Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Repeal of Council Policy L-18October 25, 1999 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: REPEAL OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY L -18 RECOMMENDATION: Repeal City Council Policy L -18, Administrative Procedure for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance in July 1999. One of the revisions was the inclusion of Administrative Procedures as Appendix A to the Ordinance. These revised Administrative Procedures supersede Council Policy L -18. It is recommended that Council Policy L -18 be repealed. Respectfully sub�pitt� C�� mil/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: C 4filn� c�a� Richard Edmonston, P.E. Transportation and Development Services Manager Attachments: Council Policy L -18 Administrative Procedures Appendix A 0 tx users% pMMsharedkound1Ty99 -0obdobea25%poticy 1•18.c L -18 F--1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE A. Administrative Procedures. 1. General. These procedures apply to all projects which have an Average Daily Trip generator of more than 300 daily trips. 2. Evaluating Projects. a. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire project, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Planning Department. The request must be accompanied by a project description, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. b. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer under contract to the City according to the methodology approved by the City Council. C. The traffic analysis shall evaluate the traffic generated from all proposed land uses. Subject to the provisions of subsection 2.d., in the case of conversion of an existing building to a more intense land use, the incremental difference in traffic generated by the development shall be evaluated. d. Traffic generated by both existing and proposed land uses shall be evaluated for any project proposed subsequent to, and within the time frame for analysis used by (one year subsequent to the anticipated date of occupancy), a previously approved Traffic Study. 3. Staff Recommendation. a. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Planning Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. 1 L -18 4. Planning Commission Review and Findings. The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department, at a duly noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: a. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has, in good faith and in reliance upon such permit, diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change, causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes, has been made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or b. The traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated Q from the project during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour period; or C. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation reduction measures: L will neither.cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary modified," or "primary" streets; or ii. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major," "primary modified," or "primary" streets; or may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major," "primary modified," or 0 2 Q L -18 "primary" streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities, for the following reasons: (specify) 5. Approval of Applications. A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for finding 4.a., 4.b., 4.c.i., or 4.c.ii. A four- fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding 4.c.iii. 6. Appeals. a. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. b. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Outline of Methodology for Traffic Analyses. 0 1. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for the a.m. and p.m. 2.5 Hour Peak Periods. a. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. b. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project (including those portions for which traffic analyses have been previously approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that a.m. and p.m. 2.5 hour peak periods. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding AA.b. may be made. 3 L -18 O2. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s). The report will indicate the following: a. Existing traffic. b. Projected increases in regional traffic by using the transportation model and average growth rate for each roadway over the preceding five (5) years. C. Projected traffic from committed projects including all projects within the City and sphere -of- influence including the Newport Dunes, the Irvine Coastal Area, Santa Ana Heights, Beeco - Banning property and additional projects as determined by the Traffic Engineer which would have significant traffic impacts in the City. d. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. e. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. 3. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section B.2, the following I.C.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted intersection. a. The existing I.C.U. b. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion. This I.C.U. calculation shall be based on all projected traffic sources except the proposed project. C. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion, based on all sources of 0 4 L -18 traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. . I.C.U. calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vphg for both through and turn lanes; no factor for yellow time shall be included. I.C.U. calculations shall be carried to three decimal places and rounded to two decimal places. C. Definitions and Analysis Restraints. 1. Traffic System Improvements. Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis for a proposed project, provided that: a. The improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the project or project phase for which the traffic analysis is being performed; and b. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or C. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. 2. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements. For purposes of the traffic analysis, 70% of the incremental increase in intersection capacity. (based on a capacity of 1600. vehicles per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of the improvement, traffic volume. counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. 3. Traffic Volumes. a. Traffic volumes shall be based on up -to -date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the project, 5 L -18 0 or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as determined by biennial field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. b. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the date of existing counts and one year after project completion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. 0 C. For making the 1% test of B.Lb., traffic volumes shall not be used which exceed the capacity of the circulation system specified in the General Plan. 0 It 4. Trip Generation. a. Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer. Standard trip generation rates may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce peak hour traffic generated by the project, provided that: 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced; and 2 L -18 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation. reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. b. Credit shall be given for existing uses on the project site except that no credit shall be given for any use that has been terminated for more than one year prior to the filing of an application for new development on the property. 5. Traffic Distribution. Traffic distribution shall be based on. the traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist at that time. 6. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System. If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consistent with the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such proposals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be used in the Traffic Analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council D. Issuance of Permits. Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appropriate finding under A.4. has been made. 1. Grading Permits. Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analysis if vesting rights associated with grading are waived by applicant. 7 L -18 0 2. Building Permits. Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: a. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or b. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improvement has accepted bids; or C. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. Adopted - February 26,1979 Amended - February 14,1994 Amended - November 23,1981 O Amended - November 12,1985 Amended - November 26,1987 Amended - November 27,1989 Amended - March 22,1993 Amended - January 24,1994 r , q Formerly S -1 APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 1. Gene These Administrative Procedures (Procedures) apply to any Project for which Traffic Study is required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). 2. Application. a. The proponent of any Project subject to the TPO shall: L file an application for a Traffic Study; ii. pay the required fees; and iii. sign an agreement to pay all costs related to the Traffic Study. b. The application shall be accompanied by the following information: L A complete description of the Project including the total amount of floor area to be constructed and the amount of floor area allocated to each proposed land use; ii. A Project site plan that depicts the location and intensity of proposed development, the location of points of ingress and egress, and the location of parking lots or structures; iii. Any proposed Project phasing; iv. Any trip reduction measure proposed by the Project proponent; V. Any information, study or report that supports any request by the Project proponent to use trip generation rates that differ from those used in the NBTAM or the most current version of the ITE Manual or the SANDAG Manual; and vi. Any other information that, in the opinion of the Traffic Manager, is necessary to properly evaluate the traffic impacts of the Project or the Circulation System Improvements that could mitigate those traffic impacts. 0 E 3. Traffic Study Assumptions. a. The definitions in Section 15.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be applicable to these Procedures. b. ICU calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for both through and turn lanes. No factor for yellow time shall be included in the lane capacity assumptions. ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each movement to three decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places. The increase in the ICU attributable to Project trips shall be calculated to three decimal places. The ICU shall then be rounded to two decimal places. For example, an ICU of .904 shall be rounded to .90 and an ICU of .905 shall be rounded to .91. C. Circulation System Improvements may be included in the Traffic Study for a Project provided that the Traffic Manager determines: i. The Improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the Project or Project phase for which the Traffic Study is being performed; and fl. The Improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis; or iii. The design of the Improvement is consistent with standard City design criteria or has been approved by the City Council, or other public entity with jurisdiction over the Improvement, and is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis. d. Traffic volumes shall be based on estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the Project, or that portion of the . Project . for which the . Traffic Study is being performed. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure use of the most accurate information to estimate traffic volumes one year after Project completion. Traffic volume estimates shall be based on: The most current field counts for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during. the morning and evening Peak Hour Period between February 1 and May 31; ii. Traffic generated by Committed Projects as determined in accordance with the TPO and these Procedures iii. Projects reasonably expected to be complete within the one 16 year after Project completion and which are located in the City of Newport Beach or its sphere of influence; iv. Increases in regional traffic anticipated to occur within one year after Project completion as projected in the NBTAM or other accepted sources of future Orange County traffic is growth; and V. Other information customarily used by Traffic Engineers to accurately estimate future traffic volumes. e. For purposes of the traffic analysis of Circulation System Improvements, seventy percent (70 %) of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vphg for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of any Circulation System Improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future Traffic Studies. f. Trip generation rates for the land uses contemplated by the Project shall be based on standard trip generation values utilized in NBTAM except as provided in this Subsection. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, use trip generation rates other than as specified in the NBTAM when NBTAM trip generation rates are based on limited information or study and there is a valid study of the trip generation rate of a similar land use that supports a different rate. g. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, reduce trip generation rates for some or all of the land uses contemplated by the Project based on speck trip reduction measures when: L The Project proponent proposes in writing and prior to commencement of the Traffic Study, specific and permanent. measures that will reduce Peak Hour Period trips generated by the Project; and ii. The Traffic Manager and Traffic Engineer, in the exercise of their best professional judgment, each determine that the proposed measure(s) will reduce Peak Hour Period Project trips and the specific reduction in Project trips that can reasonably be expected; and ill. The Project proponent provides the City with written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure(s) will be permanently implemented. The Project proponent must consent to make permanent implementation 17 of the measure(s) a condition to the approval of the Project, and the measure(s) shall be made a condition of the Project by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal. h. In determining Project trips, credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site. Credit shall be given based on the trip generation rates in the NBTAM. In the alternative, the Traffic Manager may, in the exercise of his/her professional judgment, authorize the use of trip generation rates in the ITE Manual, SANDAG Manual, or on the basis of actual site traffic counts. In the event the Project site has not been used for any purpose for a period of one (1) year prior to the filing of an application for a Traffic Study, credit shall be limited to trips generated by the last known land use, if any, that could be resumed with no discretionary approval. For any land use that is not active as of the date of the application for Traffic Study, the Project proponent shall have the burden of establishing that the use was in operation during the previous one (1) year period. i. The purpose of this Paragraph is to ensure that trips that would be generated upon completion of a Project approved pursuant to the TPO are incorporated into any subsequent Traffic Study conducted prior to completion of the Project and /or post- Project field counts specified in Section 3.d.i. A Committed Project is one that has been approved pursuant to the TPO, requires no further discretionary approval by the City, and has received, or is entitled to receive, a building or grading permit for construction of the Project or one or more phases of the Project. In preparing a Traffic Study, trips generated by Committed Projects shall be included subject to the following: i. All trips generated by each Committed Project or that portion or phase of the Committed Project for which no certificate of occupancy has been issued shall be included in any Traffic Study conducted prior to the Expiration Date of that Committed Project;. ii. In the event a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for one or more phases of a Committed Project, all trips shall be included in subsequent Traffic Studies until completion of the first field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) subsequent to the date on which the .final certificate of occupancy was issued. Subsequent to completion of the field counts, those trips generated by phases of the Committed Project that have received a final certificate of occupancy shall no longer be included in subsequent Traffic Studies. ' 16 r 4 iii. The Traffic Manager and Planning Director shall maintain a list of Committed Projects and, at least annually, update the list to reflect new Approvals pursuant to the TPO as well as completion of all or a portion of each Committed Project. A Committed Project shall not be removed frond the Committed Project list until a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for all phases and the field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) have been taken subsequent to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. iv. The total trips generated by Committed Projects shall be reduced by twenty percent (20 %) to account for the interaction of Committed Project trips. j. For purposes of Chapter 15.40 and these Procedures, the following Levels of Traffic Service ranges shall apply: A .00 -.60 ICU B .61 -.70 ICU C .71 -.80 ICU D .81 -.90 ICU E .91 —1.00 ICU F Above 1.00 ICU Initial Traffic Study Procedures. a. The Traffic Manager shall retain a qualified Traffic Engineer pursuant to contract with the City to prepare a Traffic Study for the Project in compliance with the TPO and the methodology specified in these Procedures. b. The Traffic Manager shall advise the Traffic Engineer of the methodology and assumptions required by these Procedures and provide the Traffic Engineer with a copy of the TPO and these Procedures. C. The Traffic Manager, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer and in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and principles, shall determine the most probable manner in which Project Trips will be distributed throughout the Circulation System. The determination of Project trip distribution shall be consistent with: i. the assumptions in NBTAM relative to the trip production and attraction characteristics of various land uses; and ii. previous trip distribution determinations for Projects of similar size and location; 19 0 Trip distributions shall be in increments of 5% of Project Trips. In no event shall Project trips be removed from any roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located except at a signalized intersection with another roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located. The determination of O Project trip distribution shall, in all cases, reflect the most probable movement of Project trips throughout the Circulation System. The Traffic Study shall clearly explain the rationale for the determination of Project trip distribution. d. The Traffic Engineer shall determine if Project trips will increase traffic on any leg of any Primary Intersection by one percent (1 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion. e. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that Project generated trips will not increase traffic by one percent (1 %) or more on any leg of any Primary Intersection during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion the analysis will be terminated. In such event the Traffic Study and worksheet shall be submitted to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Project be determined exempt from the TPO pursuant to Section 15.40.030 C.2. f. No mitigation shall be identified or required for any Primary Intersection unless Project trips increase traffic on one or more of O the legs of the intersection by one percent (1 %) or more during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period. 5. Traffic Study Methodoloqv. a. The Traffic Engineer, in preparing the Traffic Study, shall evaluate the impact of Project trips generated from all proposed land uses based on the assumptions specified in Section 3 and the methodology specified in this Section. b. In the case of conversion of an existing structure to a more intense land use, the incremental increase In trips generated by the Project shall be evaluated. In the event the uses within the existing structure changed during the preceding twelve (12) months, the differential shall be calculated on the basis of the prior use or uses with the highest trip generation rates according to the NBTAM (or ITE Manual or SANDAG Manual as appropriate). c. Project trips shall be distributed in accordance with the determination specked in Subparagraph 4c. d. The following ICU calculations shall be perfonned for each Primary OIntersection where, one year after Project completion, Project generated trips will increase traffic by one percent (1 %) or more on 20 any leg of the Primary Intersection during any morning and /or evening Peak Hour Period: i. The existing ICU; ii. The ICU, with Circulation System Improvements that will be in place within one year after Project completion, based on all projected traffic including regional traffic increases and trips generated by Committed Projects excluding Project generated trips; and iii. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips; iv. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager V. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any mitigation resulting from Improvements V1. The ICU in (v) with trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager. e. The Traffic Study shall, for each Impacted Primary Intersection with an Unsatisfactory Level of Service (ICU of .905 or more) that has been caused or made worse by Project generated trips, identity each Feasible Improvement that could mitigate some or all of the impacts of Project trips. The Traffic Study shall also determine the extent to which the Improvement provides additional capacity for critical movements at the Impacted Primary Intersection in excess of the Project trips and any other information relevant to the calculation of any fee required by the TPO. f. The Traffic Study shall, for each Improvement identified pursuant to Subsection e., estimate the cost of making the Improvement including the cost of property acquisition, design, and construction. The Traffic Engineer may perform the cost estimate or, with the approval of the Traffic Manager, retain a civil engineer or other qualified professional to prepare the cost estimates. g. The determination of "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" as described in Section 15.40.030 B.1.d. shall be made as specified in this Subparagraph. i. In determining the "effective capacity increase" attributable to any Improvement to any Primary Intersection, the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU with existing, committed and regional strips (Future W/O Project ICU). Then the ICU shall be calculated with existing, committed and regional trips and the Improvement (Improved W/O 21 Project ICU). The "effective capacity increase" shall be determined by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Future W/O Project ICU. O ii. In determining the "effective capacity decrease" attributable to Project trips the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU of the Primary Intersection with existing, committed and regional trips, Project trips and the Improvement (Improved With Project ICU). The "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Improved With Project ICU. iii. For example, if the Future W/O Project ICU is .92 and the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 the "effective capacity increase" is 10. If the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 and the Improved ICU With Project ICU is .87 the "effective capacity decrease" is 5. Assuming the cost of the Improvement is $100,000 the contribution of the Project would be $50,000 ($100,000 multiplied by 5/10). h. The Traffic Study shall also provide the Planning Commission with any additional information relevant to the findings or analysis required by the TPO. 6. Staff Analysis Oa. The Traffic Engineer shall transmit a draft Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager for review, comment and correction. The Traffic Manager shall review the draft Traffic Study and submit corrections to the Traffic Engineer within 15 days after receipt. The Traffic Engineer shall make the corrections within ten (10) days of receipt and transmit the final Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager. b. The Traffic Manager shall transmit the final Traffic Study to the Planning Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. 7. Issuance of Permits. The City shall not issue building, grading or other permits for a Project Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.1.b., 15.40.030 B.1.c., or 15.40.030 B.2. until each Improvement that has been assumed to be in place for purposes of Project Approval, or is to be constructed or funded as a condition to Project Approval, satisfies the following criteria: a. The Improvement has been budgeted and committed for construction by or on behalf of the City; or b. The State, County or other governmental agency making the Improvement has accepted bids for the Project; or 22 ,I [l a a C. The Improvement has been approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions and is to be constructed by the Project proponent in conjunction with development of the Project or the Project proponent has guaranteed construction of the Improvement through the posting of bonds or other form of assurance. Reimbursement Programs. a. The City Council may establish Reimbursement Programs to ensure Project conditions are roughly proportional to Project impacts and to facilitate the prompt construction of Improvements to mitigate the impact of Project trips. A Reimbursement Program may be proposed by the City Manager to the City Council whenever he /she becomes aware of the potential for multiple Projects to impact a Primary Intersection and a Feasible Improvement may be required of one or more of the Projects because of the impact of Project trips. b. A Reimbursement Program shall have the following components: i. Identification of the Feasible Improvement(s) including, without limitation, preliminary design and cost estimates and the estimated date of completion of the Feasible Improvement(s); ii. Calculation of the "effective capacity increase" attributable to the Feasible Improvement(s); iii. The amount of the cost of the Feasible Improvement for which the City or Project Proponent shall be entitled to reimbursement from subsequent or contemporaneous Projects; iv. The duration of the shall be required Projects. . Committed Improvements: period during which Reimbursement of subsequent or contemporaneous In the case of Projects Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 13.1.d., the Improvement(s) assumed to be completed within forty -eight (48) months after Project Approval shall be listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council shall not remove the Improvement(s) from the CIP unless a different Improvement (Substitute Improvement) is identified and the Substitute Improvement will result in reductions in the ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection that equal or exceed the reduction(s) in ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection(s) that were assumed or projected when the Project was Approved. 23 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX B PRIMARY INTERSECTIONS Bayview & Bristol Birch & Bristol North Birch & Bristol Campus & Bristol Campus & Bristol North Campus & Von Karman Coast Highway & Avocado Coast Highway & Bayside Coast Highway & Dover/Bayshore Coast Highway & Goldenrod Coast Highway & Jamboree Coast Highway & MacArthur Coast Highway & Marguerite Coast Highway & Newport Center Coast Highway & Newport Ramp Coast Highway & Orange Coast Highway & Poppy Coast Highway & Riverside Coast Highway & Tustin Coast Highway & Superior Dover & 16th Dover & Westcliff Irvine & Dover /W Irvine & Highland/2& Irvine & Mesa Irvine & Santiago/22nd Irvine & University Irvine & Westcliff /17th Jamboree & Bayview Jamboree & Birch Jamboree & Bison Jamboree & Bristol North Jamboree & Bristol Jamboree & Campus Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff Jamboree & MacArthur Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Jamboree & Santa Barbara Jamboree & University/Eastbluff MacArthur & Birch MacArthur & Bison MacArthur & Campus MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills MacArthur & San Miguel MacArthur & Von Karman Marguerite & San Joaquin Hills Newport & Hospital Newport &Via Lido Newport & 32nd Placentia & Superior San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 24 STATE OF CALIFORNIA I COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LAVONNE M. HARKLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing; ordinance, being Ordinance No. 99 -17 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 12th day of July, 1999, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Adams, Glover, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil Noes: None Absent: Thomson Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and. affixed the official seal of said City this 13th day of July, 1999. (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA I COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California OF PUBLICATION I, LAVONNE M. HARIMESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. 99-17 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City Council of said City and that same was so published in The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper of general circulation on the following date, to wit: July 17, 1999. In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this day of 1999. City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California Ll 0