.
General Commercial
27.75
TSF
31
17
48
51
59
110
1127
13.
Public Facility
3.70
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
10
SUB -TOTAL
64
141
205
178
131
309
3168
149
2.
Medium Density Residential
344.00
DU
41
158
199
162
89
251
2580
3.
High Density Residential
12.00
DU
1
5
6
5
3
8
82
5.
General Commercial
53.89
TSF
60
34
94
100
114
214
2188
SUB -TOTAL
102
197
299
267
206
473
4850
150
2.
Medium Density Residential
335.00
DU
40
154
194
157
87
244
2513
3.
High Density Residential
96.00
OU
9
42
51
41
21
62
658
5.
General Commercial
69.67
TSF
77
44
121
129
148
277
2828
SUB -TOTAL
126
240
366
327
256
583
5999
151
2.
Medium Density Residential
332.00
DU
40
153
193
156
86
242
2490
3.
High Density Residential
65.00
DU
6
29
35
28
14
42
445
5.
General Commercial
118.92
TSF
132
75
207
220
252
472
4828
SUB -TOTAL
178
257
435
404
352
756
7763
152
2.
Medium Density Residential
326.00
DU
39
150
189
153
85
238
2445
5.
General Commercial
125.41 TSF
139
79
218
232
266
498
5092
15.
Storage
11.48 TSF
1
1
2
1
1
2
29
SUB -TOTAL
179
230
409
386
352
738
7566
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
153
1.
Low Density Residential
190.00 DU
34
105
139
122
67
189
1788
2.
Medium Density Residential
21.00 DU
3
10
13
10
5
15
158
SUB -TOTAL
37
115
152
132
72
204
1946
154
1.
Low Density Residential
208.00 DU
37
114
151
133
73
206
1957
SUB -TOTAL
37
114
151
133
73
206
1957
155
1.
Low Density Residential
106.00 DU
19
58
77
68
37
105
997
2.
Medium Density Residential
49.00 DU
6
23
29
23
13
36
368
5.
General Commercial
36.50 TSF
41
23
64
68
77
145
1482
13.
Public Facility
4.65 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
12
SUB -TOTAL
67
104
171
159
128
287
2859
156
1.
Low Density Residential
185.00 OU
33
102
135
118
65
183
1741
12.
School (K-12)
165.00 STU
38
23
61
5
7
12
218
13.
Public Facility
2.26 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
71
125
196
123
72
195
1965
157
1.
Low Density Residential
86.00 DU
15
47
62
55
30
85
809
2.
Medium Density Residential
183.00 OU
22
84
106
86
48
134
1373
SUB -TOTAL
37
131
168
141
78
219
2182
158
1.
Low Density Residential
115.00 DU
21
63
84
74
40
114
1082
2.
Medium Density Residential
212.00 OU
25
98
123
100
55
155
1590
12.
School (K-12)
100.00 STU
23
14
37
3
4
7
132,
SUB -TOTAL
69
175
244
177
99
276
2804
159
1.
Low Density Residential
12.00 DU
2
7
9
8
4
12
113
2.
Medium Density Residential
303.00 DU
36
139
175
142
79
221
2273
12.
School (K-12)
535.00 STU
123
75
198
16
21
37
706
SUB -TOTAL
161
221
382
166
104
270
3092
160
1.
Low Density Residential
52.00 DU
9
29
38
33
18
51
489
2.
Medium Density Residential
103.00 DU
12
47
59
48
27
75
773-
12.
School (K-12)
714.00 STU
164
100
264
21
29
50
942
13.
Public Facility
2.48 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
185
176
361
102
74
176
2210
161
1.
Low Density Residential
145.00 DU
26
80
106
93
51
144
1364
SUB -TOTAL
26
80
106
93
51
144
1364
162
1.
Low Density Residential
111.00 DU
20
61
81
71
39
110
1045
2.
Medium Density Residential
105.00 DU
13
48
61
49
27
76
788
SUB -TOTAL
33
109
142
120
66
186
1833
163
1.
Low Density Residential
13.00 OU
2
7
9
8
5
13
122
2.
Medium Density Residential
347.00 DU
42
160
202
163
90
253
2603
SUB -TOTAL
44
167
211
171
95
266
2725
Existing (1998) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
,o
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM Peak
Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
--------------------------------------
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
164
2. Medium Density Residential
294.00 DU
35
135
---------------------------------------
170
138
76
214
2205
SUB -TOTAL
35
135
170
138
76
214
2205
165
2. Medium Density Residential
213.00 DU
26
98
124
100
55
155
1598
5. General Commercial
5.00 TSF
6
3
9
9
11
20
203
SUB -TOTAL
32
101
133
109
66
175
1801
166
1. Low Density Residential
9.00 DU
2
5
7
6
3
9
SUB -TOTAL
2
5
7
6
3
9
85
85
167
1. Low Density Residential
49.00 DU
9
27
36
31
17
48
461
2. Medium Density Residential
104.00 DU
12
48
60
49
27
76
780
5, General Commercial
99.55 TSF
111
63
174
184
211
395
4042
11. Golf Course
127.88 ACRE
20
6
26
13
26
39
645
15. Storage
97.15 TSF
9
6
15
13
13
26
243
SUB -TOTAL
161
150
311
290
294
584
6171
168
1. Low Density Residential
118.00 DU
21
65
86
76
41
117
1110
2. Medium Density Residential
200.00 DU
24
92
116
94
52
146
1500
3. High Density Residential
288.00 DU
26
127
153
124
63
187
1973
5. General Commercial
317.14 TSF
352
200
552
587
672
1259
12876
13. Public Facility
0.10 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SUB -TOTAL
423
484
907
881
828
1709
17459
170
5. General Commercial
75.99 TSF
84
48
132
141
161
302
3085
10. Industrial Park
1639.46 TSF
1295
262
1557
328
1295
1623
12132
15. Storage
150.00 TSF
14
9
23
20
20
40
375
SUB -TOTAL
1393
319
1712
489
1476
1965
15592
171
10. Industrial Park
189.77 TSF
150
30
180
38
150
188
1404
12. School (K-12)
300.00 STU
69
42
111
9
12
21
396
SUB -TOTAL
219
72
291
47
162
209
1800
172
10. Industrial Park
695.63 TSF
550
111
661
139
550
689
5148
SUB -TOTAL
550
111
661
139
550
689
5148
173
5. General Commercial
13.48 TSF
15
8
23
25
29
54
547
10. Industrial Park
1802.62 TSF
1424
288
1712
361
1424
1785
13339
12. School (K-12)
648.00 STU
149
91
240
19
26
45
855
SUB -TOTAL
1588
387
1975
405
1479
1884
14741
174
10. Industrial Park
189.01 TSF
149
30
179
38
149
187
1399
SUB -TOTAL
149
30
179
38
149
187
1399
175
10. Industrial Park
1024.64 TSF
809
164
973
205
809
1014
7582
SUB -TOTAL
809
164
973
205
809
1014
7582
176
2. Medium Density Residential
133.00 DU
16
61
77
63
35
98
998
SUB -TOTAL
16
61
77
63
35
98
998
,o
Existing (1998) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
C - ) -�9
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Low Density Residential
13373.00
DU
2404
7356
9760
8558
4680
13238
125837
2.
Medium Density Residential
9216.00
DU
1105
4235
5340
4333
2395
6728
69131
3.
High Density Residential
17741.00
DU
1601
7809
9410
7628
3900
11528
121531
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
410.43
TSF
490
241
731
936
1127
2063
22068
5.
General Commercial
8647.04
TSF
9598
5448
15046
15998
18333
34331
351070
6.
Commercial Center
853.23
TSF
931
333
1264
1392
1895
3287
32995
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
2926.20
TSF
803
515
1318
2724
2951
5675
59759
8.
Urban Center Commercial
797.00
TSF
829
151
980
375
925
1300
11365
9.
Light Industry
4837.14
TSF
4159
775
4934
1500
4981
6481
53547
10.
Industrial Park
9579.05
TSF
7566
1532
9098
1918
7566
9484
70885
11.
Golf Course
560.09
ACRE
89
28
117
56
112
168
2824
12.
School (K-12)
14221.00
STU
3271
1993
5264
428
570
998
18769
13.
Public Facility
700.99
ACRE
108
11
119
24
127
151
1799
14.
Fairground
146.39
ACRE
0
0
0
293
293
586
1801
15.
Storage
555.22
TSF
51
33
84
72
72
144
1388
16.
Community College
25950.00
STU
3373
260
3633
3114
1298
4412
39963
17.
Cultural Arts Center
2474.03
TSF
2968
619
3587
1089
2770
3859
33573
18.
Movie Theater
6062.00
SEAT
0
61
61
1455
121
1576
10669
19.
Performance Theater
3668.00
SEAT
37
0
37
293
73
366
4512
20.
South Coast Metro
749.23
TSF
787
127
914
232
734
966
7642
21.
Metro Pointe
540.26
TSF
556
243
799
870
1005
1875
20557
TOTAL
40726
31770
72496
53288
55928
109216
1061685
C - ) -�9
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
C_ -CM()
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM Peak
Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
1
1.
Low Density Residential
244.00 DU
44
134
178
156
85
241
2296
3.
High Density Residential
487.00 DU
44
214
258
209
107
316
3336
13.
Public Facility
2.48 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
88
348
436
365
192
557
5638
2
3.
High Density Residential
258.00 DU
23
114
137
111
57
168
1767
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
6.21 TSF
7
4
11
14
17
31
334
5.
General Commercial
159.18 TSF
177
100
277
294
337
631
6463
9.
Light Industry
104.59 TSF
90
17
107
32
108
140
1158
SUB -TOTAL
297
235
532
451
519
970
9722
3
3.
High Density Residential
716.00 DU.
64
315
379
308
158
466
4905
5.
General Commercial
242.69 TSF
269
153
422
449
515
964
9853
SUB -TOTAL
333
468
801
757
673
1430
14758
4
5.
General Commercial
196.98 TSF
219
124
343
364
418
782
7997
9.
Light Industry
200.81 TSF
173
32
205
62
207
269
2223
SUB -TOTAL
392
156
548
426
625
1051
10220
5
3.
High Density Residential
554.00 DU
50
244
294
238
122
360
3795
S.
General Commercial
82.71 TSF
92
52
144
153
175
328
3358
13.
Public Facility
0.81 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
142
296
438
391
297
688
7155
6
1.
Low Density Residential
132.00 DU
24
73
97
84
46
130
1242
13.
Public Facility
6.34 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
16
SUB -TOTAL
25
73
98
84
47
131
1258
7
1.
Low Density Residential
271.00 DU
49
149
198
173
95
268
2550
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
11.00 TSF
13
6
19
25
30
55
591
S.
General Commercial
78.41 TSF
87
49
136
145
166
311
3183
SUB -TOTAL
149
204
353
343
291
634
6324
8
5.
General Commercial
203.57 TSF
226
128
354
377
432
809
8265
SUB -TOTAL
226
128
354
377
432
809
8265
9
5.
General Commercial
949.48 TSF
1054
598
1652
1757
2013
3770
38549
SUB -TOTAL
1054
598
1652
1757
2013
3770
38549
10
3.
High Density Residential
770.00 DU
69
339
408
331
169
500
5275
5.
General Commercial
448.37 TSF
498
282
780
829
951
1780
18204
SUB -TOTAL
567
621
1188
1160
1120
2280
23479
11
3.
High Density Residential
1410.00 DU
127
620
747
606
310
916
9659
13.
Public Facility
0.69 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
127
620
747
606
310
916
9661
12
17,
Cultural Arts Center
942.28 TSF
1131
236
1367
415
1055
1470
12787
SUB -TOTAL
1131
236
1367
415
1055
1470
12787
C_ -CM()
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
20.
South Coast Metro
1021.18
TSF
1072
174
1246
317
1001
1318
10416
SUB -TOTAL
1072
174
1246
317
1001
1318
10416
14
20.
South Coast Metro
525.00
TSF
551
89
640
163
515
678
5355
SUB -TOTAL
551
89
640
163
515
678
5355
15
B.
Urban Center Commercial
863.00
TSF
898
164
1062
406
1001
1407
12306
SUB -TOTAL
898
164
1062
406
1001
1407
12306
16
17.
Cultural Arts Center
645.26
TSF
774
161
935
284
723
1007
8756
18.
Movie Theater
1862.00
SEAT
0
19
19
447
37
484
3277
SUB -TOTAL
774
180
954
731
760
1491
12033
17
17.
Cultural Arts Center
604.50
TSF
725
151
876
266
677
943
8203
19.
Performance Theater
7308.00
SEAT
73
0
73
585
146
731
8989
SUB -TOTAL
798
151
949
851
823
1674
17192
18
17.
Cultural Arts Center
1162.99
TSF
1396
291
1687
512
1303
1815
15782
SUB -TOTAL
1396
291
1687
512
1303
1815
15782
19
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
750.00
TSF
194
124
318
659
714
1373
14457
(Equation Base = 3440.35
TSF
)
SUB -TOTAL
194
124
318
659
714
1373
14457
20
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
250.00
TSF
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
(Equation base = 3440.35
TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
21
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
250.00
TSF
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
(Equation base = 3440.35
TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
65
41
106
220
238
45B
4819
22
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
250.00
TSF
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
(Equation base = 3440.35
TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
23
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
250.00
TSF
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
(Equation base = 3440.35
TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
24
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
750.00 TSF
194
124
318
659
714
1373
14457
(Equation base = 3440.35
TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
194
124
318
659
714
1373
14457
25
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
250.00 TSF
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
(Equation base = 3440.35
TSF )
SUB -TOTAL
65
41
106
220
238
458
4819
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
Zone
Land Use Type
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM Peak
Hour --
-------------------------
Units
-------------------------------------------------
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
26
8. Urban Center Commercial
6.26 TSF
7
1
8
3
7
18. Movie Theater
2500.00 SEAT
0
25
25
600
50
10
650
89
21. Metro Pointe
552.26 TSF
569
249
818
889
1027
1916
4400
21013
SUB -TOTAL
576
275
851
1492
1084
2576
25502
27
7. Regional Commercial (EQ)
690.35 TSF
179
114
293
607
657
1264
(Equation base = 3440.35 TSF )
13307
SUB -TOTAL
179
114
293
607
657
1264
13307
28
1. Low Density Residential
415.00 OU
75
228
303
266
145
411
3905
3. High Density Residential
296.00 DU
27
130
157
127
65
192
8. Urban Center Commercial
80.00 TSF
83
15
98
38
93
131
2028
13. Public Facility
10.00 ACRE
2
0
2
0
1141
SUB -TOTAL
187
373
560
431
2
305
2
736
26
7100
29
1. Low Density Residential
493.00 DU
89
271
360
316
173
489
4639
2. Medium Density Residential
90.00 DU
11
41
52
42
23
65
4. Neighborhood Commercial
20.37 TSF
24
12
36
46
56
675
13. Public Facility
2.79 ACRE
0
0
0
0
102
1095
SUB -TOTAL
124
324
448
404
1
253
1
657
7
6416
30
2. Medium Density Residential
244.00 DU
29
112
141
115
63
178
1830
SUB -TOTAL
29
112
141
115
63
178
1830
31
10. Industrial Park
278.64 TSF
220
45
265
56
220
276
2062
SUB -TOTAL
220
45
265
56
220
276
2062
32
10. Industrial Park
682.42 TSF
539
109
648
136
539
675
5050
SUB -TOTAL
539
109
648
136
539
675
5050
33
8. Urban Center Commercial
967.00 TSF
1006
184
1190
454
1122
1576
13789
SUB -TOTAL
1006
184
1190
454
1122
1576
13789
34
2. Medium Density Residential
369.00 DU
44
170
214
173
96
269
2768
SUB -TOTAL
44
170
214
173
96
269
2768
35
10. Industrial Park
547.21 TSF
432
88
520
109
432
541
4049
12. School (K-12)
350.00 STU
81
49
130
11
14
25
462
SUB -TOTAL
513
137
650
120
446
566
4511
36
5. General Commercial
135.75 TSF
151
86
237
251
288
539
5511
10. Industrial Park
1034.74 TSF
817
166
983
207
817
1024
7657
12. School (K-12)
525.00 STU
121
74
195
16
21
37
693
SUB -TOTAL
1089
326 1415
474 1126
1600
13861
37
10. Industrial Park
1727.38 TSF
1365
276 1641
345 1365
1710
12783
SUB -TOTAL
1365
276 1641
345 1365
1710
12783
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND
USE AND
TRIP GENERATION
(cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
- PM
Peak Hour
--
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
10.
Industrial Park
551.15
TSF
435
88
523
110
435
545
4079
SUB -TOTAL
435
88
523
110
435
545
4079
39
10.
Industrial Park
719.76
TSF
569
115
684
144
569
713
5326
SUB -TOTAL
569
115
684
144
569
713
5326
40
2.
Medium Density Residential
56.00
DU
7
26
33
26
15
41
420
5.
General Commercial
109.67
TSF
122
69
191
203
233
436
4453
15.
Storage
68.28
TSF
6
4
10
9
9
18
171
SUB -TOTAL
135
99
234
238
257
495
5044
41
1.
Low Density Residential
74.00
DU
13
41
54
47
26
73
696
12.
School (K-12)
550.00
STU
127
77
204
17
22
39
726
13.
Public Facility
1.84
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
SUB -TOTAL
140
118
258
64
48
112
1427
42
3.
High Density Residential
40.00
OU
4
18
22
17
9
26
274
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
59.15
TSF
70
35
105
135
163
298
3180
5.
General Commercial
146.97
TSF
163
93
256
272
312
584
5967
9.
Light Industry
283.87
TSF
244
45
289
88
292
380
3142
15.
Storage
11.44
TSF
1
1
2
1
1
2
29
SUB -TOTAL
482
192
674
513
777
1290
12592
43
1.
Low Density Residential
38.00
DU
7
21
28
24
13
37
358
2.
Medium Density Residential
80.00
OU
10
37
47
38
21
59
600
5.
General Commercial
495.29
TSF
550
312
862
916
1050
1966
20109
SUB -TOTAL
567
370
937
978
1084
2062
21067
44
1.
Low Density Residential
584.00
OU
105
321
426
374
204
578
5495
12.
School (K-12)
370.00
STU
85
52
137
11
15
26
488
13.
Public Facility
13.15
ACRE
2
0
2
1
2
3
34
SUB -TOTAL
192
373
565
386
221
607
6017
45
1.
Low Density Residential
753.00
DU
136
414
550
482
264
746
7086
2.
Medium Density Residential
282.00
DU
34
130
164
133
73
206
2115
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
16.50
TSF
20
10
30
38
45
83
887
12.
School (K-12)
429.00
STU
99
60
159
13
17
30
566
13.
Public Facility
2.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
289
614
903
666
399
1065
10660
46
1.
Low Density Residential
294.00
DU
53
162
215
188
103
291
2767
13.
Public Facility
19.26
ACRE
3
0
3
1
4
5
49
SUB -TOTAL
56
162
218
189
107
296
2816
47
1.
Low Density Residential
237.00
DU
43
130
173
152
83
235
2230
2.
Medium Density Residential
57.00
DU
7
26
33
27
15
42
428
11.
Golf Course
140.20 ACRE
22
7
29
14
28
42
707
SUB -TOTAL
72
163
235
193
126
319
3365
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
48
1.
Low Density Residential
761.00 OU
137
419
556
487
266
753
7161
3.
High Density Residential
140.00 DU
13
62
75
60
31
91
959
5.
General Commercial
67.52 TSF
75
43
118
125
143
268
2741
12.
School (K-12)
1406.00 STU
323
197
520
42
56
98
1856
13.
Public Facility
6.33 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
16
SUB -TOTAL
549
721
1270
714
497
1211
12733
49
1.
Low Density Residential
497.00 DU
89
273
362
318
174
492
4677
5.
General Commercial
62.35 TSF
69
39
108
115
132
247
2531
12.
School (K-12)
528.00 STU
121
74
195
16
21
37
697
13.
Public Facility
8.48 ACRE
1
0
1
0
2
2
22
SUB -TOTAL
280
386
666
449
329
778
7927
50
1.
Low Density Residential
436.00 DU
78
240
318
279
153
432
4103
SUB -TOTAL
78
240
318
279
153
432
4103
51
1.
Low Density Residential
360.00 DU
65
. 198
263
230
126
356
3388
5.
General Commercial
187.81 TSF
208
118
326
347
398
745
7625
13.
Public Facility
4.55 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
12
SUB -TOTAL
274
316
590
577
525
1102
11025
52
1.
Low Density Residential
50.00 DU
9
28
37
32
18
50
471
3.
High Density Residential
405.00 DU
36
178
214
174
89
263
2774
5.
General Commercial
235.64 TSF
262
148
410
436
500
936
9567
13.
Public Facility
35.58 ACRE
6
1
7
1
7
8
91
SUB -TOTAL
313
355
668
643
614
1257
12903
53
1.
Low Density Residential
26.00 DU
5
14
19
17
9
26
245
3.
High Density Residential
206.00 DU
19
91
110
89
45
134
1411
5.
General Commercial
287.30 TSF
319
181
500
531
609
1140
11664
SUB -TOTAL
343
286
629
637
663
1300
13320
54
3.
High Density Residential
450.00 DU
41
198
239
194
99
293
3083
5.
General Commercial
161.91 TSF
180
102
282
300
343
643
6574
SUB -TOTAL
221
300
521
494
442
936
9657
55
3.
High Density Residential
770.00 DU
69
339
408
331
169
500
5275
5.
General Commercial
334.37 TSF
371
211
582
619
709
1328
13576
9..
Light Industry
106.23 TSF
91
17
108
33
109
142
1176
13.
Public Facility
14.67 ACRE
2
0
2
1
3
4
38
SUB -TOTAL
533
567
1100
984
990
1974
20065
56
16.
Community College
27000.00 STU
3510
270
3780
3240
1350
4590
41580
SUB -TOTAL
3510
270
3780
3240
1350
4590
41580
57
3.
High Density Residential
686.00 DU
62
302
364
295
151
446
4699
SUB -TOTAL
62
302
364
295
151
446
4699
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58
3.
High Density Residential
188.00
DU
17
83
100
81
41
122
1288
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
90.50
TSF
108
53
161
206
249
455
4866
5_
General Commercial
7.40
TSF
8
5
13
14
16
30
300
9.
Light Industry
602.08
TSF
518
96
614
187
620
807
6665
13.
Public Facility
2.81
ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
651
237
888
488
927
1415
13126
59
14.
Fairground
146.39
ACRE
0
0
0
293
293
586
1801
SUB -TOTAL
0
0
0
293
293
586
1801
60
12.
School (K-12)
1785.00
STU
411
250
661
54
71
125
2356
13.
Public Facility
2.67
ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
411
250
661
54
72
126
2363
61
12.
School (K-12)
864.00
STU
199
121
320
26
35
61
1140
13.
Public Facility
97.16
ACRE
16
2
18
4
18
22
250
SUB -TOTAL
215
123
338
30
53
83
1390
62
1.
Low Density Residential
510.00
DU
92
281
373
326
179
505
4799
3.
High Density Residential
350.00
DU
32
154
186
151
77
228
2398
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
34.98
TSF
42
21
63
80
96
176
1881
SUB -TOTAL
166
456
622
557
352
909
9078
63
1.
Low Density Residential
362.00
DU
65
199
264
232
127
359
3406
3.
High Density Residential
32.00
DU
3
14
17
14
7
21
219
12.
School (K-12)
377.00
STU
87
53
140
11
15
26
498
SUB -TOTAL
155
266
421
257
149
406
4123
64
3.
High Density Residential
.39.00
DU
4
17
21
17
9
26
267
5.
General Commercial
174.94
TSF
194
110
304
324
371
695
7103
SUB -TOTAL
198
127
325
341
380
721
7370
65
2.
Medium Density Residential
658.00
DU
79
303
382
309
171
480
4935
3.
High Density Residential
8.00
DU
1
4
5
3
2
5
55
13.
Public Facility
51.35
ACRE
8
1
9
2
10
12
132
SUB -TOTAL
88
308
396
314
183
497
5122
66
1.
Low Density Residential
147.00
DU
26
81
107
94
51
145
1383
2.
Medium Density Residential
194.00
DU
23
89
112
91
50
141
1455
SUB -TOTAL
49
170
219
185
101
286
2638
67
1.
Low Density Residential
170.00
DU
31
94
125
109
60
169
1600
2.
Medium Density Residential
56.00
DU
7
26
33
26
15
41
420
SUB -TOTAL
38
120
158
135
75
210
2020
68
12.
School (K-12)
1319.00
STU
303
185
488
40
53
93
1741
13.
Public Facility
217.23
ACRE
35
4
39
9
41
50
558
SUB -TOTAL
338
189
527
49
94
143
2299
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C -.9,oqG
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
69
1.
Low Density Residential
458.00 DU
82
252
334
293
160
453
4310
13.
Public Facility
2.70 ACRE
0
0
0
0
1
1
7
SUB -TOTAL
82
252
334
293
161
454
4317
70
1.
Low Density Residential
140.00 DU
25
77
102
90
49
139
1317
12.
School (K-12)
572.00 STU
132
80
212
17
23
40
755
SUB -TOTAL
157
157
314
107
72
179
2072
71
2.
Medium Density Residential
310.00 DU
37
143
180
146
81
227
2325
13.
Public Facility
5.11 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
13
SUB -TOTAL
38
143
181
146
82
228
2338
72
2.
Medium.Density Residential
171.00 DU
21
79
100
80
44
124
1283
5.
General Commercial
7.3.8 TSF
8
5
13
14
16
30
299
13.
Public Facility
2.16 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
29
84
113
94
60
154
1588
73
1.
Low Density Residential
117.00 DU
21
64
85
75
41
116
1101
2.
Medium Density Residential
121.00 DU
15
56
71
57
31
88
908
SUB -TOTAL
36
120
156
132
72
204
2009
74
1.
Low Density Residential
42.00 DU
8
23
31
27
15
42
395
2.
Medium Density Residential
341.00 DU
41
157
198
160
89
249
2558
3.
High Density Residential
79.00 DU
7
35
42
34
17
51
541
5.
General Commercial
97.50 TSF
108
61
169
180
207
387
3958
SUB -TOTAL
164
276
440
401
328
729
7452
75
1.
Low Density Residential
66.00 DU
12
36
48
42
23
65
621
2.
Medium Density Residential
106.00 DU
13
49
62
50
28
78
795
3.
High Density Residential
145.00 DU
13
64
77
62
32
94
993
5.
General Commercial
118.99 TSF
132
75
207
220
252
472
4831
SUB -TOTAL
170
224
394
374
335
709
7240
76
1.
Low Density Residential
203.00 DU
37
112
149
130
71
201
1910
3.
High Density Residential
1019.00 DU
92
448
540
438
224
662
6980
11.
Golf Course
292.01 ACRE
47
15
62
29
58
87
1472
13.
Public Facility
18.33 ACRE
3
0
3
1
3
4
47
SUB -TOTAL
179
575
754
598
356
954
10409
77
3.
High Density Residential
500.00 DU
45
220
265
215
110
325
3425
5.
General Commercial
124.18 TSF
138
78
216
230
263
493
5042
SUB -TOTAL
183
298
481
445
373
818
8467
78
2.
Medium Density Residential
145.00 DU
17
67
84
68
38
106
1088
3.
High Density Residential
42.00 DU
4
18
22
18
9
27
288
5.
General Commercial
433.21 TSF
481
273
754
801
918
1719
17589
SUB -TOTAL
502
358
860
887
965
1852
18965
C -.9,oqG
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C_ 0 1 f-
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79
3.
High Density Residential
508.00
DU
46
224
270
218
112
330
3480
5.
General Commercial
439.36
TSF
488
277
765
813
931
1744
17838
SUB -TOTAL
534
501
1035
1031
1043
2074
21318
80
1.
Low Density Residential
154.00
DU
28
85
113
99
54
153
1449
3.
High Density Residential
123.00
OU
11
54
65
53
27
80
843
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
59.02
TSF
70
35
105
135
162
297
3174
5.
General Commercial
89.28
TSF
99
56
155
165
189
354
3625
13.
Public Facility
1.29
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
SUB -TOTAL
208
230
438
452
432
884
9094
81
1.
Low Density Residential
542.00
DU
98
298
396
347
190
537
5100
3.
High Density Residential
106.00
DU
10
47
57
46
23
69
726
5.
General Commercial
138.50
TSF
154
87
241
256
294
550
5623
12.
School (K-12)
444.00
STU
102
62
164
13
18
31
586
13.
Public Facility
3.13
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
8
SUB -TOTAL
365
494
859
662
526
1188
12043
82
1.
Low Density Residential
306.00
DU
55
168
223
196
107
303
2879
13.
Public Facility
2.20
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
55
168
223
196
107
303
2885
83
13.
Public Facility
75.97
ACRE
12
2
14
3
14
17
195
SUB -TOTAL
12
2
14
3
14
17
195
84
1.
Low Density Residential
70.00
DU
13
39
52
45
25
70
659
2.
Medium Density Residential
151.00
DU
18
69
87
71
39
110
1133
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
66.10
TSF
79
39
118
151
182
333
3554
5.
General Commercial
6.14
TSF
7
4
11
11
13
24
249
9.
Light Industry
28.16
TSF
24
5
29
9
29
38
312
13.
Public Facility
0.91
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
141
156
297
287
288
575
5909
86
9.
Light Industry
340.14
TSF
293
54
347
105
350
455
3765
SUB -TOTAL
293
54
347
105
350
455
3765
87
1.
Low Density Residential
67.00
DU
12
37
49
43
23
66
630
2.
Medium Density Residential
92.00
DU
11
42
53
43
24
67
690
9.
Light Industry
161.26
TSF
139
26
165
50
166
216
1785
13.
Public Facility
2.40
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
162
105
267
136
213
349
3111
88
1.
Low Density Residential
349.00
DU
63
192
255
223
122
345
3284
5.
General Commercial
3.97
TSF
4
3
7
7
8
15
161
13.
Public Facility
35.27
ACRE
6
1
7
1
7
8
91
SUB -TOTAL
73
196
269
231
137
368
3536
89
1.
Low Density Residential
298.00
DU
54
164
218
191
104
295
2804
SUB -TOTAL
54
164
218
191
104
295
2804
C_ 0 1 f-
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
90
1.
Low Density Residential
124.00 DU
22
68
90
79
43
122
1167
2.
Medium Density Residential
25.00 DU
3
12
15
12
7
19
188
3.
High Density Residential
80.00 DU
7
35
42
34
18
52
548
12.
School (K-12)
423.00 STU
97
59
156
13
17
30
558
SUB -TOTAL
129
174
303
138
85
223
2461
91
9.
Light Industry
549.21 TSF
472
88
560
170
566
736
6080
SUB -TOTAL
472
88
560
170
566
736
6080
92
1.
Low Density Residential
92.00 DU
17
51
68
59
32
91
B66
5.
General Commercial
2.85 TSF
3
2
5
5
6
11
116
9.
Light Industry
338.35 TSF
291
54
345
105
348
453
3746
SUB -TOTAL
311
107
418
169
386
555
4728
93
2.
Medium Density Residential
22.00 DU
3
10
13
10
6
16
165
3.
High Density Residential
460.00 DU
41
202
243
198
101
299
3151
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
3.85 TSF
5
2
7
9
11
20
207
9.
Light Industry
8.10 TSF
7
1
8
3
8
11
90
12.
School (K-12)
575.00 STU
132
81
213
17
23
40
759
SUB -TOTAL
188
296
484
237
149
386
4372
94
9.
Light Industry -
450.00 TSF
387
72
459
139
463
602
4981
SUB -TOTAL
387
72
459
139
463
602
4981
95
9.
Light Industry
606.77 TSF
522
97
619
188
625
813
6717
SUB -TOTAL
522
97
619
188
625
813
6717
96
1.
Low Density Residential
41.00 DU
7
23
30
26
14
40
386
3.
High Density Residential
387.00 DU
35
170
205
166
85
251
2651
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
12.36 TSF
15
7
22
28
34
62
665
5.
General Commercial
54.64 TSF
61
34
95
101
116
217
2218
9.
Light Industry
104.89 TSF
90
17
107
33
108
141
1161
SUB -TOTAL
208
251
459
354
357
711
7081
97
3.
High Density Residential
64.00 DU
6
28
34
28
14
42
438
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
12.59 TSF
15
7
22
29
35
64
677
5.
General Commercial
17.50 TSF
19
11
30
32
37
69
710
9.
Light Industry
428.15 TSF
368
69
437
133
441
574
4740
SUB -TOTAL
408
115
523
222
527
749
6565
98
9.
Light Industry
672.95 TSF
579
108
687
209
693
902
7450
SUB -TOTAL
579
108
687
209
693
902
7450
99
3.
High Density Residential
366.00 DU
33
161
194
157
81
238
2507
9.
Light Industry
206.76 TSF
178
33
211
64
213
277
2289
13.
Public Facility
0.17 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.
Storage
77.96 TSF
7
5
12
10
10
20
195
SUB -TOTAL
218
199
417
231
304
535
4991
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
c -J-Aq
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
3.
High Density Residential
426.00
DU
38
187
225
183
94
277
2918
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
7.45
TSF
9
.4
13
17
20
37
400
5.
General Commercial
86.87
TSF
96
55
151
161
184
345
3527
SUB -TOTAL
143
246
389
361
298
659
6845
f...N
F.;,.
f
101
9.
Light Industry
197.53
TSF
170
32
202'
61
203
264
2187
SUB -TOTAL
170
32
202
61
203
264
2187
102
5.
General Commercial
126.00
TSF
140
79
219
233
267
500
5115
9.
Light Industry
160.76
TSF
138
26
164
50
166
216
1780
15.
Storage
100.93
TSF
9
6
15
13
13
26
252
SUB -TOTAL
287
111
398
296
446
742
7147
103
5.
General Commercial
127.20
TSF
141
80
221
235
270
505
5164
9.
Light Industry
17.28
TSF
15
3
18
5
18
23
191
SUB -TOTAL
156
83
239
240
288
528
5355
104
1.
Low Density Residential
29.00
DU
5
16
21
19
10
29
273
3.
High Density Residential
179.00
DU
16
79
95
77
39
116
1226
5.
General Commercial
64.05
TSF
71
40
111
118
136
254
2600
9.
Light Industry
169.05
TSF
145
27
172
52
174
226
1871
13.
Public Facility
1.09
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
SUB -TOTAL
237
162
399
266
359
625
5973
105
3.
High Density Residential
351.00
OU
32
154
186
151
77
228
2404
5.
General Commercial
79.48
TSF
88
50
138
147
168
315
3227
13.
Public Facility
0.94
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
120
204
324
298
245
543
5633
106
3.
High Density Residential
274.00
DU
25
121
146
118
60
178
1877
5.
General Commercial
9.11
TSF
10
6
16
17
19
36
370
9.
Light Industry
272.49
TSF
234
44
278
84
281
365
3016
SUB -TOTAL
269
171
440
219
360
579
5263
107
1.
Low Density Residential
60.00
DU
11
33
44
38
21
59
565
3.
High Density Residential
40.00
DU
4
18
22
17
9
26
274
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
32.28
TSF
38
19
57
74
89
163
1736
SUB -TOTAL
53
70
123
129
119
248
2575
108
3.
High Density Residential
394.00
DU
35
173
208
169
87
256
2699
5.
General Commercial
32.47
TSF
36
20
56
60
69
129
1318
12.
School (K-12)
588.00
STU
135
82
217
18
24
42
776
SUB -TOTAL
206
275
481
247
180
427
4793
109
1.
Low Density Residential
112.00
DU
20
62
82
72
39
Ill
1054
3.
High Density Residential
360.00
DU
32
158
190
155
79
234
2466
5.
General Commercial
39.03
TSF
43
25
68
72
83
155
1585
12.
School (K-12)
654.00
STU
150
92
242
20
26
46
863
SUB -TOTAL
245
337
582
319
227
546
5968
c -J-Aq
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
G _i3o
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
110
1.
Low Density Residential
18.00 DU
3
10
13
12
6
18
169
2.
Medium Density Residential
6.00 DU
1
3
4
3
2
5
45
3.
High Density Residential
39.00 DU
4
17
21
17
9
26
267
5.
General Commercial
68.62 TSF
76
43
119
127
145
272
2786
SUB -TOTAL
84
73
157
159
162
321
3267
111
3.
High Density Residential
235.00 DU
21
103
124
101
52
153
1610
6.
Commercial Center
203.75 TSF
222
79
301
332
452
784
7879
13.
Public Facility
12.60 ACRE
2
0
2
1
2
3
32
SUB -TOTAL
245
182
427
434
506
940
9521
112
1.
Low Density Residential
69.00 DU •
12
38
50
44
24
68
649
3.
High Density Residential
463.00 DU
42
204
246
199
102
301
3172
5.
General Commercial
21.76 TSF
24
14
38
40
46
86
883
6.
Commercial Center
17.43 TSF
19
7
26
28
39
67
674
13.
Public Facility
0.52 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
97
263
360
311
211
522
5379
113
2.
Medium Density Residential
333.00 DU
40
153
193
157
87
244
2498
3.
High Density Residential
142.00 DU
13
62
75
61
31
92
973
5.
General Commercial
25.34 TSF
28
16
44
47
54
101
1029
12.
School (K-12)
0.00 STU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.
Public Facility
2.05 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
SUB -TOTAL
81
231
312
265
172
437
4505
114
3.
High Density Residential
420.00 DU
38
185
223
181
92
273
2877
5.
General Commercial
231.85 TSF
257
146
403
429
492
921
9413
6.
Commercial Center
69.02 TSF
75
27
102
113
153
266
2669
13.
Public Facility
0.45 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
370
358
728
723
737
1460
14960
115
6.
Commercial Center
185.00 TSF
202
72
274
302
411
713
7154
SUB -TOTAL
202
72
274
302
411
713
7154
116
2.
Medium Density Residential
24.00 DU
3
it
14
11
6
17
180
3.
High Density Residential
263.00 DU
24
116
140
113
58
171
1802
5.
General Commercial
153.84 TSF
171
97
268
285
326
611
6246
6.
Commercial Center
420.19 TSF
458
164
622
685
933
1618
16249
13.
Public Facility
0.83 ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
SUB -TOTAL
656
388
1044
1094
1323
2417
24479
117
1.
Low Density Residential
32.00 OU
6
18
24
20
11
31
301
2.
Medium Density Residential
166.00 DU
20
76
96
78
43
121
1245
3.
High Density Residential
125.00 DU
11
55
66
54
28
82
856
5.
General Commercial
151.80 TSF
169
96
265
281
322
603
6163
SUB -TOTAL
206
245
451
433
404
837
8565
118
2.
Medium Density Residential
68.00 DU
8
31
39
32
18
50
510
G _i3o
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118
5.
General Commercial
257.49
TSF
286
162
448
476
546
1022
10454
SUB -TOTAL
294
193
487
508
564
1072
10964
119
5.
General Commercial
217.19
TSF
241
137
378
402
460
862
8818
15.
Storage
24.86
TSF
2
1
3
3
3
6
62
SUB -TOTAL
243
138
381
405
463
868
8880
120
1.
Low Density Residential
15.00
DU
3
8
11
10
5
15
141
2.
Medium Density Residential
27.00
DU
3
12
15
13
7
20
203
3.
High Density Residential
55.00
DU
5
24
29
24
12
36
377
5.
General Commercial
379.20
TSF
421
239
660
702
804
1506
15396
SUB -TOTAL
432
283
715
749
828
1577
16117
121
3.
High Density Residential
548.00
DU .
49
241
290
236
121
357
3754
5.
General Commercial
100.62
TSF
112
63
175
186
213
399
4085
13.
Public Facility
2.59
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
SUB -TOTAL
161
304
465
422
334
756
7846
122
1.
Low Density Residential
22.00
DU
4
12
16
14
8
22
207
3.
High Density Residential
633.00
DU
57
279
336
272
139
411
4336
5.
General Commercial
14.17
TSF
16
9
25
26
30
56
575
13.
Public Facility
1.63
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
SUB -TOTAL
77
300
377
312
177
489
5122
123
5.
General Commercial
89.25
TSF
99
56
155
165
189
354
3624
SUB -TOTAL
99
56
155
165
189
354
3624
124
3.
High Density Residential
928.00
DU
84
408
492
399
204
603
6357
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
5.89
TSF
7
3
10
13
16
29
317
5.
General Commercial
9.94
TSF
11
6
17
18
21
39
404
13.
Public Facility
2.49
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
102
417
519
430
241
671
7084
125
3.
High Density Residential
184.00
DU
17
81
98
79
40
119
1260
13.
Public Facility
44.96
ACRE
7
1
8
2
9
11
116
16.
Community College
1000.00
STU
130
10
140
120
50
170
1540
SUB -TOTAL
154
92
246
201
99
300
2916
126
2.
Medium Density Residential
40.00
DU
5
18
23
19
10
29
300
5.
General Commercial
58.94
TSF
65
37
102
109
125
234
2393
SUB -TOTAL
70
55
125
128
135
263
2693
127
3.
High Density Residential
58.00
DU
5
26
31
25
13
38
397
5.
General Commercial
207.43
TSF
230
131
361
384
440
824
8422
15.
Storage
96.05
TSF
9
6
15
12
12
24
240
SUB -TOTAL
244
163
407
421
465
886
9059
128
3.
High Density Residential
276.00
DU
25
121
146
119
61
180
1891
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
128
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
36.29
TSF
43
21
64
83
100
183
1951
5.
General Commercial
181.41
TSF
201
114
315
336
385
721
7365
SUB -TOTAL
269
256
525
538
546
1084
11207
129
3.
High Density Residential
330.00
DU
30
145
175
142
73
215
2261
S.
General Commercial
131.06
TSF
145
83
228
242
278
520
5321
SUB -TOTAL
175
228
403
384
351
735
7582
130
1.
Low Density Residential
42.00
DU
8
23
31
27
15
42
395
2.
Medium Density Residential
209.00
DU
25
96
121
98
54
152
1568
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
22.47
TSF
27
13
40
51
62
113
1208
5.
General Commercial
45.54
TSF
51
29
80
84
97
181
1849
13.
Public Facility
0.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
111
161
272
260
228
488
5021
131
1.
Low Density Residential
29.00
DU
5
16
21
19
10
29
273
2.
Medium Density Residential
185.00
DU
22
85
107
87
48
135
1388
3.
High Density Residential
211.00
DU
19
93
112
91
46
137
1445
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
35.85
TSF
43
21
64
82
99
181
1928
5.
General Commercial
4.97
TSF
6
3
9
9
11
20
202
13.
Public Facility
1.13
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
SUB -TOTAL
95
218
313
288
214
502
5239
132
2.
Medium Density Residential
303.00
DU
36
139
175
142
79
221
2273
13.
Public Facility
4.27
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
11
SUB -TOTAL
37
139
176
142
80
222
2284
133
2.
Medium Density Residential
4.00
DU
0
2
2
2
1
3
30
3.
High Density Residential
305.00
DU
27
134
161
131
67
198
2089
5.
General Commercial
189.10
TSF
210
119
329
350
401
751
7677
SUB -TOTAL
237
255
492
483
469
952
9796
134
2.
Medium Density Residential
295.00
DU
35
136
171
139
77
216
2213
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
36.10
TSF
43
21
64
82
99
181
1941
5.
General Commercial
170.19
TSF
189
107
296
315
361
676
6910
13.
Public Facility
0.41
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SUB -TOTAL
267
264
531
536
537
1073
11065
135
1.
Low Density Residential
239.00
DU
43
131
174
153
84
237
2249
SUB -TOTAL
43
131
174
153
84
237
2249
136
1.
Low Density Residential
226.00
DU
41
124
165
145
79
224
2127
13.
Public Facility
4.13
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
11
SUB -TOTAL
42
124
166
145
80
225
2138
137
1.
Low Density Residential
206.00
DU
37
113
150
132
72
204
1938
5.
General Commercial
6.49
TSF
7
4
11
12
14
26
263
SUB -TOTAL
44
117
161
144
86
230
2201
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
G - Ib
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
138
2.
Medium Density Residential
198.00
DU
24
91
115
93
51
144
1485
SUB -TOTAL
24
91
115
93
51
144
1485
139
2.
Medium Density Residential
232.00
DU
28
107
135
109
60
169
1740
5.
General Commercial
125.90
TSF
140
79
219
233
267
500
5111
13.
Public Facility
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
168
186
354
.342
327
669
6857
140
2.
Medium Density Residential
202.00
DU
24
93
117
95
53
148
1515
3.
High Density Residential
138.00
DU
12
61
73
59
30
89
945
5.
General Commercial
99.54
TSF
110
63
173
184
211
395
4041
SUB -TOTAL
146
217
363
338
294
632
6501
141
1.
Low Density Residential
206.00
OU
37
113
150
132
72
204
1938
5.
General Commercial
11.50
TSF
13
7
20
21
24
45
467
13.
Public Facility
1.66
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
SUB -TOTAL
50
120
170
153
96
249
2409
142
1.
Low Density Residential
201.00
DU
36
111
147
129
70
199
1891
SUB -TOTAL
36
111
147
129
70
199
1891
143
1.
Low Density Residential
144.00
DU
26
79
105
92
50
142
1355
2.
Medium Density Residential
20.00
DU
2
9
11
9
5
14
150
S.
General Commercial
170.74
TSF
190
108
298
316
362
678
6932
SUB -TOTAL
218
196
414
417
417
834
8437
144
1.
Low Density Residential
85.00
DU
15
47
62
54
30
84
800
5.
General Commercial
117.41
TSF
130
74
204
217
249
466
4767
13.
Public Facility
9.11
ACRE
1
0
1
0
2
2
23
SUB -TOTAL
146
121
267
271
281
552
5590
145
1.
Low Density Residential
169.00
DU
30
93
123
108
59
167
1590
SUB -TOTAL
30
93
123
108
59
167
1590
146
1.
Low Density Residential
286.00
DU
51
157
208
183
100
283
2691
SUB -TOTAL
51
157
208
183
100
283
2691
147
1.
Low Density Residential
29.00
DU
5
16
21
19
10
29
273
2.
Medium Density Residential
254.00
DU
30
117
147
119
66
185
1905
3.
High Density Residential
128.00
DU
12
56
68
55
28
83
877
5.
General Commercial
81.17
TSF
90
51
141
150
172
322
3295
SUB -TOTAL
137
240
377
343
276
619
6350
148
2.
Medium Density Residential
275.00
DU
33
127
160
129
72
201
2063
3.
High Density Residential
55.00
DU
5
24
29
24
12
36
377
5.
General Commercial
27.90
TSF
31
18
49
52
59
111
1133
13.
Public Facility
3.70 ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
10
SUB -TOTAL
70
169
239
205
144
349
3583
G - Ib
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
159 1. Low Density Residential 13.00 DU 2 7 9 8 5 13 122
G - 't 3 cl
-- AM Peak Hour --
- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
149
2.
Medium Density Residential
353.00
DU
42
162
204
166
92
258
2648
3.
High Density Residential
12.00
DU
1
5
6
5
3
8
82
5.
General Commercial
55.81
TSF
62
35
97
103
118
221
2266
SUB -TOTAL
105
202
307
274
213
487
4996
150
2.
Medium Density Residential
341.00
DU
41
157
198
160
89
249
2558
3.
High Density Residential
96.00
DU
9
42
51
41
21
62
658
5.
General Commercial
95.94
TSF
106
60
166
177
203
380
3895
SUB -TOTAL
156
259
415
378
313
691
7111
151
2.
Medium Density Residential
340.00
DU
41
156
197
160
88
248
2550
3.
High Density Residential
67.00
OU
6
29
35
29
15
44
459
5.
General Commercial
130.80
TSF
145
82
227
242
277
519
5311
SUB -TOTAL
192
267
459
431
380
811
8320
152
2.
Medium Density Residential
331.00
DU
40
152
192
156
86
242
2483
5.
General Commercial
130.72
TSF
145
82
227
242
277
519
5307 '
15.
Storage
11.48
TSF
1
1
2
1
1
2
29
SUB -TOTAL
186
235
421
399
364
763
7819
153
1.
Low Density Residential
199.00
DU
36
109
145
127
70
197
1873
2.
Medium Density Residential
25.00
DU
3
12
15
12
7
19
188
SUB -TOTAL
39
121
160
139
77
216
2061
154
1.
Low Density Residential
213.00
DU
38
117
155
136
75
211
2004
SUB -TOTAL
38
117
155
136
75
211
2004
155
1.
Low Density Residential
112.00
DU
20
62
82
72
39
111
1054
2.
Medium Density Residential
58.00
DU
7
27
34
27
15
42
435
S.
General Commercial
49.55
TSF
55
31
86
92
105
197
2012
13.
Public Facility
4.65
ACRE
1
0
1
0
1
1
12
SUB -TOTAL
83
120
203
191
160
351
3513
156
1.
Low Density Residential
191.00
DU
34
105
139
122
67
189
1797
12.
School (K-12)
165.00
STU
38
23
61
5
7
12
218
13.
Public Facility
2.26
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
72
128
200
127
74
201
2021
157
1,
Low Density Residential
86.00
OU
15
47
62
55
30
85
809
2.
Medium Density Residential
195.00
DU
23
90
113
92
51
143
1463
SUB -TOTAL
38
137
175
147
81
228
2272
158
1.
Low Density Residential
121.00
DU
22
67
89
77
42
119
1139
2.
Medium Density Residential
226.00
DU
27
104
131
106
59
165
1695
12.
School (K-12)
100.00
STU
23
14
37
3
4
7
132
SUB -TOTAL
72
185
257
186
105
291
2966
159 1. Low Density Residential 13.00 DU 2 7 9 8 5 13 122
G - 't 3 cl
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
----------------------------------------
159
2.
Medium Density Residential
---------------------------------------------------------------------
303.00
DU
36
139
175
142
79
221
2273
12.
School (K-12)
535.00
STU
123
75
198
16
21
37
706
SUB -TOTAL
161
221
382
166
105
271
3101
160
1.
Low Density Residential
52.00
DU
9
29
38
33
18
51
489
2.
Medium Density Residential
103.00
OU
12
47
59
48
27
75
773
12.
School (K-12)
714.00
STU
164
100
264
21
29
50
942
13.
Public Facility
2.48
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SUB -TOTAL
185
176
361
102
74
176
2210
161
1.
Low Density Residential
145.00
OU
26
80
106
93
51
144
1364
SUB -TOTAL
26
80
106
93
51
144
1364
162
1.
Low Density Residential
112.00
DU
20
62
82
72
39
111
1054
2.
Medium Density Residential
105.00
DU
13
48
61
49
27
76
788
SUB -TOTAL
33
110
143
121
66
187
1842
163
1.
Low Density Residential
13.00
DU
2
7
9
8
5
13
122
2.
Medium Density Residential
350.00
OU
42
161
203
165
91
256
2625
SUB -TOTAL
44
168
212
173
96
269
2747
164
2.
Medium Density Residential
294.00
DU
35
135
170
138
76
214
2205
96.00 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
SUB -TOTAL
35
135
170
138
76
214
2205
165
2.
Medium Density Residential
258.00
DU
31
119
150
121
67
188
1935
5.
General Commercial
5.00
TSF
6
3
9
9
it
20
203
SUB -TOTAL
37
122
159
130
78
208
2138
166
1.
Low Density Residential
9.00
DU
2
5
7
6
3
9
85
SUB -TOTAL
2
5
7
6
3
9
85
167
1.
Low Density Residential
49.00
DU
9
27
36
31
17
48
461
2.
Medium Density Residential
104.00
DU
12
48
60
49
27
76
780
5.
General Commercial
157.07
TSF
174
99
273
291
333
624
6377
11.
Golf Course
127.88
ACRE
20
6
26
13
26
39
645
15.
Storage
97.15
TSF
9
6
15
13
13
26
243
SUB -TOTAL
224
186
410
397
416
813
8506
168
1.
Low Density Residential
120.00
DU
22
66
88
77
42
119
1129
2,
Medium Density Residential
247.00
DU
30
114
144
116
64
180
1853
3.
High Density Residential
288.00
DU
26
127
153
124
63
187
1973
5.
General Commercial
328.38
TSF
364
207
571
607
696
1303
13332
13.
Public Facility
0.10
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SUB -TOTAL
442
514
956
924
865
1789
18287
170
5.
General Commercial
117.96
TSF
131
74
205
218
250
468
4789
10.
Industrial Park
1705.07
TSF
1347
273
1620
341
1347
1688
12618
Buildout (2020) ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
C -236
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170
15.
Storage
67.52
TSF
6
4
10
9
9
18
169
SUB -TOTAL
1484
351
1835
568
1606
2174
17576
171
10.
Industrial Park
326.44
TSF
258
52
310
65
256
323
2416
12_
School (K-12)
300.00
STU
69
42
111
9
12
21
396
SUB -TOTAL
327
94
421
74
270
344
2812
172
10.
Industrial Park
759.53
TSF
600
122
722
152
600
752
5621
SUB -TOTAL
600
122
722
152
600
752
5621
173
5.
General Commercial
17.28
TSF
19
11
30
32
37
69
702
10.
Industrial Park
1907.57
TSF
1507
305
1812
382
1507
1889
14116
12.
School (K-12)
648.00
STU
149
91
240
19
26
45
855
SUB -TOTAL
1675
407
2082
433
1570
2003
15673
174
10.
Industrial Park
227.13
TSF
179
36
215
45
179
224
1681
SUB -TOTAL
179
36
215
45
179
224
1681
175
10.
Industrial Park
1074.02
TSF
848
172
1020
215
848
1063
7948
SUB -TOTAL
848
172
1020
215
848
1063
7948
176
2.
Medium Density Residential
133.00
DU
16
61
77
63
35
98
998
SUB -TOTAL
16
61
77
63
35
98
998
C -236
Buildout (2020) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-- AM Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Low Density Residential
13577.00
DU
2444
7470
9914
8690
4751
13441
127756
2.
Medium Density Residential
10177.00
DU
1220
4682
5902
4782
2648
7430
76340
3.
High Density Residential
19707.00
DU
1779
8670
10449
8474
4335
12809
134997
4.
Neighborhood Commercial
568.95
TSF
678
333
1011
1298
1565
2863
30592
5.
General Commercial
11304.89
TSF
12547
7119
19666
20910
23968
44878
458976
6.
Commercial Center
895.39
TSF
976
349
1325
.1460
1988
3448
34625
7.
Regional Commercial (EQ)
3440.35
TSF
892
567
1459
3025
3275
6300
66316
8.
Urban Center Commercial
1916.26
TSF
1994
364
2358
901
2223
3124
27325
9.
Light Industry
6009.44
TSF
5168
963
6131
1862
6188
8050
66525
10.
Industrial Park
11541.07
TSF
9116
1847
10963
2307
9116
11423
B5406
11.
Golf Course
560.09
ACRE
89
28
117
56
112
1.68
2824
12.
School (K-12)
14221.00
STU
3271
1993
5264
428
570
998
.18769
13.
Public Facility
756.85
ACRE
115
12
127
27
139
166
1943
14.
Fairground
146.39
ACRE
0
0
0
293
293
586
1801
15.
Storage
555.67
TSF
50
34
84
71
71
142
1390
16.
Community College
28000.00
STU
3640
280
3920
3360
1400
4760
43120
17.
Cultural Arts Center
3355.03
TSF
4026
839
4865
1477
3758
5235
45528
18.
Movie Theater
4362.00
SEAT
0
44
44
1047
87
1134
7677
19.
Performance Theater
7308.00
SEAT
73
0
73
585
146
731
8989
20.
South Coast Metro
1546.18
TSF
1623
263
1886
480
1516
1996
15771
21.
Metro Pointe
552.26
TSF
569
249
818
889
1027
1916
21013
TOTAL
50270
36106
86376
62422
69176
131598
1277683
APPENDIX C
CHAPTER 3
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
3.1 PURPOSE
The 2000 General Plan Circulation Element contains the City's overall
transportation system plan. The relationship of the Circulation Element to the
Land Use Element is critical since the circulation system must adequately handle
future traffic.
The Circulation Element identifies and establishes the City's policies governing
the system of roadways, intersections, bike paths, pedestrian ways, and other
components of the circulation system, which collectively provide for the
movement of persons and goods throughout the City. The Element establishes
official City policy which:
s Identifies facilities required to serve present and future vehicular and
non -vehicular travel demand in the City;
a Identifies linkage between alternative modes of transportation and
feasible alternative transit strategies; and
Identifies strategies to implement the City's circulation system.
♦MIN I I I& M- 110 1
' s
The Circulation Element specifies the system of roadways and other
transportation infrastructure required to satisfy future travel demand. The
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ® 6/27/01 CIR-1 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa Gene+erral Plan
Circulation Element is closely related to the Land Use Element, which defines the
buildout land use scenario for the year 2020. The land use scenario, through the
specification of the type, density, intensity and pattern of development,
establishes the magnitude and pattern of future trip making. The Circulation
Element is also related to the Air Quality subsection of the Conservation Element
because automobiles are a principal source of many airborne pollutants,
including carbon monoxide and the pollutants which combine to form smog. The
policies of the Circulation Element promote air quality objectives by providing an
efficient circulation system, one which accommodates travel demand while
minimizing the number and length of automobile trips.
3.3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Costa Mesa circulation system is largely built -out with most of the
roadways shown on the Master Plan of Highways (MPH) already constructed. In
this section, the existing roadway system is discussed and recent traffic volume
counts are summarized.
EXISTING ROADWAYS
The existing roadway system within the City, together with the number of lanes
(midblock) on individual segments of the circulation system are illustrated in
Exhibit CIR-1. Regional circulation facilities serving the City include the San
Diego Freeway (1-405), which traverses east -west across the northern portion of
the City, the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), which begins at the San Diego
Freeway between Fairview Road and Bear Street and extends southeast where it
becomes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the Costa Mesa
Freeway (SR -55), which enters at the northeast corner of the City and extends
southwest transitioning into Newport Boulevard south of 19th Street.
The City's circulation system is greatly affected by the three freeways mentioned
above. The San Diego Freeway carries the largest volume of traffic which in
1998 varied from approximately 260,000 vehicles per day just west of Bristol
Avenue to over 300,000 vehicles per day between Harbor Boulevard and
Fairview Road. The Costa Mesa Freeway carries approximately 135,000
vehicles per day on the segment between the San Diego Freeway and the
Corona del Mar Freeway and about 80,000 vehicles per day at its terminus just
north of 19th Street. The Corona del Mar Freeway differs from the other two
freeways in the City because it becomes a toll facility just east of the City limits.
Because of this, it carries lower volumes of regional traffic than toll-free
highways. Traffic volumes on the Corona del Mar Freeway in 1998 were
approximately 80,000 vehicles per day.
North/south arterial facilities serving the central part of the City include Harbor
Boulevard, Fairview Road, and Bristol Street. Each is a six -lane facility for the
most part, currently carrying volumes ranging from 30,000 to 72,000 vehicles per
day. Other four -lane north/south facilities include Placentia Avenue in the west,
Bear Street in the north, and Irvine /\venue to the east, each currently carrying
volumes ranging from 12,000 to 33,000 vehicles per day.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/01
LEGI
xx
Costa Mesa General Flan
EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM
-.\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GP05-CE-1.DWG 06/18/01 2:16 pm EXHIBIT CIR-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CIR-3 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa General an
Six -lane facilities serving east/west travel through the City include Sunflower
Avenue east of Bear Street and Adams Avenue west of Fairview Road, currently
carrying volumes ranging from 27,000 to 43,000 vehicles per day, respectively.
Several four -lane arterials also serve east/west traffic, including Baker Street,
Fair Drive, Wilson Street, Victoria Street, west 19th Street, South Coast Drive,
Sunflower Avenue (west of Bear Street) and 17th Street, each currently carrying
a maximum daily volume in the range of 15,000 to 39,000 vehicles per day.
The City is bordered on the east and west by topographical features that limit the
number of access points from areas outside the City. Running along the western
City boundary is the Santa Ana River. Within the City of Costa Mesa, the Santa
Ana River currently has crossings only at Adams Avenue and Victoria Street.
Besides the San Diego Freeway, these two roadways represent the only
locations where Costa Mesa vehicles can access the Cities of Huntington Beach
and Fountain Valley to the west using City streets. Just east of the City is the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve that limits travel to the east. Vehicles
traveling from Costa Mesa and the eastern portion of the City of Newport Beach
must use either Pacific Coast Highway to the south or Bristol Street to the north
to bypass the bay.
The layout of the City's circulation system is most notable for its two differing grid
patterns. Streets east of and including Newport Boulevard were constructed at
approximately 45 degree angles from the traditional north/south streets in north
Orange County. This results in odd -angled intersections along Newport
Boulevard, as well as high traffic volumes where north/south streets like Harbor
Boulevard intersect with Newport Boulevard.
Several major east/west arterials are interrupted by obstacles which prevent a
continuous roadway from one end of the City to the other. Many streets east of
Newport Boulevard do not align with their westerly extensions. For example,
West 18th Street becomes Rochester Street upon crossing Newport Boulevard.
Continuous east/west circulation is disrupted where Rochester Street cul-de-sacs
just east of Orange Avenue. East 18th Street, which extends uninterrupted to
Irvine Avenue, is located one block north of West 18th Street/Rochester Street.
Adams Avenue and Baker Street provide another example of the discontinuity in
east/west travel. Adams Avenue transitions into a residential neighborhood east
of Fairview Road and Baker Street similarly terminates into the Mesa Verde
residential area west of Harbor Boulevard. This results in high turning movement
volumes between Baker Street and Adams Avenue on Harbor Boulevard and
Fairview Road. Similarly, Fair Drive terminates at Harbor Boulevard resulting in
westbound traffic being forced to turn to access Adams Avenue, Wilson Street or
Victoria Street in order to continue traveling westbound.
For northbound/southbound traffic in the northern portion of the City, the San
Diego Freeway is an obstruction with only four crossings between the Santa Ana
River and the Costa Mesa Freeway. These crossings are at Harbor Boulevard,
Fairview Road, Bear Street, and Bristol Street. The north/south arterials within
the City are also used by regional traffic traveling between Newport Beach to the
south and northern cities such as Santa Ana.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01
wombCosta Mesa General Plan
CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing (2000) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the circulation system are
illustrated in Exhibit CIR-2, Existing (2000) ADT Volumes. The traffic volume
counts for the arterial system were collected during 2000 by the City and the
freeway counts were collected by Caltrans in 1998.
3.4 KEY ISSUES
Key traffic issues in the City are as follows:
SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSINGS
As noted in the existing conditions section, only three City arterial roadways
cross the Santa Ana River. Two additional crossings are shown on the
Circulation Element (Gisler Avenue and W. 19th Street), but City Council policy
direction is to delete these two crossings from the Master Plan of Highways
(MPH). Because of consistency requirements with the County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH), a special study has to be undertaken and approved
by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) before such action can
be taken. Accordingly, the Santa Ana River Crossings Study (SARX) is currently
underway jointly with the Cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach and OCTA. When SARX is completed, the Circulation
Element will be amended accordingly.
An implication of having these two additional river crossings in the Master Plan of
Highways is that all City planning efforts for future conditions must include these
crossings. This results in long-range planning decisions that may become invalid
if the two crossings are eventually removed from the plan. The SARX study is
important in this regard since it is in the City's best interest to resolve the issue
regarding these crossings as soon as possible.
COSTA MESA FREEWAY EXTENSION
Long-range plans show the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) extending beyond its
current termination point. However, no timetable or funding source for its
extension have been identified nor have many of the issues such as right-of-way
needs been resolved.
SAN DIEGO FREEWAY ACCESS POINTS
As part of a plan to improve the 1-405/SR-73 confluence area, changes in ramp
configurations, deletion, and the addition of ramps will be made in this area.
These changes will affect access into and out of the City via the 1-405 and SR -73
Freeway and are expected to be completed by 2003. Another major project
underway is the 1-405/SR-55 Transitway project, which will add direct High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane connectors between 1-405 and SR -55 and
improve freeway access to and from City streets. This project is also expected to
be completed by 2003.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01 CIR-5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
LEGEI
"woo="�+
Costa Mesa General Plan
EXISTING (2000) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
H:\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GP06-CE-2.DWG 06/18/01 2:16 pm EXHIBIT CIR-2
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CIR-G CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa General an
The plans to improve area traffic as part of a confluence and transitway project
include a reconfiguration of the Harbor Boulevard interchange (including a new
northbound onramp from Hyland Avenue), the addition of a northbound offramp
onto Avenue of the Arts, and the addition of a northbound onramp from Anton
Boulevard, just east of Sakioka Drive. These improvements will result in a
redistribution of traffic volumes and a net reduction in the amount of vehicles at
existing interchanges.
"3
3.5 FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMANDS
New development within the City of Costa Mesa along with regional traffic growth
will result in an increase in traffic volumes within the City. In order to estimate
the effect of future traffic on the City's arterial roadway system, the City's traffic
model was updated with the 2000 General Plan land uses and the most recent
data for long-range regional transportation patterns. The effect of this future
traffic demand is discussed below.
TRIP GENERATION FORECASTS
The City's 2000 General Plan land use has been allocated to the 176 traffic
analysis zones (TAZs) that make up the City of Costa Mesa. A trip generation
rate for each of the City's 2000 General Plan land use categories has been
developed based on the universally accepted trip rates published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers. For comparison purposes, the different land uses
within the City were aggregated into the following four land use categories:
♦ Residential
♦ Commercial (Retail) & Office
♦ Industrial/R&D
♦ Other
These combined categories enable the land use trip generation to be easily
summarized on an aggregate basis. A comparison of the land use and trip
generation estimates as of 2000 development and General Plan in the year 2020
is summarized in Table CIR-1.
TABLE CIR-1
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
CategoryLand Use
TOTAL 1. Residential DU
40,330.00
AIDT
316,499
2020Existing General
Amount
42,469.00
Plan
AIDT
339,093
Net Increase
Amount
2,139.00
•.
22,594
2. Comm (Retail) & Office TSF
17,397.42
539,029
23,579.30
700,146
6,181.88
161,117
3. Industrial & R&D TSF
14,416.19
124,432
17,550.51
151,931
3,134.32
27,499
4. Other' —
81,725
—
86,513
—
4,788
TOTAL
1
1,061,685 1
1
1,277,683 1
215,998
Notes:
' Uses quantified in units other than dwelling units or square feet.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/01 CIR-7 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
..'irTi1�_��i •
As of 2000, development within the City is comprised of 40,330 residential
dwelling units, 17,397,000 square -feet of commercial and office use, and
14,416,000 square -feet of industrial use. The "other" category includes uses
such as colleges, schools, parks, agriculture, and uses quantified in units other
than dwelling units and square footage. The total average daily vehicle trips
generated by existing uses within the City is estimated at 1,061,000 ADT, 30
percent of which is attributed to residential uses, and the remaining 70 percent to
non-residential uses, primarily office and commercial.
The 2000 General Plan projects increases in dwelling units to 42,469 and
industrial/ office/commercial/public/institutional uses to just over 41 million
square -feet by 2020. These increases result in a total trip generation within the
City of an estimated 1,278,000 ADT, an increase of 20 percent over the existing
ADT estimate. At the regional level, 20 year traffic volume forecasts for the
portion of Orange County within the vicinity of Costa Mesa area are also
anticipated to increase by approximately 20 percent over existing traffic
conditions.
TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
Traffic volumes on the City circulation system were estimated for conditions
representing buildout of the City's 2000 General Plan. The long-range time
frame established for analyzing the 2000 General Plan is the year 2020. The
2020 circulation system assumed for the forecasts is based on the City's Master
Plan of Highways (discussed in the following section) and the Orange County
Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
Exhibit CIR-3, 2020 ADT Volumes, illustrates the projected 2020 traffic volumes.
3.6 MASTED PLAN OF HIGHWAYS
With adoption of the 2000 General Plan, modifications to the roadway
classifications were made to the City's Master Plan of Highways (MPH) to make
consistent with OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The change
in classifications did not result in any changes to the physical characteristics of
the roadway. The following table summarizes the change.
TABLE CIR-2
CITY AND COUNTY ARTERIAL DESIGNATIONS
Classification
•0 General Plan
Designations
2000 General Plan/
-. Designations
Major Arterial
6 lanes — 2 left turn lanes — median
6 lane divided roadway
Primary Arterial
6 lanes —1 left turn lane — median
4 lane divided roadway
Secondary Arterial
4 lanes — median optional
4 lane undivided roadway
Collector Arterial
2 lanes — no median — no parking
2 lane undivided roadway
Source: Costa Mesa General Plan Traffic Analysis, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., March 2000.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/01
Costa Mesa General Plan
For the 1990 MPH to correspond with the County MPAH designations, the
following changes to the 2000 General Plan were made:
♦ Combine the current Major and Primary Arterials into the Major Arterial
Category; and
♦ Divide the current Secondary Arterial into the Primary and Secondary
Arterial Categories.
F<' No changes were made to the Coilector Arterial category.
The 2000 MPH, shown in Exhibit CIR-4, documents the ultimate arterial roadway
system for the City, taking into consideration the above modifications.
To recognize that some arterials require additional improvements, such as
additional turn lanes at intersections, beyond what is associated with the above
classification, an additional designation is necessary. This is achieved by
designating certain arterial segments as "Augmented". Augmented segments
may include any combination of capacity enhancements, such as additional
lanes at intersections, special traffic signal coordination or other types of
intelligent transportation system (ITS) enhancements.
Exhibit CIR-5 provides typical cross-sections of augmented roadways, as well as
augmented roadways with an additional right -turn lane. While the additional
right -turn lane is a type of augmentation, it generally requires additional right of
way, and hence its need is specifically designated on the MPH.
With adoption of the 2000 General Plan, the MPH was amended to downgrade a
segment of 17th Street, from just west of Tustin Avenue to Irvine Avenue, to a
primary arterial to be consistent with OCTA's MPAH.
ROADWAY CAPACITIES
The roadway capacity for each arterial on the Master Plan of Highways has been
compared to the projected 2020 traffic volumes presented previously in this
section. A summary of the arterial capacities is provided in Table CIR-3 and the
resulting volume to capacity ratios are summarized in Table CIR-4. The table
shows that one roadway segment (Gisler, west of Harbor) is forecast to exceed
the theoretical maximum capacity.
Gisler Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard is forecast to exceed capacity, with a
volume of 30,000 ADT on a segment with a capacity of 25,000 ADT. This
forecast includes the Gisler Bridge over the Santa Ana River, which adds
approximately 8,000 ADT to Gisler Avenue and is a major contributing factor to
this roadway exceeding capacity. This bridge is currently being analyzed by the
Santa Ana River Crossings Study (SARX). As noted in Section 3.4, SARX is a
multi jurisdictional work effort to examine the impact of deleting the Gisler and
19th Street crossings. When this study is completed, appropriate updates will be
made to the City MPAH in accordance with the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) MPAH. If the Gisler bridge is deleted from the Master Plan of
Highways, the deficiency shown above will not likely occur.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/01 CIR-9 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa Generali Flan
2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN
�,y 11.1.0. Lumuc. aul:.
H:\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GP07—CE-3.DWG 06/18/01 2:16 pm EXHIBIT CIR-3
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CIR-lo CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Cl'
K
Hli
LECEr
Costa Mesa General Plan
® N.T.S. Source: Austin—Foust Associates, Inc.
H:\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GPOB-CE-4.DWG 06/18/01 2:16 pm EXHIBIT CIR-4
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CIR-II CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa Gene
AUGMENTED ROADWAY
CROSS-SECTIONS
130'
114'
h � �
11' 1 12' 14'1 10' 1 10' 1 12' 1 11' 1 12' 15'1 10' 1 8-1
AUGMENTED MAJOR WITH RIGHT -TURN LANE
120'
104'
h �
1 8' 15'1 12'1 1 ( 12' 14'1 10' ( 10' ( 12' 1 11' 1 12' 15'1 8' i
AUGMENTED MAJOR
104'
90'
h
L7' I5L 12' Ll 14'1 10' 1 10' 1 11' 1 12' 15'1 10' 17-1
AUGMENTED PRIMARY WITH RIGHT -TURN LANE
94'
AUGMENTED PRIMARY
84'
74'
15'1 11' 1 11' 1 10' 1 10' 1 11' i 11' 1 10' 15'1
i
AUGMENTED SECONDARY WITH RIGHT -TURN LANE
74'
64'
80'
�
h
T
5'
12' 1
11'
14'1
10' 1
10' I
11' I
12'
15-1
7' 1
AUGMENTED PRIMARY
84'
74'
15'1 11' 1 11' 1 10' 1 10' 1 11' i 11' 1 10' 15'1
i
AUGMENTED SECONDARY WITH RIGHT -TURN LANE
15'1 11' 1 11' 1 10' 1 10'11' 5 -
AUG ENTED
'AUGMENTED SECONDARY
N.T.S. Source: Austin—Foust Associates, Inc.
H:\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GP09-CE-5.DWG 06/18/01 2:17 pm EXHIBIT CIR-5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CIR-I2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
74'
64'
15'1 11' 1 11' 1 10' 1 10'11' 5 -
AUG ENTED
'AUGMENTED SECONDARY
N.T.S. Source: Austin—Foust Associates, Inc.
H:\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GP09-CE-5.DWG 06/18/01 2:17 pm EXHIBIT CIR-5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CIR-I2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa General
TABLE CIR-3
ROADWAY CAPACITY DESIGNATION
TIONS TO MPH
Three arterials were identified for potential downgrade in the MPH. These are:
♦ Arlington Drive between Fairview Road and Newport Boulevard —
downgrade from Primary Highway to Collector;
♦ Baker Street from Bear Street to Redhill Avenue — downgrade from
Major Highway to Primary Highway; and
♦ Redhill Avenue from north City Limits to Bristol Street — downgrade from
Major Highway to Primary Highway.
These roadways were determined to operate at acceptable levels of service with
the downgraded classification. However, in order to formally downgrade these
roadways, a recommendation must be made to OCTA to change their
classification in the MPAH. After OCTA accepts and changes the roadways to
the revised classification, the City Council can authorize a similar change in the
MPH.
A policy to authorize City staff to pursue the downgrade process for the above
three arterials with OCTA is included in this 2000 General Plan.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01 CIR-13 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Augmented
Standard
Classification
Major (8 lane divided)
90,000
75,000
Major (6 lane divided)
68,000
56,000
Primary (4 lane divided)
45,000
38,000
Secondary (4 lane undivided)
30,000
25,000
Collector (2 lane undivided)
12,500
One -Way Newport Boulevard (4 lanes)
45,000
38,000
One -Way Newport Boulevard (3 lanes)
34,000
28,000
One -Way Newport Boulevard (2 lanes)
23,000
19,000
NOTES:
Augmented Major (MA): Typically 6 lane Divided Roadway with 120' Right -of -Way at Intersections, Right -Turn Lanes at
Intersections (if required).
Standard Major (MS): Typically 6 Lane Divided Roadway with 106' Right -of -Way at Intersections, Right -Turn Lanes at
Intersections (if required).
Augmented Primary (PA): Typically 4 Lane Divided Roadway with 84' Right -of -Way plus Additional Turn Lanes at
Intersections.
Standard Primary (PS): Typically 4 Lane Divided Roadway with 84' Right -of -Way, Right -Tum Lanes at Intersections (if
required).
Augmented Secondary (SA): Typically 4 Lane Undivided Roadway with 64' Right -of -Way plus Additional Turn Lanes at
Intersections.
Standard Secondary (SS): Typically 4 Lane Undivided Roadway with 64' Right -of -Way, Right -Tum Lanes at Intersections (if
required).
Standard Collector (CS): Typically 2 Lane Undivided Roadway with 60' Right -of -Way for Entire Segment.
TIONS TO MPH
Three arterials were identified for potential downgrade in the MPH. These are:
♦ Arlington Drive between Fairview Road and Newport Boulevard —
downgrade from Primary Highway to Collector;
♦ Baker Street from Bear Street to Redhill Avenue — downgrade from
Major Highway to Primary Highway; and
♦ Redhill Avenue from north City Limits to Bristol Street — downgrade from
Major Highway to Primary Highway.
These roadways were determined to operate at acceptable levels of service with
the downgraded classification. However, in order to formally downgrade these
roadways, a recommendation must be made to OCTA to change their
classification in the MPAH. After OCTA accepts and changes the roadways to
the revised classification, the City Council can authorize a similar change in the
MPH.
A policy to authorize City staff to pursue the downgrade process for the above
three arterials with OCTA is included in this 2000 General Plan.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01 CIR-13 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa General an
TABLE CIR-4
2020 ADT VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1. MacArthur w/o Harbor
Classification'
6MA
CapacityLocation
68,000
31,000
.46
2. Sunflower w/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
9,000
.20
3. Sunflower e/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
19,000
.42
4. Sunflower w/o Fairview
4PA
45,000
17,000
.38
5. Sunflower e/o Fairview
413A
45,000
22,000
.49
6. Sunflower w/o Bear
4PA
45,000
21,000
.47
7. Sunflower w/o Bristol
6MA
68,000
34,000
.50
8. Sunflower e/o Bristol
6MA
68,000
37,000
.54
10. Sunflower e/o Flower
6MS
56,000
26,000
.46
11. Sunflower w/o Main
6MS
56,000
43,000
.77
12. South Coast w/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
18,000
.40
13. South Coast e/o Harbor
413A
45,000
13,000
.29
14. South Coast w/o Fairview
413A
45,000
14,000
.31
15. South Coast e/o Fairview
4PS
38,000
17,000
.45
16. South Coast w/o Bear
4PA
45,000
14,000
.31
17. Anton e/o Bristol
6MS
56,000
33,000
.59
19. Anton s/o Sunflower
6MS
56,000
21,000
.38
21. Gisler w/o Harbor
4SS
25,000
30,000
1.20
22. Paularino e/o Bear
2CS
12,500
8,000
.64
23. Paularino e/o Bristol
4PA
45,000
16,000
.36
24. Paularino w/o Red Hill
4PS
38,000
14,000
.37
25. Baker e/o Mesa Verde
4SS
25,000
9,000
.36
26. Baker w/o Harbor
4SA
30,000
28,000
.93
27. Baker e/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
27,000
.60
28. Baker w/o Fairview
4PA
45,000
30,000
.67
29. Baker e/o Fairview
413A
45,000
29,000
.64
30. Baker w/o Bear
4PA
45,000
39,000
.87
33. Baker w/o Bristol
6MA
68,000
34,000
.50
34. Baker e/o Bristol
6MA
68,000
33,000
.49
35. Baker w/o Red Hill
6MS
56,000
23,000
.41
36. W. Mesa Verde n/o Adams
4PS
38,000
6,000
.16
37. E. Mesa Verde n/o Adams
4PS
38,000
10,000
.26
38. Adams w/o Mesa Verde
6MA
68,000
31,000
.46
39. Adams btn Mesa Verdes
6MA
68,000
33,000
.49
40. Adams w/o Harbor
6MA
68,000
31,000
.46
41. Mesa Verde s/o Adams
4PS
38,000
9,000
.24
42. Mesa Verde w/o Harbor
4PS
38,000
10,000
.26
43. Adams e/o Harbor
6MA
68,000
34,000
.50
44. Adams w/o Fairview
6MA
68,000
27,000
.40
45. Merrimac e/o Harbor
4PS
38,000
7,000
.18
46. Merrimac w/o Fairview
4PS
38,000
8,000
.21
47. Arlington e/o Fairview
4PS
38,000
7,000
.18
49. Fair e/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
15,000
.33
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01 x
Costa Mesa General Plan
TABLE CIR-4
2020 ADT VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS - CONTINUED
51. Fair e/o Fairview
Classification'
4PA
CapacityLocation
45,000
26,000
.58
53. Del Mar e/o Newport
4PA
30,000
23,000
.51
54. Del Mar w/o Santa Ana
4PA
30,000
20,000
.44
55. Del Mar w/o Irvine
4PA
30,000
21,000
.47
56. Wilson w/o Placentia
2CS
12,500
4,000
.32
57. Wilson e/o Placentia
4SS
25,000
9,000
.36
58. Wilson w/o Harbor
4SS
25,000
18,000
.72
59. Wilson e/o Harbor
4SA
30,000
21,000
.70
60. Wilson w/o Fairview
4SS
25,000
23,000
.92
61. Wilson e/o Fairview
4SS
25,000
18,000
.72
62. Santa Isabel e/o Newport
2CS
12,500
3,000
.24
65. Victoria e/o S.A. River
4PA
45,000
19,000
.42
66. Victoria w/o Placentia
4PS
38,000
12,000
.32
67. Victoria e/o Placentia
4PS
38,000
20,000
.53
68. Victoria w/o Harbor
4PS
38,000
25,000
.66
69. Victoria e/o Harbor
4PS
38,000
23,000
.61
70. Victoria w/o Newport
4PS
38,000
25,000
.66
72. 22nd w/o Santa Ana
4SS
12,500
6,000
.24
74. 22nd w/o Irvine
4CS
12,500
6,000
.48
80. 19th w/o Placentia
4PA
45,000
18,000
.40
81. 19th e/o Placentia
4PA
45,000
19,000
.42
82. 19th w/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
32,000
.71
83. 19th e/o Harbor
4PA
45,000
29,000
.64
84. 19th e/o Newport
4SS
25,000
7,000
.28
85. 19th w/o Santa Ana
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
86. 19th w/o Tustin
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
87. 19th w/o Irvine
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
89. 18th w/o Placentia
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
90. 18th e/o Placentia
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
91. 18th w/o Newport
2CS
12,500
7,000
.56
92. 17th w/o Placentia
4SS
25,000
10,000
.40
93. 17th e/o Placentia
4PS
38,000
10,000
.26
94. 17th w/o Superior
4PS
38,000
12,000
.32
95. 17th w/o Orange
6MA
68,000
60,000
.88
96. 17th w/o Santa Ana
6MS
56,000
53,000
.95
97. 17th w/o Tustin
6MS
56,000
50,000
.89
98. 17th w/o Irvine
4PA
45,000
45,000
1.00
100. 16th w/o Placentia
2CS
12,500
2,000
.16
101. 16th e/o Placentia
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
103. 16th w/o Santa Ana
2CS
12,500
7,000
.56
104. 16th w/o Tustin
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
105. 16th w/o Irvine
2CS
12,500
4,000
.32
109. Monrovia s/o 19th
2CS
12,500
7,000
.56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/OI CIR-I5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa General Plan
TABLE CIR-4
2020 ADT VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS - CONTINUED
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01
110. Monrovia s/o 18th
Classification'
2CS
CapacityLocation
12,500
5,000
.40
111. Monrovia s/o 17th
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
112. Placentia s/o Adams
4PS
38,000
13,000
.34
113. Placentia n/o Wilson
4PS
38,000
13,000
.34
114. Placentia No Victoria
4PA
45,000
14,000
.31
116. Placentia n/o 19th
4PS
38,000
8,000
.21
117. Placentia s/o 19th
4PA
45,000
5,000
.11
118. Placentia s/o 18th
4PS
38,000
6,000
.16
119. Placentia s/o 17th
4PS
38,000
7,000
.18
120. Pomona s/o Wilson
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
121. Pomona s/o Victoria
2CS
12,500
8,000
.64
122. Pomona s/o 19th
2CS
12,500
4,000
.32
123. Pomona s/o 18th
2CS
12,500
3,000
.24
125. Harbor n/o Sunflower
6MA
68,000
52,000
.76
126. Harbor s/o Sunflower
6MA
68,000
60,000
.88
127. Harbor n/o 1-405
8MA
90,000
67,000
.74
128. Harbor s/o 1-405
8MA
90,000
79,000
.88
129. Harbor n/o Baker
8MA
90,000
64,000
.71
130. Harbor n/o Adams
8MA
90,000
56,000
.62
131. Harbor s/o Adams
6MA
68,000
51,000
.75
132. Harbor n/o Fair
6MA
68,000
45,000
.66
133. Harbor n/o Wilson
6MA
68,000
41,000
.60
134. Harbor n/o Victoria
6MS
56,000
38,000
.68
135. Harbor s/o Victoria
6MA
68,000
37,000
.54
136. Harbor No 19th
6MA
68,000
32,000
.47
137. Harbor s/o 19th
6MS
56,000
22,000
.39
138. Fairview n/o 1-405
7MA
79,000
70,000
.89
139. Fairview s/o 1-405
6MA
68,000
56,000
.82
140. Fairview n/o Adams
6MA
68,000
58,000
.85
141. Fairview s/o Adams
6MA
68,000
42,000
.62
142. Fairview n/o Fair
6MA
68,000
36,000
.53
143. Fairview n/o Wilson
6MS
56,000
26,000
.46
144. Bear s/o Sunflower
6MA
68,000
23,000
.34
145. Bear n/o Paularino
6MS
56,000
36,000
.64
146. Bristol n/o Anton
7MA
79,000
70,000
.89
147. Bristol s/o Sunflower
7MA
79,000
60,000
.76
148. Bristol n/o 1-405
8MA
90,000
85,000
.94
149. Bristol s/o 1-405
8MA
90,000
67,000
.74
150. Bristol n/o Baker
6MA
68,000
56,000
.82
151. Bristol s/o Baker
6MA
68,000
42,000
.62
152. Bristol w/o SR -55
6MA
68,000
46,000
.68
153. Bristol e/o SR -55
6MA
68,000
33,000
.49
154. Newport n/o Fair & Del Mar
VAR2
79,000
70,000
.89
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01
Costa Mesa General an
TABLE CIR-4
2020 ADT VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS - CONTINUED
156. Newport SB s/o Fairview
Classification'
3SA3
CapacityLocation
34,000
33,000
"Mm
.97
157. Newport n/o 19th
6MA
68,000
42,000
.62
158. Newport n/o 17
6MA
68,000
37,000
.54
159. Newport s/o 17th
6MA
68,000
17,000
.25
160. Superior s/o 17th
4PS
38,000
23,000
.61
161. Orange n/o Del Mar
2CS
12,500
3,000
.24
162. Orange n/o Santa Isabel
2CS
12,500
3,000
.24
163. Orange n/o 22nd
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
164. Orange n/o 21ST
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
165. Orange n/o 19th
2CS
12,500
4,000
.32
166. Orange n/o 17th
2CS
12,500
3,000
.24
167. Orange n/o 16th
2CS
12,500
8,000
.64
168. Orange n/o 15th
2CS
12,500
8,000
.64
169. Red Hill n/o Paularino
6MS
56,000
23,000
.41
170. Red Hill n/o Baker
6MS
56,000
24,000
.43
172. Red Hill n/o Bristol
6MA
68,000
18,000
.26
173. Santa Ana s/o Bristol
4SA
30,000
13,000
.43
174. Santa Ana n/o Del Mar
4SS
25,000
12,000
.48
175. Santa Ana No Santa Isabel
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
177. Santa Ana n/o 21St
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
178. Santa Ana n/o 19th
2CS
12,500
3,000
.24
179. Santa Ana n/o 17th
2CS
12,500
7,000
.56
180. Santa Ana n/o 16th
2CS
12,500
8,000
.64
181. Santa Ana n/o 15th
2CS
12,500
6,000
.48
182. Irvine s/o Bristol
6MS
56,000
33,000
.59
183. Irvine n/o Del Mar
6MS
56,000
27,000
.48
184. Irvine s/o Del Mar
4PS
38,000
29,000
.76
187. Tustin n/o 19th
2CS
12,500
1,000
.08
188. Tustin n/o 17th
2CS
12,500
4,000
.32
189. Tustin n/o 16th
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
191. Irvine n/o 22nd
4PS
38,000
31,000
.82
192. Irvine n/o 2151
4PA
45,000
28,000
.62
193. Irvine n/o 19th
4PA
45,000
26,000
.58
194. Irvine s/o 19th
4PA
45,000
15,000
.33
195. Irvine n/o 17th
413A
45,000
16,000
.36
196. Irvine n/o 16th
4PS
38,000
14,000
.37
198. Mesa e/o Orange
2CS
12,500
4,000
.32
199. Mesa e/o Santa Ana
2CS
12,500
5,000
.40
200. Town Center w/o Avenue of the Arts
4SS
25,000
5,000
.20
202. Ave Of The Arts n/o Anton
4SS
25,000
10,000
.40
203. Newport SB s/o Wilson
3SS3
28,000
11,000
.39
204. Newport SB s/o 22nd
2SS3
19,000
14,000
.74
226. Newport s/o 19th
6MA
68,000
24,000
.35
227. 18th e/o Newport
2CS
12,500
1,000
.08
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01 CIR-17 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa Gene-�an
TABLE CIR-4
2020 ADT VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS - CONTINUED
228. 18th w/o Irvine
Classification'
2CS
CapacityLocation
12,500
1,000
.08
277. MacArthur e/o Harbor
6MA
68,000
30,000
.44
288. Sunflower w/o Raitt
4PA
45,000
21,000
.47
289. Harbor n/o MacArthur
6MA
68,000
50,000
.74
290. Harbor s/o MacArthur
6MA
68,000
37,000
.54
294. Susan n/o Sunflower
4SS
25,000
8,000
.32
295. Susan s/o Sunflower
4SS
25,000
7,000
.28
298. Fairview n/o Sunflower
6MA
68,000
47,000
.69
307. Bear n/o Sunflower
4SS
25,000
22,000
.88
313. Bear s/o South Coast
6MA
68,000
33,000
.49
314. Bear s/o Paularino
6MS
56,000
35,000
.63
315. Bear s/o Baker
2CS
12,500
9,000
.72
316. Sunflower e/o Bear
6MA
68,000
41,000
.60
317. Fairview s/o Sunflower
6MA
68,000
57,000
.84
329. Canyon Bluff n/o 19th
6MA
68,000
18,000
.26
333. Canyon Bluff n/o 17th
6MS
56,000
22,000
.39
335. Canyon Bluff s/o 17th
4PS
38,000
17,000
.45
339. Superior s/o 16th
4PS
38,000
20,000
.53
350. Newport NB n/o Fairview
3SS3
28,000
8,000
.29
351. Newport NB s/o Fairview
3SA3
34,000
24,000
.71
352. Newport NB s/o 22nd
2SS3
19,000
14,000
.74
353. Newport s/o Harbor
6MA
68,000
40,000
.59
354. Newport s/o 16th
6MA
68,000
66,000
.97
NOTES:
' Roadway classification in the form XYZ where X = number of midblock lanes, Y = roadway classification
(major, primary, etc), and Z = roadway designation (augmented, standard or constrained). See Table CIR-3 for
definitions
2 NB is a 3 lane augmented one-way segment, SB is a 4 lane augmented one-way segment
3 One-way segments
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-I8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/01
Costa Mesa General Plan
3.7 BICYCLE TRAILS
The City of Costa Mesa first adopted an official Master Plan of Bikeways (MPB)
in 1974. With the adoption of the City's General Plan in 1992, a revised Master
Plan of Bikeways was adopted and has been periodically updated. The following
section discusses the current plan.
MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS
Exhibit CIR-6 shows the City's Master Plan of Bikeways. Bicycle facilities within
the City are given one of the following classifications:
♦ Bike Trail (Class 1)
♦ Bike Lane (Class 2)
♦ Bike Route (Class 3)
♦ Regional Trail
Bike trails are facilities at least eight feet in width that are physically separated
from vehicular roadways and are reserved exclusively for bicycle use. Bike trails
are most effective in long, uninterrupted stretches, such as along the Santa Ana
River and along the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve on the east side of
Irvine Avenue.
Bike lanes consist of a painted stripe reserving at least five feet nearest the curb
for bicycle use. Bike lanes are the most common classification within the City as
they are generally implemented within existing right-of-ways.
Bike routes are designated only with signs and are mainly useful only to bridge
short distances between other, more established bike lanes or trails and are
' typically only used on low volume, residential streets.
With the adoption of the 2000 General Plan, the following changes were made to
the MPB:
♦ Modifications to the Fairview Regional Park bicycle trails pursuant to City
Council as listed below:
- Delete the bike trail along Banning Place between Pacific
Avenue and Placentia Avenue;
- Delete the bike trail between Canary Drive and the north
entrance to Fairview Park south of the Fairview Channel;
- Terminate the north -south bike trail through Fairview Park
originating at Pacific Avenue at the north parking lot (delete the
connection to Placentia Avenue);
- Add a loop trail in Fairview Park east of Placentia Avenue
connecting to the bicycle trails on the west; and
- Deletion of the bicycle lanes along Tanager Drive and Harla
Avenue since they were not continuous.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • G/27/01 CIR-I9 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Legend
®�^^^
Bike Trail (Class 1)
•••••�•
Bike Lane (Class 2)
""'•
Bike Route (Class 3)
Regional Trial
City Boundary
City of Costa Mesa General Plan A.
Traffic Analysis 2( 7
Figure CIR-6
MASI"ER PLAIN OF BIKEWAYS
:anw- x`a, mow. Yecr
Costa. Mesa General~
3.8 PUBLIC TRANSIT
The primary provider of public transportation in Orange County is the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The public transportation facilities
within the City of Costa Mesa are described below.
PUBLIC BUS TRANSPORTATION
The OCTA is currently the only provider of public bus transportation within the
City with over ten separate bus routes serving Costa Mesa. In 2000, the OCTA
served approximately 57 million passenger boardings countywide.
OCTA bus ridership increased by approximately 31 percent during the period
between 1990 and 2000 and the bus fleet grew from 668 vehicles to 757 vehicles
during that same time period. The OCTA expects to expand bus service by
another 49 percent by 2010.
A recently approved plan will change the way bus routes have traditionally been
configured within the City. This plan, which took effect in September 2000,
realigns most routes to travel either east/west or north/south instead of traveling
in all four directions as many routes now do. New routes are proposed to serve
most of the areas affected by the restructuring. Exhibit CIR-7 illustrates streets
within the City that have transit service.
URBAN RAIL TRANSPORTATION
No urban rail facilities currently exist within the City. However, OCTA is in the
planning stages of a light rail system that is proposed to pass through the
northeast portion of the City, including a line connecting the South Coast Plaza
Town Center area to the system. This project, currently referred to as The
Centerline rail system is envisioned to ultimately consist of 28 miles of rail line
connecting Fullerton Transportation Center to Irvine Transportation Center, via
Anaheim, Santa Ana, Orange, and Costa Mesa.
Due to the preliminary nature of the urban rail line proposals, potential long-range
impacts to the City's public transportation system can not be identified with this
information. Further review of final route alignments and station locations will be
required as the planning for the urban rail line progresses.
3.9 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The goals, objectives, and policies that address circulation are as follows:
GOAL CIR-1:
TRANSPORTATION
It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide for a balanced, uncongested,
safe, and energy-efficient transportation system, incorporating all feasible modes
of transportation.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • G/27/01 CIR-21 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Choi
IM
MEL
SIMMONS
LJUUmIKwLmuT-- 2 H I
Costa Mesa Gene��an
Obiective CIR-1A. To provide specific programs and policies that address multi-
modal transportation, multi -agency coordination, mitigation of traffic impacts and
the balancing of land uses with transportation systems.
CIR-1A.1 Incorporate bicycle facilities (circulation and storage) into the
design and development of all new commercial and industrial
projects and public facilities.
CIR-1A.2 Require dedication of right-of-way in an equitable manner for
completion of adopted bikeway system as condition of
development of adjacent properties.
CIR-1A.3 Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and
bicycle ways in major residential, shopping, and employment
centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, public
transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities.
CIR-1A.4 Include bicycle lanes on all new bridges along Master Plan of
Bikeway designated arterials within or adjacent to the City. In
cases where bridges are not located within the City, the City
should exert its influence on responsible agencies to include
such bicycle lanes. If provision of bicycle lanes is not feasible,
measures should be taken to prohibit bicycle riding on bridge
walkways.
CIR-1A.5 Investigate all available operational measures, including the use
of one-way streets, to improve traffic circulation and minimize
delay and congestion on arterials.
CIR-1A.6 Require dedication of right-of-way, in an equitable manner, for
development that increases the intensity of land use.
CIR-1A.7 Implement citywide and/or areawide transportation system
improvement programs on new development and fee programs
for new development.
CIR-1A.8 Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing
into major development projects to reduce vehicle use.
CIR-1A.9 Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate
high traffic volumes to be located near major transportation
corridors and public transit facilities to minimize vehicle use,
congestion, and delay.
CIR-1A.10 Allow the application of transportation management rideshare
programs, integration of complementary land uses, and other
methods to reduce project related average daily and peak hour
vehicle trips in order to achieve consistency with allocated trip
budgets.
CIR-1A.11 Attempt to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve
a standard level of service not worse than Level of Service "D" at
all intersections under the sole control of the City. Intersection
level of service analyses for General Plan conditions shall be
updated periodically and presented to City Council.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . 6/27/01 CIR-23 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa Gener4 Plan
CIR-1A.12 Cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions to maintain or improve
mobility within the City to achieve a standard level of service no
worse than "D" at all intersections under State or joint control
Intersection level of service analyses for General Plan conditions
for locations under State or joint control shall be updated
periodically and presented to City Council
CIR-1A.13 While the Gisler Road segment, west of Harbor, will exceed its
theoretical maximum capacity, the City shall work to ensure that
the future volume to capacity ratios do not exceed those
identified in Table CIR-3 of the General Plan.
CIR-1A.14 Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on
local streets in residential neighborhoods.
CIR-1A.15 Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through
traffic flow on major, primary, and secondary arterials, and
reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis on
pedestrian safety.
CIR-1A.16 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by
phasing new development to levels that can be accommodated
by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of
completion of each phase of the project.
CIR-1A.17 Work closely with the State of California and other government
agencies to control traffic -related impacts of uses on State- or
other agency -owned land (i.e., Orange County Fairgrounds,
Orange Coast College, etc.).
CIR-1A.18 Council shall review the results and findings of the (SARX) study
to delete the Gisler Avenue and 19th Street bridges over the
Santa Ana River as needed. Upon completion of the study and
approval of the changes to the Orange County Transportation
Authority's (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways by the
OCTA Board, the City shall process a General Plan Amendment
to delete the bridges from the City's Master Plan of Highways.
All future development applications submitted to the City shall be
reviewed in such a way that the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue
bridges will not be included as mitigation measures.
CIR-1A.19 Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the
taking of private property on existing developed properties.
CIR-1A.20 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to
downgrade Mesa Verde Drive, Baker Street west of Harbor
Boulevard, and Gisler Avenue to a designation less than a
Collector Street in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
CIR-1A.21 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to
downgrade Arlington Avenue between Fairview Road and
Newport Boulevard to a Collector Street.
CIR-1A.22 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to
downgrade Baker Street between Redhill Avenue and Bristol
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-24 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • G/27/01
Costa Mesa General Plan
Street, and Redhill Avenue between 1-405 and Bristol Street to
Primary Arterial from current Major Arterial designation.
GOAL CIR-2:
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide for standard service levels at
signalized intersections by constructing capacity improvements for all various
modes of circulation, adopting land use intensities commensurate with planned
circulation improvements and implementing traffic demand reduction programs,
thereby creating a more energy efficient transportation system.
Objective CIR-2A. To coordinate efforts with other regional agencies and
pursue operational improvements towards enhancing the capacity of the system
of freeways and arterial highways in the City.
CIR-2A.1 Coordinate with Caltrans for future consideration of the extension
of Route 55 (the Costa Mesa Freeway) from 19th Street to the
southern City boundary.
CIR-2A.2 Coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority and
with adjacent jurisdictions to improve signal timing and
coordination along major arterials.
CIR-2A.3 Continue to work with Caltrans to synchronize and coordinate
traffic signals on arterials at intersections controlled by Caltrans.
CIR-2A.4 Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational
improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal synchroni-
zation or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve
the efficiency of intersections.
Objective CIR-26. To promote the use of high occupancy vehicular modes of
transportation in and through the City.
CIR-213.1 Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate
locations with attractive shelters designed for safe and
comfortable use.
Objective CIR-2C. To invest capital via a rationally phased allocation process
for implementing transportation projects and programs.
CIR-2C.1 Support efforts to design and construct an urban rail project as it
extends through Costa Mesa.
CIR-2C.2 Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic
service levels and traffic safety. Develop and annually update a
priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on 1)
correcting identified hazards; 2) improving/maintaining peak hour
traffic volumes; 3) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure
utilization; and 4) intergovernmental coordination.
Objective CIR-213. To ensure that the transportation related impacts of
development projects are mitigated to the fullest extent possible, in conformance
with transportation related policies.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 6/27/01 CIR-25 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Costa Mesa General
CIR-2D.1 Circulation improvements required to provide or attain the
minimum traffic level of service standard at an intersection to
which a development project contributes measurable traffic shall
be completed within three years of issuance of the first building
permit for said project, unless additional right-of-way or
coordination with other government agencies is required to
complete the improvement. Improvements may be required
sooner if, because of extraordinary traffic generation
characteristics of the project or extraordinary impacts to the
surrounding circulation system, such improvements are
necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts.
CIR-2D.2 Construction of circulation improvements for phased
development projects may be constructed commensurate with
the project construction based upon the findings of a traffic study
approved by the City of Costa Mesa.
CIR-213.3 A traffic impact fee shall be maintained for circulation system
improvements to the Master Plan of Highways within the
community and updated annually.
CIR-2DA Require discussion of transit service needs and site design
amenities for transit ridership in EIRs for major projects.
CIR-2D.5 Require discussion of transportation system management (TSM)
and transportation demand management (TDM) measures in all
EIRs prepared for major projects.
Growth Management: Refer to Goal GM -1, Objective GM -1A and Policies GM -
1A.1 through GM -1A.6 found in the Growth Management Element.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-26 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT - 6/27/01
CHAPTER 3. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy CIR-1 A.1 will be revised to read:` "" ~
CIR-1 A.1 I vefio l , e; = as er an o �. eways{ y pursumg� ail phd n ec�ia'ism
apnca rani _ a dv'ira `andbr�devs`tidernn ro ecf , as appropriate.
Incorporate bicycle facilities (circulation and storage) into the design and
development of all new commercial and industrial projects and public
facilities.
Exhibit CIR-6, Master Plan of Bikeways, is amended in this element, as
follows.
J
CITY OF COSTA MESA
TECHNICAL APPENDIX - 2020 GENERAL PLAN INTERSECTION
TURNING MOVEMENT FORECASTS
This report contains the Year 2020 forecast of AM and PM peak hour turning movement
volumes for intersections throughout the City of Costa Mesa.
The 2020 forecasts have been prepared using the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM)
which is the City's primary tool for forecasting long range traffic conditions in the City. The CMTM
was updated in the first half of 2000 and has been used in recent planning efforts such as the update of
the City's General Plan and for proposed development projects in the City. The update of the model
included new land use data for existing (1998) and 2020 conditions (developed as part of the City's
General Plan update) as well as new regional trip distribution patterns extracted from the Orange
County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM) Version 2.8.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour turning movement volumes have been forecast for the majority of signalized
intersections within the City. Figure 1 illustrates the location of these intersections and the numbering
system used in the model.
The long-range intersection lane configurations identified in previous General Plan studies,
together with the forecast 2020 turning movement volumes, provide an indication of future intersection
capacity needs. In some cases, improvements that were identified in the past are no longer needed.
However, at the following four intersections, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values under
future year conditions with the General Plan Update were found to exceed LOS "D" and require
substantial improvements beyond what was previously anticipated.
1. Bristol Street / Sunflower Avenue - LOS F - AM/PM peak (.97/.99)
2. Bristol Street / Baker Street - LOS E - PM peak (.93)
3. Fairview Road / I-405 SB Ramps - LOS F - AM/PM peak (1.15/1.09)
4. Harbor Boulevard / Adams Avenue - LOS E - PM peak (1.00)
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015rpt.wpd
Legend Figure 1
Existing Roadway }
— — — — — Future Roadway INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
— - — Santa Ana River
•— - - — City Boundary
City of Costa Mesa 2 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015tptfigl.dwg
The 1990 General Plan identified two intersections to exceed the established LOS "D"
threshold under future year conditions, and adopted both locations within the Transportation Element
Goals, Objectives and Policies to remain unmitigated. These locations are:
1. Bristol Street — Sunflower Avenue - LOS E - AM peak (.95)
2. Harbor Boulevard — Gisler Avenue - LOS E — AM/PM peak (.96/.96)
The following sections discuss the impacts at the above locations and identify improvement
mitigation options to achieve the acceptable LOS "D". The proposed improvements recommended for
these locations are in addition to those adopted by the 1990 General Plan.
Bristol Street — Sunflower Avenue
This intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable levels during the PM peak hour under
the new General Plan Update conditions. This intersection is currently at the 1990 General Plan
configuration.
Additional future mitigation required at this intersection includes providing a fourth westbound
through lane on Sunflower Avenue, a third northbound Bristol Street left -turn lane, and restriping a
northbound through lane to an optional through or right -tum lane. Implementing this mitigation will
reduce the ICU at this intersection from .99 (LOS E) to 0.87 (LOS D) during the PM peak hour.
Bristol Street — Baker Street
This intersection is projected to operate at an unacceptable level during the PM peak hour
under the new General Plan Update conditions. In order to improve to the 1990 General Plan
configuration, through lanes are added to the eastbound and westbound approaches on Baker Street
and the northbound approach on Bristol Street. However, even with these additional lanes, the PM
peak hour level of service would be "E."
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015rpt.wpd
Installation of a third eastbound left -turn lane on Baker Street will mitigate this intersection
to an acceptable condition. However, this improvement will create significant impacts to adjacent
business structures, including a gas station located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection.
Fairview Road — I405 Southbound Ramps
This intersection is projected to operate at LOS "F" during both the AM and PM peak hours
under the new General Plan Update conditions. This intersection is currently at the 1990 General Plan
configuration. With existing traffic volumes, this intersection is operating over capacity during AM
peak hour.
A short-term mitigation is proposed at this location to mitigate the AM peak hour traffic
conditions. This will require striping a northbound through lane on Fairview Road to an optional
through or right -tum lane providing right -turn movements from two lanes. Implementation of this
mitigation will bring the AM peak hour ICU to 0.84 (LOS D) under the new General Plan Update
conditions. However, there is no change in PM peak hour LOS. In order to mitigate PM peak hour
traffic conditions, a third southbound left -turn lane on Fairview Road is required. This could be
accomplished by restriping existing lanes on the bridge. However, the resulting lane widths would be
substandard and may not be acceptable to Caltrans. If Caltrans does not accept substandard lane
widths, bridge widening will be required. In addition, the southbound I-405 on-ramp will require
widening to accommodate three lanes.
Harbor Boulevard — Adams Avenue
This intersection is projected to operate at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour under the new
General Plan Update conditions. In order to improve to the 1990 General Plan configuration, an
exclusive northbound right -tum lane on Harbor Boulevard is added.
Striping a southbound through lane on Harbor Boulevard at this intersection to an optional
through or right -turn lane will reduce the PM peak hour ICU under the new General Plan Update
conditions from 1.00 (LOS E) to 0.96 (LOS E). In order to further mitigate this intersection, an
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015rpt.wpd
additional left -turn lane should be provided for the eastbound direction on Adams Avenue. This will
require additional right-of-way along the north side of Adams Avenue east and west of Harbor
Boulevard.
A complete listing of the intersection improvements that are needed by 2020 with the proposed
General Plan Update is provided in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes ICU values for each of the
intersections for existing (2000) traffic conditions and 2020 forecasts. ICUs for year 2020 are provided
using both current (1990) General Plan intersection lane configurations as well as proposed General
Plan Update lane configurations, as mentioned above. ICU calculation worksheets are provided in the
Appendix.
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts
5
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
020015rpt.wpd
Table 1
2020 INTERSECTION INIPROVEMENTS
MRSECTION
IMPROVEMENT
2. Harbor & Adams`
Add NB RT, 3`d EB LT; Remove EB RT; Convert SB TH to SB TH+RT
6. Harbor & Wilson
Add WB RT
7. Fairview & Wilson
Add 3'd NB TH, 2od EB TH, 2°d WB TH; Convert SB RT to 31d SB TH+RT
11. Placentia & Victoria
Add god EB RT
13. Harbor & Victoria
Add EB RT, WB RT
16. Newport SB & Victoria
Add 4th EB TH; Convert SB RT to SB Freeflow RT
17. Newport NB & Victoria/22nd
Add god EB TH, WB TH+RT; Convert NB RT to NB TH+RT; Convert NB LT to
NB LT+TH
19. Placentia & 19th
Add SB RT, EB RT
21. Harbor & 19th
Convert NB RT to NB TH+RT; Convert SB RT to SB TH+RT
27. Placentia & 17th
Add 2°d EB TH, 2od WB TH
29. Newport & 11th
Add SB RT
31. Superior & 16th
Add WB LT
34. Newport & Industrial
Add SB RT
36. Harbor & Sunflower
Add NB RT, EB RT, WB RT
38. Fairview & Sunflower
Add SB RT, EB RT
42. Bristol & Sunflower`
Add 3'd NB LT, 4°i WB TH; Convert NB TH to NB TH+RT
43. Harbor & South Coast
Convert SB TH to SB RT; Convert EB TH+RT to EB TH; Add 2d EB RT, 2°d WB
LT, WB RT
45. Fairview & South Coast
Add 4`h SB TH, WB RT; Convert EB TH to EB TH+RT
49. Harbor & I-405 NB Ramps
Add 4'h NB TH, WB RT
50. Harbor & I405 SB Ramps
Add EB RT; Add NB Freeflow TH to NB I-405 Ramp (behind bridge piers)
52. Fairview & I-405 SB Ramps`
Add 3rd SB LT; Convert NB TH to NB TH+RT; Convert EB RT to EB LT+RT
55. Harbor & Gisler
Add 5th NB TH, SB RT, WB RT
57. Fairview & Baker
Improvements underway (4h SB TH, 3'd WB TH)
59. Bristol & Paularino
Add 2°d NBL, 4'h NB TH, 2°d WB LT, EB RT
61. Bear & Baker
Add 3"' WB TH
62. Bristol & Baker`
Add 4`h NB TH, 3'd EB LT, 3`d EB TH, Yd WB TH
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts
6
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
020015rpt.wpd
1 (Cont.)
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
7ERSECITON
IMPROVEMENT
63. Fairview & Adams
Convert SB RT to SB Freeflow RT
66. Orange & 17th
Add NB RT, SB RT, Yd EB TH, 3`d WB TH, WB RT
67. Santa Ana & 17th
Add NB RT, SB RT, 3`d EB TH, EB RT, 3`d WB TH, WB RT
68. Tustin & 17th
Add NB RT, EB RT, WB RT
71. Park Center & Sunflower
Convert NB TH to NB LT + TH, Convert SB LT to SB LT + TH, Convert SB TH
to SB RT
74. Anton & Sunflower
Add 2nd WB LT
75. Bristol & Town Center
Add 2nd WB LT
80. I-405 SB Ramp & Anton (Future
Provide 2 NB LT, i NB RT, 2 EB TH, 2 EB RT, 2 WB LT, 2 WB TH
Intersection)
83. Bristol & Lion/Holiday Inn
Convert NB RT to NB TH+RT
84. SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino
Add SB RT
85. SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino
Add WB RT
87. SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker
Add SB Freeflow RT, Convert EB TH to EB TH + RT
88. SR -55 NB Ramps & Baker
Add NB LT, 2°d EB LT
97. Mesa Verde E & Adams
Convert SB TH to SB TH+RT
107. Newport NB & Del Mar
Add NB RT, Convert WB TH to WB TH+RT
111. Harbor & Hamilton
Add SB RT
117. Hyland & I405 NB On-Ramp/South
Provide 1 SB LT, 1 SB RT, 1 EB TH, 1 EB TH+RT
Coast (Future)
118. Bristol & Bear
Add Yd SB TH
(1- The proposed improvements exceed the buildout configuration recommended in the 1990 General Plan and is subject to City
Council Approval.
NB = Northbound
TH = Through Lane
SB = Southbound
LT = Left -Turn Lane
EB = Eastbound
RT = Right -Tum Lane
WB = Westbound
Freeflow = Freeflow Turn Lane (traffic does not stop)
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts
7
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
020015rpt.wpd
Table 2
ICU SUMMARY
(Continued)
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015rpt.wpd
2020 WITH
2020 WITH
EXISTING
PREVIOUS (1990)
PROPOSED UPDATED
INTERSECTION
(2000)
COUNTS
GP LANES
GP LANES
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
L Placentia & Adams
.80
.82
.90
.80
2. Harbor & Adams
'Harbor
.76
.89
.77
1.00
.90
.80
3. & Fair
4. Fairview & Fair
.40
.63
.53
.71
.81
.53
.90
.71
5. Placentia & Wilson
.47
.55
.62
.57
.85
.57
.85
6. Harbor & Wilson
.47
.52
.68
.45
.55
.41
.74
.54
.43
7. Fairview & Wilson
.59
.76
.58
.81
.55
.74
8. Newport SB & Wilson
.30
.47
.48
74
.60
51
.87
80
9. Newport NB & Wilson
.39
.35
.59
.55
10. Canyon & Victoria
.67
.75
.62
.59
.49
.69
.59
.64
11. Placentia & Victoria
.80
.78
70
77
70
77
12. Pomona & Victoria
64
.63
.80
.70
13. Harbor & Victoria
.70
.90
.74
.83
.80
.70
14. Newport SB & Fairview
.34
.67
.53
.89
.74
.83
15. Newport NB & Fairview
.91
.59
.88
.53
.53
.89
16. Newport SB &Victoria
.57
.88
.69
.81
.88
.53
17. Newport NB & Victoria/22nd
1.01
.68
.99
.67
.61
.84
18. Monrovia & 19th
.42
.42
.89
.80
.90
.67
19. Placentia & 19th
.51
.59
.41
.62
.89
.80
20. Pomona & 19th
.51
.57
.58
.67
.41
.58
.62
.67
21. Harbor & 19th
.42
.60
.39
.62
22. Newport & 19th
1.00
.94
.48
.65
.39
.62
23. Placentia & 18th
.40
.45
.23
.26
.39
.64
24. Newport & 18th
.75
.88
.25
.46
.23
.26
25. Newport & Harbor
.62
.80
.27
.41
.25
.46
26. Monrovia & 17th
.22
.32
.59
.70
.27
.41
27. Placentia & 17th
.37
.54
.23
.38
.59
.70
28. Superior & 17th
.52
.62
.44
.42
.23
.38
29. Newport & 17th
.74
.78
.48
.71
.34
.42
30. Placentia & 16th
.35
.35
.32
.19
.48
.32
.71
.19
31. Superior & 16th
.53
.41
.74
.72
32. Placentia & Superior
.64
.56
.56
.43
.74
.72
33. Harbor & Macarthur
.50
.67
.65
.84
.56
.43
34. Newport & Industrial
.53
.55
.86
.82
.65
.84
35. Harbor & Lake Center/Scenic
.65
.61
.74
.77
.86
.82
36. Harbor & Sunflower
.64
.79
.75
.90
.74
.77
37. Susan & Sunflower
.43
.66
.62
.88
.75
.90
38. Fairview & Sunflower
.74
.71
.81
.83
.62
.88
39. Greenville & Sunflower
.44
.66
.60
.80
.81
.83
40. Raitt & Sunflower
.52
.56
.66
.70
.60
.66
.80
.70
(Continued)
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 020015rpt.wpd
Table 2 (cont)
ICU SUMMARY
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
(2000) COUNTS
AM PM
2020 WITH
PREVIOUS (1990)
GP LANES
AM PM
2020 WITH
PROPOSED UPDATED
GP LANES
AM PM
41. Bear & Sunflower
.42
.68
.68
.78
.68
.78
42. Bristol & Sunflower
.61
.80
.97
.99
.86
.87
43. Harbor & South Coast
.68
.85
.82
.85
.82
.85
44. Susan & South Coast
.27
.38
.57
.71
.57
.71
45. Fairview & South Coast
.74
.82
.79
.92
.79
.74
46. I-405 NB Ramps & South Coas
t .30
.40
.70
.53
.70
.53
47. Bear & South Coast
.31
.51
.40
.62
.40
.62
48. Bristol & Anton
.39
.64
.57
.74
.57
.74
49. Harbor & 1-405 NB Ramps
.72
.65
.72
.70
.72
.70
50. Harbor & 1405 SB Ramps
.47
.60
.49
.67
.49
.67
51. Fairview & I405 NB Ramps
.70
.69
.90
.86
.90
.86
52. Fairview & 1-405 SB Ramps
1.01
.76
1.15
1.09
.65
.80
53. Bristol & 1-405 NB Ramps
.67
.72
.80
.81
.80
.81
54. Bristol & I-405 SB Ramps
.52
.69
.68
.87
.68
.87
55. Harbor & Gisler
.74
.71
.84
.84
.84
.84
56. Harbor & Baker
.53
.63
.63
.84
.63
.84
57. Fairview & Baker
.76
.77
.81
.79
.87
.79
58. Bear & Paularino
.47
.60
.52
.59
.52
.59
59. Bristol & Paularino
.63
.79
.62
.93
.60
.89
60. Bear & SR -73 SB Ramps
.45
.58
.41
.58
.56
.75
61. Bear & Baker
.63
.85
.74
.79
.82
.79
62. Bristol & Baker
.61
.76
.74
.93
.70
.90
63. Fairview & Adams
.77
.95
.85
.76
.85
.79
64. Hyland & MacArthur
.74
.89
.78
.68
.78
.68
65. Plaza & Sunflower
.33
.66
.60
.57
.61
.79
66. Orange & 17th
.65
.74
.68
.83
.67
.78
67. Santa Ana & 17th
.67
.76
.64
.69
.64
.69
68. Tustin & 17th
.62
.72
.57
.60
.75
.78
69. Irvine & 17th
.57
.79
.75
.80
.75
.80
70. Bear & SR -73 NB Ramp
.45
.62
.56
.71
.56
.71
72. Ave of the Arts & Sunflower
.41
.41
.82
.61
.82
.61
73. Sakioka/Flower & Sunflower
.43
.51
.81
.83
.81
.83
74. Anton & Sunflower
.41
.36
.80
.59
.80
.59
75. Bristol & Town Center Dr
.41
.67
.53
.75
.53
.75
76. Ave of Arts & Town Center
-
-
.46
.53
.46
.53
77. Park Center & Anton
.30
.43
.46
.48
.46
.48
78. Ave of the Arts & Anton
.35
.40
.76
.43
.76
.44
79. Sakioka Dr & Anton
.33
.35
.49
.58
.49
.58
80. I-405 SB On -Ramp & Anton
-
-
.29
.69
.29
.56
(Continued)
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forts 020015rpt.wpd
Table 2 (cont)
ICU SUMMARY
101. Harbor & Merrimac
.48
.68
2020 WITH
2020 WITH
.61
EXISTING
PREVIOUS
(1990)
PROPOSED UPDATED
.34
(2000) COUNTS
GP LANES
GP LANES
INTERSECTION
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
104. Loyola & Fair
.23
.34
.28
.44
.28
.44
81. Bear & Crystal Crt/SCP
.19
.38
.28
.49
.28
.49
82. Bear & Metro Pt/May Co
.22
.50
.28
.59
.27
SO
83. Bristol & Lion/Holiday Inn
.49
.52
.57
.66
.57
.66
84. SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino
.82
.67
.68
.85
.76
.79
85. SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino
.63
.87
.73
.84
.73
.86
86. Red Hill & Paularino
.66
.76
.58
.58
.75
.86
87. SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker
.72
.87
.57
1.06
.77
.78
88. SR -55 NB Frontage & Baker
.85
.89
1.06
.83
.76
.86
89. Red HUI & Baker
.49
.62
.58
.62
.67
.86
90. Red Hill & Kalmus
.36
.44
.40
.45
.40
.45
91. Harbor & Nutmeg
.43
.51
.49
.58
.49
.58
92. College & Baker
.39
.55
.51
.58
.57
.68
93. Mendoza & Baker
.73
.70
.73
.73
.84
.82
94. Babb & Baker
.65
.76
.75
.87
.75
.87
95. Milbro & Baker
.62
.73
.74
.86
.74
.86
96. Shantar/Albatross & Adams
.75
.68
.77
.67
.77
.67
97. Mesa Verde East & Adams
.69
.82
.69
.96
.72
.83
98. Royal Palms & Adams
.68
.71
.68
.75
.68
.75
99. Pinecreek & Adams
.49
.65
.51
.71
.51
.71
100. Harbor & Mesa Verde
.47
.70
.51
.80
.51
.80
101. Harbor & Merrimac
.48
.68
.61
.73
.61
.73
102. Newport SB & Mesa
.23
.71
.34
.68
.34
.75
103. Newport NB & Mesa
.35
.48
.23
.32
.36
.48
104. Loyola & Fair
.23
.34
.28
.44
.28
.44
105. City Hall/Fairground & Fair
.39
.61
.50
.69
.51
.72
106. Newport SB & Fair/Del Mar
.37
.55
.68
.85
.68
.85
107. Newport NB & Del Mar
.82
.50
.89
.69
.75
.71
108. Harbor & Harbor Center
.34
.59
.42
.56
.45
.62
109. Newport NB & Santa Isabel
.46
.33
.35
.35
.48
.48
110. National & Victoria
.66
.67
.62
.59
.62
.59
111. Harbor & Hamilton
.47
.59
.38
.53
.38
.53
112. Harbor & Bay
.27
.47
.30
.51
.30
.51
113. Newport NB & Bay
.42
.42
.30
.38
.38
.47
114. Anaheim & 19th
.55
.63
.50
.61
.50
.61
115. Park & 19th
.44
.57
.43
.51
.43
.51
116. Newport & Broadway
.79
.69
.32
.24
.36
.31
117. I405 NB On -Ramp & Hyland
-
-
.38
.64
.38
.64
118. Bristol & Bear
.42
.61
.51
.70
.51
.70
119. Bristol (N/S) & Newport SB
.28
.65
.39
.77
.34
.77
120. Bristol (N/S) & Newport NB
.33
.56
.50
.81
.50
.81
(Continued)
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts c -&z 020015rpt.wpd
Table 2 (cont)
ICU SUMMARY
Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A
.61 -70 B
.71 -80 C
.81 -.90 D
91 - 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 643 020015rpt.wpd
2020 WITH
2020 WITH
EXISTING
PREVIOUS (1990)
PROPOSED UPDATED
(2000) COUNTS
GP LANES
GP LANES
INTERSECTION
AM
PM
AM PM
AM PM
121. Bristol (NIS) & Red Hill
.75
.65
.80 .73
.80 .70
122. Fairview & Paularino
.52
.49
.57 .59
.57 .59
123. Fairview & Monitor
.38
.36
.42 .45
.42 .45
124. Fairview & Arlington
.32
.42
.37 .59
.37 .59
125. Fairview & Merrimac
.25
.31
.32 .40
.32 .40
126. Meyer & 19th
.41
.49
.49 .57
.49 .57
127. Newport SB & Santa Isabel
.17
.34
.34 .58
.34 .58
128. Newport SB & Bay
.27
.38
.22 .47
.30 .60
Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A
.61 -70 B
.71 -80 C
.81 -.90 D
91 - 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
City of Costa Mesa - Technical Appendix 11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 General Plan Intersection Turning Movement Forecasts 643 020015rpt.wpd
TABLE 1
YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
ID
Location
1993 Conditions
2000 Conditions
2001 Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak PM Peak
ICU I LOS 'ICU-EOS
ICU LOS
ICU LOS
ICU LOS ICU LOS
INTERSECTIONS CONTROLLED BY CITY
1
Placentia & Adams
0.59
1 A
0.70
B.._
0.80
C
0.82
D
0.84
D
0.76
C
2
Harbor &Adams
0.77
C
OAT::
E;. =
0.76_
C
0.89
D
0.76
C
0.84
D
3
Harbor & Fair
0.47
A
0.75
C
0.40
A
0.63
B
0.44
A
0.66
B
4
Fairview & Fair
0.35
A
0.52
A
0.47
A
0.62
B
0.45
A
0.53
A
5
Placentia & Wilson
0.44
A
0.57
A
0.55
A
0.52
A
0.55
A
0.53
A
6
Harbor & Wilson
0.42
A
0.66
B
0.47
A
0.68
B
0.46
A
0.68
B
7
Fairview & Wilson
0.54
A
0.70
B
0.59
A
0.76
C
0.67
B
0.77
C
8
Newport SB & Wilson
0.30
A
0.47
A
0.34
A
0.47
A
9
Newport NB & Wilson
0.39
A
0.35
A
0.42
A
0.3,
A
10
Canyon & Victoria
0.48
A
0.53
A
0.67
B
0.75
C
0.70
B
0.73
C
11
Placentia &Victoria
0.56
A
0.65
B
0.80
C
0.78
C
0.78
C,
0.80
C
12
Pomona &Victoria
0.52
A
0.61
B
0.64
B
0.63
B
0.69
B
0.73
C
13
Harbor & Victoria
0.57
A
0.83
D
0.70
B
0.90
D
0.77
C
0.89
D
14
Newport SB & Fairview
0.34
A
0.67
B
0.35
A
0.69
B
16
Newport SB & Victoria
0.57
A
0.88
D
0.63
B
0:93
E:
17
Newport NB & Victoria/22nd
0.68
B
4 fi4r
:' :E
0.69
B
19
Placentia & 19th
0.48
A
0.59
A
0.51
A
0.59
A 10.56
A
0.61
B
20 jPomona
& 19th
0.39
A
0.54
A
0.51
A
0.57
A
0.50
A
0.59
A
21 JH.rbor
& 19th
0.47
A
0.75
C
0.42
A
0.60
A
0.44
A
0.63
B
23 IPlacentia
& 18th
0.43
A
0.55
A
0.40
A
0.45
A
0.51
A
0.55
A
27
Placentia & 17th
0.40
A
0.62
B
0.37
A
0.54
A
0.46
A
0.61
B
28
Superior & 17th
0.53
A
0.82
D
0.52
A
0.62
B
0.60
A
0.65
B
30
Placentia & 16th
0.30
A
0.37
A
0.35
A
0.35
A
0.37
A
0.40
A
31
Superior & 16th
0.48
A
0.47
A
0.53
A
0.41
A
0.58
A
0.46
A
35
Harbor & Lake Center (Scenic)
0.54
A
0.62
B
0.65
B
0.61
B
0.58
A
0.57
A
36
Harbor & Sunflower
0.78
C
0.86
D
0.64
B
0.79
C
0.60
A
0.77
C
37
Susan & Sunflower
0.43
A
0.66
B
0.52
A
0.71
C
38
Fairview & Sunflower
0.69
B
0.68
B
0.74
C
0.71
C
0.71
C
0.76
C
39
Greenville & Sunflower
0.40
A
0.52
A
0.44
A
0.66
B
0.48
A
0.61
B
40 IRaitt
& Sunflower
0.30
A
0.47
A
0.52
A
0.56
A
0.57
A
0.63
B
41
Bear & Sunflower
0.31
A
0.52
A
0.42
A
0.68
B
0.44
A
0.62
B
42
Bristol & Sunflower
0.38
A
0.72
C
0.61
B
0.80
C
0.60
A
0.72
C
43
Harbor & South Coast
0.72
C
-02::. `:><?F.>
0.68
B
0.85
D
0.63
B
0.86
D
44
Susan & South Coast
0.27
A
0.38
A
0.33
A
0.44
A
45
Fairview & South Coast
0.64
B
0.64
B
0.74
C
0.82
D
0.71
C
0.74
C
47
Bear & South Coast
0.28
A
0.60
A
0.31
A
0.51
A
0.38
A
0.48
A
48
Bristol & Anton
0.33
A
0.62
B
0.39
A
0.65
B
0.41
A
0.69
B
55 Harbor & Gisler
0.73
C
0.75
C
0.74
C
0.71
C
0.69
B
0.70
B
56 1 Harbor & Baker _
0.67
B
0.85
D
0.53
A
0.63
B
0.54
A
0.66
B
57 Fairview & Baker
0.58
t A
0.73
C
0.76
C
0.77
C
0.75
C
0.69
B
58 Bear & Paularino
0.31
A
0.59
A
0.47
A
0.60
A
0.43
A
0.64
B
59 Bristol & Paularino
0.56
A
0.73
C
0.63
B
0.78
C
0.61
B
0.71
C
61 Bear & Baker
0.46
A
0.81
D
0.63 1
B
0.85
1
D
1
0.60
A
0.79
C
62 Bristol & Baker
0.46
A
0.71 1
C-11
0.61
B
0.76
C
0.56
A
0.73 1
C
V
TABLE 1
YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
10
ID Location
1993 Conditions
2000 Conditions
2001 Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
ICU LOS ICU LOS
AM Peak PM Peak
ICU LOS ICU LOS
AM
ICU
0.66
0.40
0.65
0.65
Peak
LOS
B
A
B
B
PM
ICU
0.89
0.58
0.79
0.79
Peak
LOS
D
A
C
C
s
63 Fairviewj&1
0.59 A 0.87 D
0.77 C 'i135zS s_E
65 Plaza & er
0.30 A 0.61 B
0.33 A 0.66 8
66 Orange
0.75 C 0.87 fl=
0.63 B 0.74 C
67 Santa Ah
68 Tustin &
0.43.
0.44
A
A
0.73
0.61
C
B
0.65
0.58
B
A
0.75
0.72
C
C
0.64
0.45
0.39
B
A
A
0.68
0.65
0.39
B
B
A
71 Park Ceunflower
0.32 A 0.57 A
0.39 A 0.72 C
72 Ave of the Arts & Sunflower
73 Sakioka/Flower & Sunflower
74 Anton & Sunflower
75 Bristol & Town Center
77 Park Center &Anton
78 Ave of the Arts &Anton
79 Sakioka & Anton
8/ Bear & Crystal CourVSCP
ry
82 Bear & Metro Point/May Co
83 Bristol & Lion/Holiday Inn
86 Red Hill & Paularino
89 Red Hill &Baker
90 Red Hill & Kalmus
91 Harbor & Nutmeg
92 College &Baker
93 Mendoza &Baker
94 Babb & Baker
95 Milbro &Baker
96 Shantar/Albatross & Adams
97 Mesa Verde East & Adams
98 Royal Palm & Adams
99 Pinecreek & Adams
100 Harbor &Mesa Verde
101 Harbor &Merrimac
102 Newport SB &Mesa
0.26
0.28
0.32
0.38
0.37
0.39
0.27
0.28
0.19
0.42
0.50
0.42
0.33
0.53
0.42
0.47
0.45
0.54
0.61
0.53
0.57
0.37
0.45
0.44
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
0.30
0.40
0.33
0.66
0.39
0.46
0.26
0.39
0.35
0.52
0.68
0.53
0.46
0.64
0.54
0.62
0.72
0.79
0.67
0.68
0.61
0.63
Q,B1
0.62
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
0.40
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.30
0.34
0.33
0.19
0.22
0.49
0.66
0.49
0.36
0.43
0.39 1
0.73
0.65
0.62
0.75
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P,
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
C
0.41
0.51
0.36
0.66
0.42
0.40
0.34
0.38
0.50
0.52
0.76
0.62
0.44
0.51
0.55
0.70
0.76
0.73
0.68
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
A
A
B
C
C
B
0.49
A
0.55
A
0.48 A 0.40
A
0.56 A 0.72
C
0.50 A 0.58
A
0.39 A 0.46
A
0.32 A 0.35
A
0.32 A 0.43
A
0.35 A 0.47
A
0.49 A 0.56
A
0.60 A 0.62
B
0.50 A 0.61
6
0.41 A 0.44
A
0.52 A 0.53
A
0.40 A 0.58
A
0.71 C 0.63
B
0.72 C 0.71
C
0.67 B 0.79
C
0.72 0.77
C
0.69 B 0.82 D
0.74 C 0.74
C
0.68 B 0.71 C
0.49 A 0.65 B
0.47 A 0.70 B
0.48 A 0.68 B
0.71 C 0.72
0.56 A 0.65
-j.-
47 A 0.67
0.50 A 0.69
C
B
B
B
103 Newport NB &Mesa
0.23
A
0.71
C
0.28
A
0.73
C
104 Loyola & Fair
105 City Hall/Fairgrounds & Fair
106 Newport SS & Fair/Del Mar
0.27
0.36
A
A
0.31
0.46
A
A
0.35
0.23
0.39
A
A
A
0.48
0.34
0:61
A
A
B
0.39
0.36
0.51
A
A
A
0.46
0.48
0.74
A
A
C
107 Newport NB &Del Mar
0.37
A
0.55
A
0.35
A
0.51
A
108 Harbor &Harbor Center
109 Newport NB &Santa Isabel 0.34
A
0.52
A
0.82
0.34
D
A
0.50
0.59
A
A
0.82
0.36
D
A
0.52
0.57
A
A
110 National & Victoria
111 Harbor & Hamilton 0.44
112 Harbor & Bay 0.30
113 Newport NB & Bay
A
A
A
0.60
0.55
0.55
A
A
A
0.46
0.46
0.66
0.47
0.27
A
B
A
A
0.33
0.67
0.59
0.47
A
B
A
A
0.49
0.73
0.50
0.33
A
C
A
A
0.40
0.72
0.63
0.50
A
C
8
A
114 Anaheim & 19th 0.52
115 Park & 19th 0.44
117 Bristol &Bear 0.31
A
A
A
0.83
0.56
0.51
D
A
A
0.42
0.55
0.44
0.42
A
A
A
A
0.42
0.63
0.57
0.61
A
B
A
B
0.44
0.55
0.45
0.43
A
A
A
A
0.46
0.65
0,54
0.53
A
B
q
A
10
TABLE 1
YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
ID
Location
1993 Conditions
2000 Conditions
2001 Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
AM Peak PM Peak
AM Peak PM Peak
ICU LOS ICU LOS
ICU I LOS ICU LOS
ICU LOS ICU LOS
118
Bristol & Randolph
0.25
A
0.35
A
0.31
A
0.40
A
0.33
A
0.45
A
122
Vanguard & Fair
0.36
_
A
0.49
A
0.42
A
0.61
B
0.47
A
0.63
B
123
Fairview & Paularino
0.44
A
0.54
.A:..
0.52
A
0.49
A
0.56
A
0.53
A
124
Fairview & Monitor
0.42
A
0.41
A
0.37
A
0.36
A
0.42
A
0.41
A
125
Fairview & Orange Coast College
0.31
A
0.44
A
0.46
1 A
0.39
A
0.34
A
0.42
A
126
Fairview & Arlington
0.30
A
0.39
A
0.32
A
0.42
A
0.32
A
0.41
A
127
jFairview & Merrimac
0.23
A
0.35
A
0.25
A
0.31
A
0.34
A
0.33
A
128
Harbor & Celesco Entrance
0.58
A
0.70
B
0.53
A
0.63
B
0.58
A
0.68
B
129
Meyer & 19th
0.41
A
0.49
A
0.44
A
0.56
A
130
Newport SB & Vanguard
0.17
A
0.34
A
0.18
A_
0.36
A
131
Newport SB & Bay
0.27
A
0.38
A
0.33
�A
0.44
A
132
lJian & Paularino
0.36
A
0.47
A
0.25
A
0.52
A
0.36
A
1 0.55
A
133
Placentia & Estancia N
0.27
A
0.30
A
0.26
A
0.30
A
0.30
Po
1 0.26
A
134
Placentia & Estancia S
0.40
A
0.40
A
0.28
A
0.24
A
0.37
A
0.30
A
135
South Coast & Metro Point West
0.23
A
0.24
A
0.19
A
0.29
A
0.21
A
0.31
A
136
South Coast & Metro Point East
0.13
A
0.26
A
0.21
A
0.26
A
137 American & Victoria
0.70
B
0.63
B
0.68
B
0.71
C
138
Victoria & Valley
0.53
A
0.61
B
0.67
B
0.70
B
0.70
B
0.77
C
139
Baker & Coolidge
1
0.51
A
0.75
C
INTERSECTIONS CONTROLLED BY CALTRANS
22
Newport & 19th
24
Newport & 18th
0.75
C
0.88
D
0.79
C
25
Newport & Harbor
P
0.62
B
0.80
C
0.65
B
0 .87
D
29
Newport & 17th
0.74
C
0.78
C
0.78
C
0.73
C
34
Newport & Industrial
0.53
A
0.55
A
0.61
B
0.61
B
46
1-405 NB Offramp & South Coast
0.30
A
0.40
A
0.35
A 1
0.47
A
49
Harbor & 1-405 NB Ramps
0.72
C
0.65
B
0.79
C
0.70
B
50
Harbor & 1-405 SB Ramps
0.47
A
0.60
A
0.48
A
0.61
B
51
Fairview & 1-405 NB Ramps
0.70
B
0.69
B
0.67
B
0.65
B
52
Fairview & 1405 SB Ramps
<161»
F
0.76
C
f #3t?
F<;;;
0.72
C
53
Bristol & I-405 NB Ramps
0.67
B
0.71
C
0.36
A
0.56
A
54
Bristol & 1-405 SB Ramps
0.52
A
0.68
B
0.44
A
0.60
A
60
Bear & SR -73 NB Ramps
0.45
A
0.58
A
0.43
A
0.54
A
70
Bear & SR -73 SB Ramps
0.45
A
0.62
B
0.41
A
0.56
A
84
SR -55 SB Ramps & Paularino
0.82
D
0.67
B
0.78
C
0.60
A
85
SR -55 NB Ramps & Paularino
0.63
B
0.87
D
0.57
A
0.84
D
87
SR -55 SB Ramps & Baker
0.72
C
0.87
D
0.70
B
0.69
B
88
SR -55 NB Frontage & Baker
0.85
D
0.89
D
0.76
C
0.77
C
116
Newport & Broadway
0.79
C
0.69
B
0.80
C
0.76
C
119
Bristol & Newport SS
0.36
A
0.65
B
0.26
A
0.63
B
120
Bristol & Newport NB
0.42
A
0.80
C
0.30
A
0.60
A
121
18ristol & Red Hill
0.72
C
0.68
B
0.79
C
0.68
B
0.60
A
0.79
C
INTERSECTION CONTROLLED BY NEWPORT BEACH
69
Irvine & 17th
0.56
A
0.79 1
C
0.57
A
0.77 1
C