HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 CONGEST MGMNT 04-01-91BATE:
TO:
FROM:
APRIL 1, 1991
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TEAM
:PUBLIC HEARING N0. 3
Inter - Com
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 1062, ADOPTING TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIED NEW DEVELOPMENTS; AND APPROVAL OF
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPONENTS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. By minute order, waive first reading and introduce Ordinance
No. 1062, by title only.
2. Approve the Congestion Management Plan Level of Service
Calculations, by minute order.
3. Approve the Seven Year Congestion Management Program Capital
Improvement Program, by minute order.
4. Authorize staff to submit the required Congestion Management
Program components to the Orange County Transportation
Authority, upon their final approval.
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 1990, California voters approved Proposition 111 which
authorized the imposition of a nine cent per gallon gasoline tax to
fund various transportation improvements throughout the State.
Overall, the new gas tax is estimated to raise $18.5 billion
Statewide. Of this amount, Orange County's share is estimated at
$1.7 billion over a ten year period. The City of Tustin's share of
these subventions has been estimated. at approximately $6.6 million.
With the voter approval of Proposition 111, Assembly Bill 1791
(originally Assembly Bill 471) automatically became effective. In
order to qualify for new gas tax funds, AB -1791 requires urbanized
cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and implement a Congestion
Management Program (CMP). The primary goal of the CMP is to
promote a regional coordinated planning effort to deal with traffic
congestion by incorporating Federal, State, and local agencies,
businesses, private groups, and environmental interests into the
program by conditioning the eligibility to receive the new gas tax
subvention on the adoption and implementation of a CMP.
Further, in order to be eligible for the new funding, the City of
Tustin must adopt and annually demonstrate an integration and
application of CMP requirements into the land use decision making
process.
As mandated by the legislation, the following components must be
included in the regional CMP:
A. Land Use Coordination: As part of the CMP, a program that
analyzes the impacts of land use decisions made by local
jurisdictions on regional transportation systems must be
established. The program shall also estimate the costs
associated with mitigating identified impacts.
B. Transportation Modeling: The development of a database and
transportation modeling system that are consistent with those
used by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) is required.
C. Level of Service (LOSS.: Traffic Level of Service standards
must be established for the CMP Highway System which shall
include at a minimum all State highways and principal
arterials. In Tustin, the CMP Highway System includes:
Edinger Avenue from SR -55 to the eastern City limit, Irvine
Boulevard from SR -55 to the eastern City limit, and Jamboree
Road from Irvine Boulevard to Edinger Avenue.
D. Public Transit Standards: Standards for the frequency and
routing of public transit must be established, and transit
service provided by separate operators must be coordinated.
E. Transportation Demand Management (TDM):- All jurisdictions
must adopt and implement a TDM ordinance that promotes
alternative transportation methods.
F. LOS Deficiency Plans: LOS Deficiency Plans must be prepared
to describe how excessive congestion on the CMP Highway System
can be mitigated in those cases where acceptable LOS cannot be
met at certain locations.
G. Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A seven-year CIP must be
established to maintain or improve LOS and transit performance
standards, as well as assist in achieving congestion
management and air quality improvement objectives.
H. Annual Monitoring: The Congestion Management Agency (CMA),
which in Orange County will be the Orange County
Transportation Authority, shall annually determine if the
County and Cities are conforming with CMP requirements and
shall monitor the implementation by each jurisdiction of all
elements of the CMP.
It should be noted that the responsibility for preparation of the
different components will be assigned to either the individual
cities or the County, as determined by the County's CMP Technical
Advisory Committee and Policy Advisory Committee. Thus, not all of
the above components will be directly prepared by the City of
Tustin.
For the first year, all Orange County cities are required to
prepare only three of the components. Specifically, development of
a TDM ordinance, LOS component, and CIP component all must be
prepared by the City and submitted to the Congestion Management
Agency no later than April 30, 1991, in order to facilitate
adoption of the County -wide CMP in June, 1991. The following is a
brief discussion of each of these three components as they relate
to the City of Tustin. An attached workbook containing each of the
support documents for each component has also been provided to the
City Council.
TDM Ordinance
The County's CMP Technical Advisory Committee has provided all
cities in Orange County with a model TDM ordinance which they have
requested each city to utilize as close as possible. Staff has
made only minor modifications to the model ordinance based on local
conditions. County staff has given the proposed ordinance
preliminary review and found it acceptable.
The principal provisions of the City of Tustin's TDM Ordinance are
as follows:
1. Applies to non-residential public and private development
.proposals projected to generate more than 100 employees with
methodology for determining projected employment for specified
land use proposals.
2. Mandatory facility -based development standards (conditions of
approval) would apply to those proposals that exceed the
established employment threshold. These may include
preferential parking for carpool vehicles, bicycle parking
facilities, bus stop improvements (such as bus pads and bus
benches), and shower and locker facilities.
3. Contains provisions for implementation of operational programs
and strategies that target the property owner or designee
(employer) and require annual submittal of reports to the City
which analyze the effectiveness of programs and strategies
proposed for the.facility(ies).
4. Contains provisions regarding implementation and monitoring by
City.
5. Contains provisions regarding enforcement and penalties.
The Orange County CMP work program calls for adoption of the TDM
Ordinance by the County and all cities within the County by April,
1991. This is necessary so that the Trip Reduction and Travel
Demand Element required by AB -1791 can be in place prior to
adoption of the County -wide CMP by the Orange County Transportation
Authority and subsequent submittal to SCAG in June, 1991.
Correspondence regarding the City's proposed ordinance has been
received from the Building Industry Association of Southern
California Orange County Region and from the Commercial Industrial
Development Association. Copies of the letters received are
attached for the Council's review.
LOS Calculations
The determination of the Level of Service (LOS) for particular
locations is the initial step in identifying possible impacts and
defining any necessary mitigation measures. LOS is a device
developed to rate the' quality of operation of a transportation
system. It is calculated by comparing travel demand to system
capacity and graded A to F based on increasing levels of
congestion.
AB -1791 requires that a highway system, including all State
highways and principal arterials, be designated by the regional
agency. As required, the CMP Highway System for Orange County
including all State highways and principal arterials is defined as
the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) adopted
Superstreet Network.
As mentioned earlier, the following CMP Highway System Links within
the City of Tustin have been identified:
* Edinger Avenue from SR -55 to the eastern City limit
* Irvine Boulevard from SR -55 to the eastern City limit
* Jamboree Road from Irvine Boulevard to Edinger Avenue
Specifically analyzed were the following four key intersections:
* Jamboree Road/Edinger Avenue
* Jamboree Road/Irvine Boulevard
* Irvine Boulevard/SR-55 Northbound Ramps
* Edinger Avenue/SR-55 Northbound Ramps
In order to establish levels of service, the CMP requires an
average of three days of A.M. and P.M. peak hour turn movement
counts, and a calculation of the existing levels of service based
on the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method. This
methodology is generally compatible with the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) techniques while being simpler to apply.
Based upon the average peak hour turn movement counts, Levels of
Service have been calculated at the four key intersections. The
resulting level of service for each intersection was determined by
applying the ICU against the level of service factors. The highest
ICU (.720) or LOS "C" was noted at the SR -55 northbound ramps at
Edinger Avenue during the A.M. peak hour. The lowest ICU (.380) or
LOS "A" occurred at the SR -55 northbound off -ramp at Irvine
Boulevard during the P.M. peak hour.
As a general note of caution, the extent of current construction
activity associated with SR -55 will limit the applicability of
current data for Irvine Boulevard in future analyses. It is
expected that this current construction has resulted in low traffic
volume on Irvine Boulevard, particularly near SR -55, with
corresponding increases on alternative routes. The future
extension of, and connection of Jamboree Road segments south of
Edinger Avenue will undoubtedly result in significant volume
increases. This factor will also need to be taken into
consideration in future applications of the current data.
The CMP Highway System links within the City of Tustin were also
analyzed. The analysis applied Volume/Capacity ratio for CMP links
along these roadways. This initial screening device was intended
to determine if additional study of these links would be required.
Link capacity problems were not noted, therefore further analysis
is not required.
The analysis has shown that these roadways, under present
conditions, are operating at LOS "A", except for the Irvine
Boulevard link from Tustin Ranch Road to Newport Avenue which
operates at LOS "C".
CMP Capital Improvement Program
Section 65089(b)(5) of AB 1791 states that "A seven year capital
improvement program to maintain or improve the traffic level of
service and transit performance standards (shall be] developed."
Projects included in the City of Tustin's CIP are those which
maintain. and/or improve traffic conditions on the CMP Highway
System or adjacent facilities which provide transit and air quality
benefits, in addition to traditional capital projects, such as
street improvements. Maintenance, .rehabilitation, and
reconstruction projects can not be included in the Congestion
Management Program CIP.
In development of the CIP, two strategies recommended by the County
were utilized to assist cities in determining the identification of
various projects:
1. Projects which could be eligible to secure State/Federal
funding through the State Transportation'Improvement Program
and/or Congestion Management Program.
2. Projects which meet or maintain the identified LOS standards.
This course of action will ultimately enhance the City's chances of
competing for other funding programs such as the Statewide
Transportation System Management (TSM) Program, the Federal Aid
Urban (FAU) Program, and others.
The CMP CIP will be updated annually, during the City's budget
cycle.
CONCLUSION
Attached for the City Council's information is a copy of a
memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the legal implications
of the Congestion Management Program. Each of the above components
was prepared in accordance with AB -1791 and all data was collected
and analyzed as necessary to achieve compliance with the CMP
requirements.
Recognizing that the CMP is a new program, each component should be
perceived as a dynamic, evolving document which will be updated and
revised as needed.
Christine A. Shing on
Assistant City Maa r
CAS,RSL:lmh:cmphear
Attachments
'ale
Robert S. Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
ORDINANCE NO. 1062
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
AMENDING ARTICLE 9 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BY ADOPTING
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
SPECIFIED NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section I Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is amended by
adding a new Chapter 9 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 9
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
9901 PURPOSE
A. The purpose of this Chapter is to meet the requirements
of State law for development of a trip reduction and
travel demand element as part of the City's Congestion
Management Program (hereafter referred to as CMP)and
adoption and implementation of a Trip Reduction and
Travel Demand Ordinance.
New commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development
including employment centers of 100 persons or more may
adversely impact existing transportation and parking
facilities, resulting in increased motor vehicle
emissions, deteriorating levels of service, and possibly
significant additional capital expenditures to augment
and improve.the existing transportation system. In order
to more efficiently utilize the existing and planned
transportation system and to reduce vehicle emissions.
The existence of this chapter is intended to achieve the
following objectives:
1. Reduce the number of peak -period vehicle trips
generated in association with additional development;
2. Promote and encourage the use of alternative
transportation modes such as ridesharing, carpools,
vanpools, public bus and rail transit, bicycles and
walking, as well as those facilities that support
such modes;
3. Achieve related reductions in vehicle trips, traffic
congestion, and public expenditure and achieve air
quality improvements through utilization of existing
local mechanisms and procedures for project review and
permit processing;
4. Promote coordinated implementation of strategies on a
countywide basis to reduce transportation demand;
- 5. Achieve the most efficient use of local resources
through coordinated and consistent regional and/or
local Transportation Demand Management (hereafter
referred to as TDM) programs.
9902 SCOPE
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all new and
expanded projects that are estimated to result in
employment of a total of 100 or more persons based on a
total employment projection developed by the City of
Tustin using the employee generation factors by type of
use promulgated by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
The employment projection for a development of mixed or
multiple uses shall be calculated based on the proportion
of development devoted to each type of use utilizing
employee generation factors by type of use promulgated by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
This Chapter is not intended to supersede or replace the
obligation of any property owner or business owner to
comply with other TDM Program requirements including
those contained in and implemented by Regulation XV of
the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
9903 DEFINITIONS
A. The following terms as used in this Chapter shall have
the following meanings:
Alternative Transportation Modes - any mode of travel
that serves as an alternative to the single occupant
motorized vehicle. This can include all forms of
ridesharing such as carpooling or vanpooling, as well as
public transit, bicycling or walking.
Applicable Development - any new development project that
is determined to meet or exceed the employment threshold
using the criteria contained in Section 9902 of this
ordinance.
Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) - is calculated by
dividing the number of employees who report to the
worksite or other work-related activity between 6 a.m.
and 10 a.m., Monday through Friday, by the number of
vehicles driven by these employees over that five-day
period. The AVR ,calculation requires that a
five -consecutive -weekday average be used. The averaging
period cannot contain -a holiday. An example of
calculating AVR using a weekly averaging period for an
employer with 300 employees all reporting to work between
6 a.m. and 10 a.m., Monday through Friday, is:
-2-
Emp. aes reporting to work:
Monday -
300
Tuesday -
300
Wednesday -
300
Thursday -
300
Friday -
+300
1500
Total number of commute motorized vehicles driven
to the worksite by these employees
Monday -
270
Tuesday -
250
Wednesday -
280
Thursday -
265
Friday -
+262
1327
1500 divided by 1327 equals 1.13 AVR•
This calculation does not include any credits for
telecommuting, clean fueled vehicles, or compressed
work weeks.
Congestion Management Program - a State mandated plan
implemented through Assembly Bill No. 1791 to promote
a coordinated approach to land use and transportation
decisions.
Developer - the builder who is responsible for the
planning, design and construction of an applicable
development project. A developer may be responsible for
implementing the, provisions of this Ordinance as
determined by the property owner.
Discretionary - an action regulated by one's own choice.
Employee - any person employed by a firm, person(s),
business, educational institution, non-profit agency or
corporation, or other entity which employs 100 or more
persons ata single worksite.
Employment Generation Factors - factors developed for use
by the jurisdiction for projecting the potential
employment of any proposed development project. For
purposes of this chapter employee generation factors by
type of use shall be those promulgated by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers.
Employer - any person(s), firm, business, educational
institution, non-profit agency or corporation, or other
entity which employs 100 or more persons at a single
worksite, and may either be a property owner or tenant of
an applicable development project.
-3-
Facility the total of all buildi. structures and
grounds that encompass a worksite, at either single or
multiple locations, that comprise or are associated with
an applicable development project.
Level of Service (LOS) - a measure of the operational
quality of a road or intersection ranging from LOS A
( best) to LOS F (worst) . As required by CMP legislation,
the LOS standard for the CMP Highway System must be at
"E" or at the existing LOS, whichever is further from LOS
"A", for any intersection or roadway segment.
Mixed -Use Development - new development projects that
combine any one of these land uses with another:
residential, office, commercial, light industrial, and
business park.
New Development Project - any non-residential project
being processed after the effective date of this Chapter
where discretionary action by a decision-making body is
required.
Operational Programs and Strategies - implementation of
a range of techniques that require ongoing monitoring
that can effect actual business operations and employee
behavior at the facility or worksite to encourage
reduction in peak -hour vehicle trips and use of
alternative transportation modes. These techniques may
range from establishment of ridesharing programs to the
use of parking fees, cash allowances or other incentives
or disincentives. Operational programs and strategies
are distinct from facility standards which encourage trip
reduction through modifications in facility or worksite
design.
Peak -Period - those hours of the business day between 6
a.m. and 10 a.m. inclusive, Monday through Friday.
Property Owner - the legal owner of the applicable
development project who serves as the lessor to an
employer or tenant. The property owner shall be
responsible for complying with the provisions of this
Ordinance either directly or by delegating such
responsibility, as appropriate, to an employer or tenant.
Reciprocal Preferential Carpools Parking Agreement - A
document between landowners and/or tenants which the
City approves.
Site Development Plan%Permit - a precise plan of
development that may be subject to public hearing before
the Planning Commission and as more fully described in
Design Review Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code.
-4-
Tenant - -z lessee of facility spad, t an
applicable development project who also serves as an
employer. A tenant may be responsible for implementing
the provisions for this Ordinance as determined by the
property owner.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - the
implementation of programs, plans or policies designed to
encourage changes in individual travel behavior. TDM
can include an emphasis on alternative travel modes to
the single occupant vehicle (SOV), such as carpools,
vanpools and transit; reduction or elimination of the
number of vehicle trips, or shifts in the time of
vehicle commutes to other than the peak -period.
Trip Reduction - reducing the number of work related
trips taken between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. Monday through
Friday, in SOVs.
Worksite - a building, or grouping of buildings
located within the City which are in actual physical
contact or separated solely by a private or public
roadway or other private or public right-of-way, and
which are owned or operated by the same employer
or by employers under common control.
9904 FACILITY STANDARDS
Developers of new and expanded non-residential properties
shall provide the following trip reduction support
facilities within each development which the City
approves:
A. Preferential Parking for Carpool Vehicles.
At least 10$ of the employee parking spaces shall be
reserved and designated for carpool vehicles by marking
such spaces "Carpool Only". Carpool spaces shall be used
only by carpool vehicles in which at least two of the
persons will be employees or tenants of the proposed
project, or where a reciprocal preferential carpool
parking agreement with other developments has been
established. Such carpool spaces shall be.located near
the building entrance(s) or at other preferential
locations within the employee parking areas as approved
by the City's Traffic Engineer or his/her designee.
For purposes of this -and other sections, the factors
listed below shall be used by the City to determine the
number of employee parking spaces. The City recognizes
the importance of reserving spaces for visitors, the
handicapped and executives in preferential locations.
-5-
,neral
Type of Use
Perck of Total Parking
Devoted to Employee Parking
Business and Professional
Offices (excluding Medical/
Dental) 85%
Hospital and Medical/
Dental offices 70%
Commercial uses 30%
Industrial Uses 90%
Warehousing/Storage 90%
B. Bicycle Parking Facilities.
Bicycle racks or parking facilities shall be provided in
a secure'location for use by employees or tenants who
commute to the site by bicycle. A bicycle parking
facility or rack shall be a stationary object to which
the user can lock the bicycle frame and both wheels with
a user -provided cable, chain and/or lock. Said facility
shall support bicycles in a stable position with no
damage to wheels, frames or components. Such spaces shall
be located near a building's employee entrance(s) or
other high visibility locations as approved by the City.
The intent of this section is to provide facilities which
fulfill security and accessibility needs of bicyclists
while preserving the visual appearance of a development.
Parking for 5 bicycles shall be provided for every 100
employees or fraction thereof.
C. Shower and Locker Facilities.
Shower and locker room facilities for employees of
each sex shall be provided in each building of 100,000
or more gross square feet. For any Development
containing 100,000 or more total combined gross square
feet, but which does not contain any single building
of 100,000 or more gross square feet, the City Planning
Commission may elect, at its discretion, to approve a
requirement imposed by City staff on such development to
provide shower and locker room facilities.
D. Trip Reduction Information.
All Applicable Developments shall include, on site,
appropriate signage and/or informational boards for the
education of employees and tenants and marketing of
alternate commute modes. Applicable Developments shall
include, in a central location accessible to all employees
and tenants, a commuter information center with current
transit maps, routes and schedules for public transit;
ridesharing match lists; available employee incentives;
and ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter -
oriented organizations.
om
E. Carpool a. lanpool Loading Areas.
The City Traffic Engineer or his/her designee shall
determine the necessity for the design and location
of passenger loading areas to embark and disembark
passengers from carpool and vanpool vehicles if determined
necessary. A typical passenger loading area shall be
equivalent in size to 1% of the required parking for the
site. Such passenger loading areas shall be located as
close as reasonable to the building employee entrance(s)
and should be designated in a manner that does not impede
vehicular circulation in the parking area, City
streets, or fire, police and paramedic access to the
Applicable Development.
F. Bus Stop Improvements.
Bus stop improvements including bus pullouts, bus
pads, bus shelters and any necessary right-of-way for bus
shelters, shall be required for all Applicable
Developments located along high traf f is volume streets and
established bus routes where required by the City.
Bus stop improvements shall be designed and located
in. accordance with local transit agency design guidelines
and is subject to approval of the City Traf f is Engineer or
his/her designee which approval shall be based on traffic
engineering principles including, but not limited to the
following:
1. The frequency and relative impact of blocked
traffic due to stopped buses;
2. The level of transit ridership at the location.
Approval from the City's Department of Community
Development shall also be required for the actual
architectural design of any proposed bus stop improvement -
or shelter.
9905 TRIP REDUCTION/TDM STRATEGY PLAN AND ANNUAL REPORT
A. Prior to issuance of building permits for any phase
of an Applicable Development, the Developer or Property
Owner or their designee shall develop a Trip Reduction/
TDM program for the entire proposed development
site, including any anticipated phasing and shall
submit such plan to the City Traff is Engineer or his/her
designee. The TDM must be designed to reduce trips to
achieve 1.5 AVR.
The plan shall identify initial
proposed programs and strategies
objectives which may include, bu
following:
-7-
Trip Reduction/TDM
to achieve the AVR
t are not limited to, the
1. Esta shment of carpool, buspot or vanpool
programs;
2. Vanpool purchase incentives;
3. Cash allowances, passes or other public transit
subsidies and purchase incentives;
4. Parking fees for SOVs;
5. Full or partial parking subsidies for ridesharing
vehicles;
6. Preferential parking for ridesharing vehicles;
7. Computerized commuter rideshare matching service;
8. Guaranteed ride -home program for ridesharing;
9. Alternative work week and flex -time schedules;
10. Telecommuting or work -at-home programs;
11. On-site lunch rooms/cafeterias;
12. On-site commercial services such as banks,
restaurants and small retail;
13. On-site day care facilities;
14. Designation of an on-site Transportation Coordinator
for the project.
B. Single-phase development projects shall achieve TDM AVR
objectives within five years of issuance of any
certificate of occupancy. Multi -phased projects shall
achieve the objectives for each phase within three years
of the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
C. An applicant may perform the TDM programs through tenants
or lessees in the project. However, agreements that
tenants or lessees will so perform shall not relieve
applicant or its successors of that duty to perform or
require performance.
D. If conditioned as part of subdivision approval of a
project, recorded Codes, Covenants and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) shall include provisions to guarantee adherence
to the TDM objectives and perpetual operation of the TDM
program regardless of property ownership, inform all
subsequent property owners of the requirements imposed
herein, and identify potential consequences of non-
performance.
on-
performance.
Each space use agreement (i.e., lease document) shall
also include TDM provisions for the site as a means to
inform and commit tenants to and participate in helping
specific Applicable Developments meet TDM performance
requirements.
E. Annual Report
1. All property owners or their designees shall submit
an annual status report on the TDM program to the
City Traffic Engineer or his/her designee
beginning a year after the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy. The report shall be
prepared in the form and format designated by the
City which must either approve or disapprove the
program within 60 days.
WIC
2. The Performance Reports shal ocus on
ridesharing and trip reduction incentives offered
by the project and shall consist of a report that:
a. estimates AVR levels attained;
b. verifies that the plan incentives have been
offered;
C. Describes use of those incentives offered by
employers;
d. evaluates why the plan did or did not work, and
an explanation of why the revised plan is likely
to achieve the AVR target levels; and
e. lists additional incentives which can be
reasonably expected to correct deficiencies.
3. In the event that TDM objectives are not met, the
City shall notify the property owner in
writing of failure to comply. If the TDM
performance objectives are not satisfied, the
property owner shall either:
a. Submit to the City within 3 0 days of notification
by City a list of TDM measures that will be
implemented to meet the TDM objectives within 180
days of written notification by the City of
Tustin. At the end of the 180 -day period, the
property owner shall submit a revised performance
report to determine compliance with TDM
objectives. No further measures will be
necessary if the TDM objectives are met.
b. Should the TDM objectives not be satisfied by the
end of the 180 -day period, the property owner(s)
.shall pay a TDM penalty fee to the City in an
amount determined by Resolution of the City
Council. Said penalty fee shall be used to
improve street capacity through construction of
physical improvements to be selected by the City
of Tustin from the list of areawide improvements
identified in the City's CMP.
Appeal of any decision regarding the Trip
Reduction Annual Report/TDM may be brought
forward to the City Council for appeal pursuant
to appeal procedures identified in Section 9906D
and 9906E of this Chapter.
9906 ADMINISTRATION
A. For the purpose of determining whether Applicable
Developments are complying with the provisions of this
Chapter, the Developer shall submit project compliance
data/report certifying that requirements of this Chapter
have been implemented. City shall monitor such
compliance in a manner it deems appropriate and
reasonable. Monitoring mechanisms may include, but not
be limited to, the following:
1. To veri compliance with the Facil 1 Standards
required under Section 9904:
a. Local procedures for design review, as
appropriate;
b. Field - Site inspections;
C. Other building site reports/surveys which the
City of Tustin may deem appropriate.
2. To monitor compliance with requirements for Trip
Reduction/TDM programs and strategies under Section
9905, the City Traffic Engineer or his/her designee
may:
a. Review and approve the baseline Trip
Reduction/TDM Plan submitted per Section 9905
following consultation/negotiation with the
building owner or designee (employer);
b. Review and approve the Annual Reports per Section
9905;
C. Require other reports, site surveys, or
.operational audits which may be deemed
appropriate as determined by the City Traffic
Engineer or his/her designee.
B. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this
Chapter, the City shall initiate enforcement action(s)
following written notice to the property owner or designee
(employer), which may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. To enforce compliance with the Facility Standards
under Section 9904:
a. Withhold issuance of a Building Permit or
Certificate of Use and Occupancy;
b. Issue a Stop Work Order.
2. To enforce compliance with the Trip Reduction/TDM
programs and strategies under Section 9905:
a. Withhold issuance of a Building Permit
until the initial Plan as specified in Section
9905 is submitted.
b. Impose a penalty fee, in an amount as may be
determined by resolution of the City Council
if the Annual Report is not submitted within 30
days following written notice from the City
Traffic Engineer or his/her designee.
-10-
C. Im, e a penalty fee, in an at At as may be
determined by resolution of the City Council, if an
initial Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan or
subsequent Annual Report modifications thereto are
not implemented as approved by the City
Traffic Engineer or his/her designee.
d. Notification of failure to comply with or make
reasonable progress toward the AVR performance
standards established in Section 9905 and those
strategies contained in the Trip Reduction/TDM
Strategy Plan when monitoring by the City Traffic
Engineer or his/her designee determines that such
compliance or progress is not being achieved.
Following such notice, the City may request
modifications in the mix of operational programs
and strategies under Section 9905 to be implemented
in order to remedy inadequate or non-performance.
If non-compliance or reasonable progress is not
completed or remedied following requested
modification by the City, the City may impose a
Performance Penalty Fee in an amount as determined
by resolution of the City Council.
3. The Facility Standards under Section 9904 and
the Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan under Section
9905 can include provisions to guarantee perpetual
compliance regardless of changes in property/ ownership
through recorded CC&Rs.
C. For purposes of meeting its obligations under this
Chapter, the City may impose the following fees:
1. A Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan Review Fee at the
time of initial project application.
2. A subsequent Annual Compliance Report Fee at the time
of each Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Report is
submitted.
Fees shall be charged to all Applicable Developments for
purposes of defraying the costs of processing and reviewing
the Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan and subsequent Annual
Compliance Reports as contained in Section 9905.
The review fee schedule shall be in an amount as
established by resolution of the City Council.
D. A property owner(s) or designee(s) of any Applicable
Development may request a variance from provisions in the
Facility Standards contained in Section 9904 upon submittal
of a written request to the City Community Development
Department and accompanied by a fee in an amount
established by resolution of the City Council. The matter
shall be set for consideration, by the Planning Commission.
-11-
Written no'. a to the appellant of the me,.date and
location set for consideration of the appeal shall be
provided 10 days prior to the hearing .date upon the hearing
of such appeal. The City Planning Commission may affirm,
reject or modify Facility Standards required by this
Chapter.
The property owner may appeal any decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council.
E. Appeal of Other Actions
Any decision made by the City Traffic Engineer or his/her
designee regarding the provisions contained in Section
9904, 9905 and 9906 B.1 and B.2 may be appealed to the
Planning Commission upon submittal of a written request to
the City of Tustin Community Development Department and
accompanied by a fee in an amount to be established by
resolution of City Council. The matter shall be set for
consideration by the Planning Commission.
The property owner may appeal any decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council.
-12-
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the
Richard B. Edgar
MAYOR
Mary E. Wynn
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION OF ORDINANCE NO.
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five: that the above and foregoing
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance No. was duly
and regularly introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the day of , 1991, and was
given its second reading and duly passed and adopted at a
regular meeting held on the day of , 1991 by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
-13-
ARTERIAL ROADWAY LEVELS- OF SERVICE (1991)
ROADWAY SEGMENT
VOLUME -TO
-CAPACITY RATIOS AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
®LAGER AVENUE
FROM: To:
VOLUME
M
CAPACITY
(C)
V/C
RATIO
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
SR -55 FREEWAY RED HILL AVENUE
22,169
37,500
0.591
A
RED HILL AVENUE JAMBOREE ROAD
16,713
37,500
0.446
A
JAMBOREE ROAD HARVARD AVENUE
16,206
37,500
0.432•
A
JAMBOREE ROAD
0.45(A)
o-
FROM: TO:
%.11 >
a
D 1
EDINGER AVENUE WALNUT AVENUE
13,275
56.300
0.236
A
WALNUT AVENUE 1-5 FREEWAY
15,939
56,300
0.283
A
1-5 FREEWAY BRYAN AVENUE
16,729
37,500
0.446
A
BRYAN AVENUE IRVINE BOULEVARD
9.895
37.500*
0.264•
A
IRVW BOULEVARD
w W I
of
1
W
FROM: TO:
J W *
CURRENTLY 3 LANES SOUTHBOUND
m p i
Q
JAMBOREE ROAD TUSTIN RANCH ROAD
24,703
56.300
0.439
A
TUSTIN RANCH ROAD RED HILL AVENUE
27,023
37,500
0.721
C
RED HILL AVENUE NEWPORT AVENUE
28,059
37.500
0.748
C
NEWPORT AVENUE SR -55 FREEWAY
20,606
37,500
0.549
A
a
SPN� P PNP
WALNUT
yh P
•ice a
F.� •� 3
�• _, F PCO I •' z
4
0.59(A)
P�
Q 1 Q
O W 1 W
o 1�
11-
FREEWAY
7 N
H
O
U1. Y 0)
AVENUE
W
0
TRABUCO
ROAD
VOLUME -TO
-CAPACITY RATIOS AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
V1
-•4
4 6
IRVINE BOULEVARD
0.75(C) 10.72(C) 0.44(A)
NO SCA
/� � •'
�/ •�
1 pQ
O
9
•
AT & SF
RR ~ 4
�• -•�
lk
BRYAN
yAVENUE
0.45(A)
o-
%.11 >
a
D 1
a
SPN� P PNP
WALNUT
yh P
•ice a
F.� •� 3
�• _, F PCO I •' z
4
0.59(A)
P�
Q 1 Q
O W 1 W
o 1�
11-
FREEWAY
7 N
H
O
U1. Y 0)
AVENUE
W
0
TRABUCO
ROAD
z O
V1
N�
AT & SF
RR ~ 4
�• -•�
0.45(A)
LEND
4
0:
X
DENOTES EXISTING NUMBER OF
o
Oa
`J
LANES PER ROADWAY SEGMENT
..IO•43G4
V
X.XX(X)
V/C RATIO (LOS)
w W I
of
1
W
IRVINE CENTER
J W *
CURRENTLY 3 LANES SOUTHBOUND
m p i
Q
DRIVE
_
AND 2 LANES NORTHBOUND. FOR
m a
>
W
z
CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ASSUME
:2 —1
Q
>
Ld Q
l LANES.
=
Q
//
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (1991)
NOTE: REFER TO FIGURE FOR INTERSECTION LOCATIONS.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTERSECTIONS
•♦ —• I I IRVINE BOULEVARD
NO A
.'�. o i
�/�♦ a 4 i
BRYAN AVENUE
Li 0
z
1
W Z •
2 < FREEWAY 1
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
LEVEL
OF
SERVICE
A.M. PEAK PERIOD
12.
1.
IRVINE BOULEVARD/SR-55 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND
ON-RAMP
0.564
A
IRVINE BOULEVARD/SR-55 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND
OFF -RAMP
0.447
A
3.
EDINGER AVENUE/SR-55 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND RAMPS
0.720
C
4.
IRVINE BOULEVARD/JAMBOREE ROAD
0.655
B
5.
EDINGER AVENUE/JAMBOREE ROAD
0.660
B
P.M. PEAK PERIOD
WALNUT
AVENUE
1.
IRVINE BOULEVARD/SR-55 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND
ON-RAMP
0.424
A
2.
IRVINE BOULEVARD/SR-55 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND
OFF -RAMP
0.380
A
3.
EDINGER AVENUE/SR-55 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND RAMPS
0.653
B
4.
IRVINE BOULEVARD/JAMBOREE ROAD
0.568
A
5.
EDINGER AVENUE/JAMBOREE ROAD
0.603
A
NOTE: REFER TO FIGURE FOR INTERSECTION LOCATIONS.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTERSECTIONS
•♦ —• I I IRVINE BOULEVARD
NO A
.'�. o i
�/�♦ a 4 i
BRYAN AVENUE
Li 0
z
1
W Z •
2 < FREEWAY 1
TRABUCO
ROAD
W
J
t,4 sa
NN 1 a LEGEND o I � CL �z IRVINE CENTER
O: W c O DENOTES INTERSECTION NUMBER. I Q> DRIVE
0 ; X (REFER TO TABLE.)
NP
J
�W
O >
}�
U •
m
Q
WALNUT
AVENUE
�
W
PO i 3
W
cn
�.♦ �.�� �•- Z
3 Q
D
• _
TRABUCO
ROAD
W
J
t,4 sa
NN 1 a LEGEND o I � CL �z IRVINE CENTER
O: W c O DENOTES INTERSECTION NUMBER. I Q> DRIVE
0 ; X (REFER TO TABLE.)
W
a
a
a a
0o
O�
1
O�
o.
I
�o
o�
p %0
4 �
O�
H
C7 C7 (7 E;
a
00
aaa
N
N
>
N
U2
�
U
Fr
W
u
w
�
M
q
Q
u
a a
0o
O�
1
O�
o.
I
�o
o�
p %0
4 �
O�
H
0
O -A
H
a
a
U�
3
W0
a�
a. F -
88
Wi H H
O
N
H
25
h
H
N
M
N
0
oQg$o $000 os
M Z5 et n N a 0 a H N
H0 in — .fir H H� N H bl
aaGUU ar�:U aU
C7 C7 (7 E;
000
aaa
>
a
U2
op
a a
a
M
US
W
as
m
0
I
b
4; >")
a�
b N 4)
-v p
-ti .J W
>¢ p
a1 � � w
°' �
iYi � •Q"
sa�3'
ai x .� M O
; w
y � �
°° mob
� 3z
4-4
►,
�,
cn
V2
4
Oa�
W U
Z
�
�
Z
U
>-4
O
�
�
W
U)
0-4
w
C7
z
w
z a
Z
W
wo
w
V
v�
0
O -A
H
a
a
U�
3
W0
a�
a. F -
88
Wi H H
O
N
H
25
h
H
N
M
N
0
oQg$o $000 os
M Z5 et n N a 0 a H N
H0 in — .fir H H� N H bl
aaGUU ar�:U aU
a
p
U
Co Nt
h N
. v�
H
H
at UI
C7 C7 (7 E;
000
aaa
a
p
U
Co Nt
h N
. v�
H
H
at UI
>
p
U2
a a
a
US
W
as
m
0
I
b
4; >")
W
b N 4)
-v p
-ti .J W
>¢ p
ai ,,, �O
a1 � � w
°' �
iYi � •Q"
sa�3'
ai x .� M O
; w
y � �
°° mob
� 3z
4-4
►,
�,
SO %.O O ao
N O�
v? V ! H H H
v? H
r.
U
00
N
W
a
\C)N
t�
�
•-+ h
A N
a
o.
%D
N
N
a
�+
N
�
7
V
(�
1.4
H
%0
w
N
�0%
h
w
m
�
�
x
A
a
v
w
a
A
A
A a
►-a O�
°a
a
s
QA
off
W�
Aga
�a�
�
'V
M
a
x
U
0\
H
HNC\
040
v
a�
>
OU �
a
aM
c�
SO %.O O ao
N O�
v? V ! H H H
v? H
r.
U
M
403,
S O N
\C)N
00
S 8
•-+ h
A N
a
a
H 4%iI!
bp,
oo
.. .--i M H
a
�
M
a�
(�
a
N
w
m
�
�
x
H
rn
w a
w
a
A
A
A a
A
°a
a
s
QA
off
a
Aga
�a�
�
'V
M
a
Z
N
a
0\
H
HNC\
040
v
a�
>
OU �
¢o
¢
sem,
64
h
Cho°
0
Z
�
-80N
O
as
o
V
>4
a3
O
a
a
a
wN
W3u
W>4�
A
Aa
Z
w
w
wo
O
CO)
V
w
v�
SO %.O O ao
N O�
v? V ! H H H
v? H
r.
aaU
00\0 a
try 8 en N
V3, H H
A4 a
U
M
403,
S O N
\C)N
00
S 8
•-+ h
A N
O M M
H 4%iI!
bp,
4011 H
.. .--i M H
a
i/! H iI!
aaU
00\0 a
try 8 en N
V3, H H
A4 a
U
U
a
U
a
_�
_�
tR in
bp,
in
a
a
w
N
w
m
�
H
rn
w a
w
a
A
A
A a
A
°a
a
s
QA
4)4
a
Aga
�a�
A4
'V
M
a
Z
N
O
8 .-. M N
H *1 H
H
A4 a UI
H
O O� 201k, H
a U'
A A
Go
H H 401, �9 I
a a U
O
\O
49
a
oho
a
a
w
N
w
m
�
H
rn
QA
4)4
a
Aga
�a�
b
M
'V
M
W
Z
N
4)4S
ai
oo
a
040
v
a�
>
> a
¢o
¢
sem,
64
h
Cho°
to
�
-80N
O
'
o
a3
a
a
wN
W3u
Nm
A
H
O O� 201k, H
a U'
A A
Go
H H 401, �9 I
a a U
O
\O
49
oho
a
a
w
�
H
�
°
N
b
M
'V
M
W
Z
N
0
z a
a
a
a
040
M
w
a
a
�y
o0
�
M
a�
00
-"
N
N
o�
�+
N
abobo
�
w
v
w
w
w
�FA
z
S
o
z
�
w
>x
H
a
a
A
00
a
GK
f-
a�
a
�o
$%n
a�
H
b
%O
H
0
tn
H
$0000 N
46 H 409
888
A4 a U
8
04H
8
H C
H
g sss
.-r - N C
H H H H
A4 a U
8 N o%
N V�
H \G N
H H
0
8 8§�
H
cl H H
H
A. a UI,
a
a
�y
o0
�
M
IL
O
a
o�
cis
abobo
ate,
w
z
S
o
z
�
w
>x
H
V
-�
w 0(7%
U
a
0
zu
0
El
U
a
0
-v
N
-b
N
-b
N
b
c i
-U
m
p
w
>'
O
w
00
3
W
w
wo
Z
04
3
O
� �
3
K
v
V
b
%O
H
0
tn
H
$0000 N
46 H 409
888
A4 a U
8
04H
8
H C
H
g sss
.-r - N C
H H H H
A4 a U
8 N o%
N V�
H \G N
H H
0
8 8§�
H
cl H H
H
A. a UI,
°
cis
abobo
S
�
H
a
El
U
a
0
-v
N
-b
N
-b
N
b
c i
-U
m
p
O
w
00
3
"�
a
04
3
►e
� �
3
K
v
z
z
N
M
H
N
N
4011
2
O
N
4011
N
M
h
N
4011
r2,S t S S h N
H h 4011 ,y .
U U U a, U
00
o�
i
Nt
W
A A
A
A
a a
_ a
a
¢
m
a
x
H H
H
o
�
�
�
NON
as 'O
H
w
N
�
v
H
w
H
ad
�
�
N
A
a
w a
3
�°�
N
�
ul
baa
wHHa
x
U
H
z
O�
N
6%
0
6i
aM
z
m
a
00
H04
�
a
O
a
°`
ax
w�ON
N
H
x�
Z
w
�
z
off
Q)
H
C7
a'
cv
ON
�D
o
H
a
r --r
W U
a
a
CPN0
434
zmow..
a a
v
O
U
W
}'
C/)
w
O
z
�"'
� �:)'
Z
W
cw 0
O
V
Zn
N
M
H
N
N
4011
2
O
N
4011
N
M
h
N
4011
r2,S t S S h N
H h 4011 ,y .
U U U a, U
A A A
A A
A
A
a a
a
a
¢
m
a
x
H H
H
A A A
¢
m
a
�
as 'O
H
as
N
b
a
H
w a
3
�°�
N
�
baa
wHHa
H
z
w
N
6%
0
6i
z
m
H
H04
x�
x�
4)x�
x
Q)
H
3
a
a�
H
a
a¢¢
a
a
434
Ch o
%0 M
H H H
O
H
H 40)-
8 8
_ u
u
u
00
N
W
Oji
to
C7%
000
vO1
H
b
.-�
H
_ a
H
4P9
H
H
a
04
U
U
w
c`
a,
U
� E�
Q�
00
N
N
lb
A
t+
N
A
a
�
v
a,
w
w
�
�
x
b
b
b
x b
A
a
Wa
W�
x
U
N
Ch
M
a'
a
a
�
o0
�
M
ON
rh
N
O
a
o�
a�
O�
w
C7
a
a
N o a
Wr
z
¢�
0
OV
0-4
H
V
W
>4
Z
W
w
wo
O
U
�
Ch o
%0 M
H H H
O
H
H 40)-
8 8
_ u
u
u
u
8
Oji
to
eOn
000
vO1
H
b
.-�
H
:9
H
4P9
H
H
a
04
U
U
w
04
U
� E�
H>
4)
A
A
A
A
a
A
a
8C*4
CK
H H
Co %01
4N9 N
403,
tom/! NIM r-
H H H H
a U
P4 UI
u
_ u
u
u
u
4
o
z
o
b
ab
0 0 ri
0 ci
5
O L) .4 M
F400
U
� E�
H>
4)
'o
a
x
b
b
b
x b
8C*4
CK
H H
Co %01
4N9 N
403,
tom/! NIM r-
H H H H
a U
P4 UI
u
_ u
u
o
z
o
b
ab
0 0 ri
0 ci
5
O L) .4 M
6.
0
Q
DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1991
TO: CHRISTINE SHINGLETON, DIRECTOR OF
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
MAR 0 GG 1901
0
Inter - Com
CDOMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAR 1 4 1991
This is our initial analysis of the land use implications of
the congestion management legislation contained in AB4711 Chapter
106 Statutes of 1989 and AB17911 Chapter 16, Statutes of 1990.
The Congestion Management Program must contain five elements:
1. Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Standards;
2. Transit Performance Standards;
3. A trip reduction and travel demand element that promotes
alternative transportation methods;
- 4. A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions
made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems,
including an estimate of the cost associated with mitigating those
impacts; and
5. A seven year capital improvement program to maintain or
improve the traffic level of service and transit performance
standards, as well as to mitigate regional transportation impacts
identified as part of the land use impact analysis. (Government
Code Section 65089)
The County's congestion management- program is to be adopted
by June, 1991, and annually updated. It must include every city
and the county. The congestion management agency that will be
formed when the Transportation Commission combines with the Orange
County Transit District, will monitor the implementation of all
elements of the congestion management program. Each year the
agency is required to determine if the county and cities are
conforming to the program. As far as cities are concerned, this
will initially consist of determining whether each local
government had adopted and implemented a trip reduction and travel
demand ordinance and a capital improvement program. A model
ordinance has been developed by the transportation commission and
is contained in the Congestion Management Program Manual that has
been distributed to the cities. Guidance on the adoption of a
capital improvement program is also found in the CMP manual. The
agency will also review each City's implementation of a program to
J
analyze the impacts of its land use decisions on the regional
transportation system.
In our opinion, the most important initial land use issue
facing the city is the required establishment of a "program to
analyze the impact of land use decisions on regional
transportation, including estimating the costs of mitigating the
impacts." The CMP manual states that the "guidance" for land use
coordination will be developed between January and April, 1991, for
land use applications subsequent to the congestion management
program adoption in June. CMP guidelines need not be applied until
after the adoption of the CMP. The land use and related data that
will be used in the transportation model is the current county
adopted forecast (OCP 88 modified) . Tentatively, the CMP technical
advisory committee has recommended that certain categories of
projects be exempt from CMP evaluation. These are low and moderate
income housing projects, facilities serving primarily unemployed
or handicapped persons, ministerial actions, and approved projects
requiring no further discretionary action. CMP project impact
analysis would be applied to those projects which generate a
threshold percent impact of 3% of LOS "E" service volume on a CMP
highway link. According to the CMP manual, in -lieu fees would be
paid by those projects which generate less than 3o LOS "E" service
volume on a CMP highway link.
It is important to note that the language of the statute does
not require cities to mitigate or deny (if mitigation is not
feasible) projects that cause the CMP LOS standards to be exceeded
or where the service is already deficient. The city is only
required to develop a program to analyze the impacts on the
regional transportation system, including an estimate, of the costs
associated with mitigation. The statutory language does not
require a city to decide a land use issue in a certain way or to
establish a method by which the city will wholly or partially pay
for the mitigation of the impacts. Thus, in our opinion, the
statute functions much like an EIR. That is, congestion management
is simply one element of the environmental analysis that one must
go through. Mitigation measures may be proposed and may be
incorporated- into the project . - But ultimately, -the project may be
approved.even if'suff icient mitigation isn't available through a
statement of- overriding considerations. In this event, however,
we recommend that a deficiency plan be in place or adopted
concurrently for the affected roadways. (See discussion on next
page.)
There may be planning and policy reasons for incorporating a
congestion management program into the transportation element of
the general plan, but that will expose the city to lawsuits on the
grounds that the general plan is inadequate, if the congestion
management program is determined to be nonconforming to state law.
Government Code Section 65089.5 provides that as long as a
congestion management program hasn't been incorporated into the
2
general plan, there is no cause of action against the city for
failing to conform to its general pian by virtue of its alleged
failure to complete or implement a congestion management program.
However, we do believe that defects in the congestion
management program could become arguments for alleging that the
environmental review was inadequate. For example, if you don't
have in place a program to analyze the impacts on the regional
transportation system, that conforms to the congestion management
program, it could be argued that your discussion is deficient. By
contrast, the adoption of a congestion management program and
adherence to its standards and guidelines would, on the other hand,
provide a good argument that the discussion was adequate even if
it didn't go into the detail that the complaining party wanted.
In the second year of the CMP process, the city will be
required to submit deficiency plans to the congestion management
agency. Although the legislation does not specifically mandate the
development of such plans, it impliedly requires that such plans
be adopted in order to demonstrate "conformity" with the congestion
management program. (Government Code Section 65089.3) Deficiency
plans are adopted by a city or county after a noticed public
hearing. A deficiency plan consists of the following:
1. The designation of a deficient roadway segment or
intersection which does not meet established levels of
service standards.
2. An analysis of the causes of the deficiency.
3. A list of improvements necessary to maintain the minimum
level of service and the estimated costs.
4. A list of improvements, programs or actions, and
estimates of costs, that will measurably improve the
level of service of the regional system "and contribute
to significant improvements in air quality, such as
improved nonmotori zed transportation faci.l?iti-es, high
occupancy vehicle facilities and transportation control
measures." (The AQMD lobbyists got this in.]
5. An action plan with a specific implementation schedule.
The congestion management agency must hold a public hearing
on deficiency plans developed by .cities and the county. The agency
must accept or reject the plan (it may not modify the plan). If
the plan is rejected, the agency must notify the city or county of
the reasons. A rejected deficiency plan could be grounds for the
congestion management agency to determine that the city is not
"conforming to the congestion management program." (Government
Code Section 65089.3) In that instance, the controller is required
to withhold the City's proportionate share of the 9 cents per
3
gallon gasoline sales tax revenues (Proposition 111).
Summary_
Congestion management analysis may indicate the desirability
of phasing or timing development until acceptable service standards
are achieved. Alternatively, it could demonstrate the need for
deficiency plans to improve the level of service. The requirement
to review land use decisions for congestion management will open
new avenues of litigation over such decisions. Oversight by the
congestion management agency could lead to inter -agency conflicts
if local agency power over land use is threatened.
We know that your staff is involved in the development of the
congestion management program, and we would be pleased to assist
in whatever way you thought best in developing the "guidance" on
the lard analysis program that each city must adopt.
J G. ROURKE LOIS E. JEF
CITY ATTORNEY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
LEJ:cas:R:02/27/91(M\M137)
cc: WH
V, Pita Westfield, Assistant Director, Community Development
LEJ
KRS
4
143nge county region
buildino, industry association of southern california. Inc.
2001 East Fourth Street, Suite 224 • Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 547-3042
March 7, 1991
Honorable City Council Members
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
&_u
MAR 81991
j
TIC L ii
r i
U
MAR 12 1991
TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEFT.
Subject: Congestion Management Program
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
To comply with requirements of the State -mandated Congestion
Management Program (CMP), each city in Orange County must adopt a
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance by April 30, 1991.
The purpose of Transportation Demand Manag `di"i't "`n=" TDM' �PLs A;o
reduce peak -period vehicular trips (particularly single -occupant
trips) and to utilize our transportation system more efficiently.
To guide each city in preparing its own TDM Ordinance, an Orange -
County CMP task force has developed a model ordinance that has
been distributed to all cities as part of the County CMP work
program. The ordinance would apply to new non-residential
projects by establishing mandatory development standards to be
imposed as conditions of project approval by local jurisdictions.
The Building Industry Association (BIA) and Commercial Industrial
Development Association (CIDA) support the primary CMP goal of
promoting an integrated approach for meeting transportation
needs. We also endorse the TDM objectives identified in the CMP
legislation: promoting alternative transportation methodologies,
such as carpools, vanpools and transit, and other strategies
including flex -time and parking management.
To assist in achieving these objectives, representatives from our
industry participated in a workshop on January 25, 1991 for
members of the CMP Technical Advisory Committee, city and county
staff, and other interested parties. The purpose of that
workshop was to demonstrate applicat4on of the model TDM
Ordinance to selected case -study development projects.
'A `
Congestion Management Program
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
March 7, 1991
Page 2
As proposed,
standards and
requirements,
for your city
standards to
concerns that
ordinance:
the model ordinance provides a menu of facility
Improvements that could be adopted as city
and we support this approach as a useful framework
to follow. However, in attempting to apply certain
specific projects, we have identified two primary
we ask your city to consider in drafting its
1. Applicability should be narrowed.
The ordinance should not apply to projects that are too
small or inappropriate for the proposed facility standards.
We recommend that the model ordinance's threshold of "100 or
more total employees" for a project be modified to exempt
all developments under 100,000.square feet.
2. Standard should be tailored to the specific prosect.
The ordinance should not impose uniform facility standards
without regard to project type, mix of uses, location and
operational characteristics. Strict application of
requirements for preferential carpool parking, bicycle
racks, shower facilities, and loading areas may be
appropriate for a large office building but would not be
suitable for a neighborhood shopping center.
For those city representatives who did not have an opportunity to
attend the January 25th workshop, we have provided the CIDA
comments on the application of TDM measures and have attached
them for your information. In preparing your city's TDM
Ordinance, BIA and CIDA ask you to use caution in adopting
inflexible TDM standards. Instead, we strongly encourage your
city to adopt a menu of TDM measures or guidelines to be selected
from and applied to a specific development proposal as
appropriate.
In addition to the need for flexibility, BIA and CIDA also
recommend that your city use incentives to stimulate project -
specific efforts to reduce transportation demand. Incorporating
preferential carpool and vanpool parking, special transit
facilities and other TDM measures into a project's design should
allow for reductions in required parking.
Congestion Management Program
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
March 7, 1991
Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to convey these comments for your
consideration in preparing your TDM Ordinance. If you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.
Very truly yours,
e7/
Christine D. Reed
Executive Director
Building Industry Association
714-547-3042
CDR/CT/cw
Attachment
-Ydt�
Cary Oreff
President
Commercial Industrial
Development Association
714-720-1000
cc: City Manager
Director of Planning/Community Development
Director of Public Works
Kari Rigoni, Orange County EMA
*, Company
�3:�1tRY I_. IIOF�'I:N
P•oper:ies
HN101111Y L. RANDALL
SF(70.*%'D MCF PRESIDENT
Ili serve. Mumper & Hughes
WILLIAM R. HAGERMAN
SECRI:TAR Y
Arlotti & Associates TO:
R013FRT A. PETERSON
l'n'1;:LSL�XFR
Coldwell Banker FROM:
1ASIES D. CI3RISMAN
Wait Business Properties
NANCY COSS-FITZWATER SUBJECT:
The Irvine Company
CIDAW"',
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
MEMORANDUM TO CITIES REGARDING ADOPTION OF
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Director of Planning/Community Development
and Director of Public Works
Commercial Industrial Development Association
("CIDA")
Comments on Orange County Model TDM Ordinance
C:ARRIE COX
DATE:
March 6, 1991
largely in agreement with the purposes of the CMP
Snyder -Langston Builders
legislation. Unfortunately, the Model TDM Ordinance goes
far beyond what we feel is required to comply with the
KARL• N .N1. ERICKSON
legislation. In that regard, we have taken the liberty of
commenting on specific provisions of the Model Ordinance
City of Santa Ana
keeping
which we feel are not in kee in with the intent of the
TDM legislation, and we would request you consider our -
BRIAN S.GOODELL
The
County of Orange has sent to each
City within the
Santa.%fargaritaCompany
County a
Model TDM Ordinance as a guide for
that City's
\1ARC A. HERNANDEZ
adoption
of a TDM Ordinance. As you may be
aware, each
C.J. Segerstrom & Sons
City is required to adopt a TDM Ordinance no later than
I' ISAACS
April 30,
1991 in order to comply with the
requirements of
s Development
the State Congestion Management Plan ("CMP").
11•?P�Ins Development
JERRY A. KING
J. A. King & Associates We feel it is important to note that the CMP
IDWARDR.KWESKIN legislation provides that two of the purposes of the TDM
KajimaInternational are: First, to promote alternative transportation
STEPHENT.McARTHUR methods, such as carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles and
The Koll Company park and ride lots; and, second, to promote other
RICHARD G.M INSELL strategies, including flexible work hours and parking
Psomas & Associates management programs.
JAMES F. NANTAIS
The Alison Company
We are concerned with traffic congestion and are
W. RICHARDOAKES,JR.
largely in agreement with the purposes of the CMP
The Terraces
legislation. Unfortunately, the Model TDM Ordinance goes
far beyond what we feel is required to comply with the
)Of IN R.SHUMWAY
31arketProfiles
legislation. In that regard, we have taken the liberty of
commenting on specific provisions of the Model Ordinance
J:1AtFST0�e
Company
Af,.a;on Viejo C
keeping
which we feel are not in kee in with the intent of the
TDM legislation, and we would request you consider our -
comments in
comments in drafting your TDM Ordinance. For ease of
KIPKOLSON
review, references are to the applicable provisions of the
K.I.P..Advisors
Model TDM Ordinance.
TOD RIDGEWAY
Ridgeway Development Company
ZANIES W. KNIEST
J Equities
1A RD 0AI:ES, JR.
facer
2230 W. CHAPMAN AVL -NUE, SUITE 214
3. ARN101'R
11•?P�Ins Development
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668
! 1(f\I:%S U. 1VALL
"'he It 11ff Company
TELEPHONE: 71A-385-1977
1. Section IV: Policy, paragraph A. We would
recommend that the portion of the suggested language which
reads "generated in association with additional
developments" be deleted since the focus of the CMP
legislation is not limited to additional developments.
2. Section IV: Policy, paragra^h C. While we
believe it is necessary to address air quality, this is
not the purpose of the CMP legislation. The purpose of
the CMP legislation, and therefore, the purpose of the TDM
Ordinance is to address traffic congestion.
3. Section V: Applicability. The standards as set
forth in Section V.B.2 of the Model Ordinance as to what
projects are subject to the Ordinance are simply too
restrictive. For instance, a shopping center or retail
building having in excess of 50,000 square feet, an office
building in excess of 25,000 square feet, and an
industrial building having in excess of 52,500 square
feet, all would be subject to the provisions of the Model
Ordinance. If the suggested applicability standards are
followed, the required design criteria (See Section VI)
would be cost prohibitive for smaller projects. For
instance, requiring a 52,500 square foot industrial
building to have shower facilities for both men and women
does not make sense. We feel that the minimum square
footage for applicability should be 100,000 square feet.
In addition, we cannot stress enough that flexibility
needs to be included in applying the TDM Ordinance, since
what makes sense for an office building may not make sense
for a retail building or an industrial project.
4. Section VI: Facilities Standards. Section VI
of the Model Ordinance is intended to provide a menu of
facility standards. You can modify and/or delete the
standards based on your particular needs thereby allowing
flexibility in applying the standards to a particular
project. It is our suggestion that the standards that are
to be applied to a project be determined during the site
planning process.
We feel that Option "B" addresses our concerns. If,
however, you desire to also adopt as an alternative Option
"A" we would request you consider our comments under
paragraphs 5 through 10 below.
5. Section VI: Facilities Standards A(1) --
Preferential Parking for Carpool Vehicles. We are opposed
to a rigid 15% requirement. The number of spaces required
should be flexible and should be a function as to use and
tenant mix within the project (i.e., multi-tenant versus
single tenant building). In addition, as an incentive to
providing carpool spaces, we would recommend that you
reduce the number of overall parking spaces required and
-2-
grant density bonuses. For instance, the more carpool and
vanpool spaces provided, the fewer total parking spaces
should be required.
.
6. Section VI: Paragraph A(2) -- Bicycle Parking
and Shower Facilities. The bicycle parking criteria of 5
spaces per 100 employees is too high and we would suggest
2 to 3 spaces per 100 employees; there simply aren't that
many people who will ride their bicycles to work. We also
believe that the requirement for shower facilities is not
warranted. If you elect to include a shower facility
requirement, then it should only be required at the
discretion of the planning commission and then only in
connection with office projects in excess of 100,000
square feet; retail and industrial projects should be
exempt.
7. Section VI: Paragraph A(3) -- Information on
Transportation Alternatives. We agree that a commuter
information area may be required; however, the obligation
to provide the required information should be with the
employers, and not with the developer.
8. Section VI: Paragraph (4) -- Rideshare Vehicle
Loading Areas. Given the requirement for providing both
carpool and vanpool vehicle spaces in close proximity to
building entrances, it is not necessary to provide
passenger loading areas. The suggested standard for
example would require a loading area of 1000 feet for a
15 -story office building. Further, it is our belief that
the possible increase in air pollution arising from idling
cars may exceed any benefit associated with providing a
passenger loading area.
9. Section VI. Paragraph A(5) -- Vanpool Spaces.
As stated above in connection with carpool spaces, the
number of required vanpool spaces needs to be flexible,
and must relate to the type of project.
10. Section VI. Paragraph A(6) -- Bus Stop
Improvements. We are in agreement with this standard.
11. Section VII. Optional Trip Reduction/TDM
Strategy Plan. This provision was only included by the
draftsman to allow cities to adopt additional TDM programs
and strategies, if desired. This Section is optional;
adoption is not required to comply with the CMP
legislation. We should point out that as provided in the
Special Notice to the Model Ordinance, the County is not
adopting this Section for its unincorporated area.
We feel that this Section places a heavy burden
on the property owner since the bulk of the suggested
programs relate to employment, and not to development or
ownership. For this reason alone, Section VII should not
-3-
be adopted, or if adopted, should only apply to the
employer.
In addition, the plan submission and reporting
requirement under Sections VII(A) and (C) could well
duplicate, if not conflict with regulations required by
the AQMD and other regional authorities. Two or more
reports should not be required when one report will do.
If the AQMD is already monitoring these types of programs,
there should not be a need for Cities to also monitor
compliance.
12. Section VIII. Ordinance Implementation and
Monitoring. It is not necessary to continuously monitor
the Facilities Standards under Section VIIIA) since it
should be sufficient that the adequacy of the Facilities
Standards be determined at the time a Certificate of Use
or Occupancy Permit is issued. This is no different than
approval of any other design standard required in
connection with the development of a project.
13. Section VIII. Ordinance Implementation and
Monitoring. Paragraph (B). If Section VII is adopted,
then the monitoring of compliance must be in conjunction
with the monitoring activities of other governmental
agencies in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and
wasted effort. We would suggest that the monitoring be
left to the AQMD, with copies of the reports given to the
Cities if required.
14. Section IX. Enforcement and Penalties.
Paragraph IX(B). Since we do not believe that Section VII
should be adopted, Section IX(B) should not be adopted
since it specifically relates to enforcement of Section
VII. If Section VII is adopted, then the penalty
provisions of this paragraph should be geared to the
nature of the failure to comply. If the failure to comply
were unintentional, then the fine should be'nominal if one
is levied at all. In addition, the penalty fees or fines
should be nominal for initial violations.
15. Section X. Fees. CIDA opposes the imposition
of additional fees given the magnitude of fees which are
now imposed on the development process. In fact there
could be a doubling up of fees given the fees that may be
charged by the AQMD.
We understand that the adoption of the TDM Ordinance
can be a complicated process. If we can be of assistance
in the adopting of a TDM Ordinance, please call Les Card
of LSA at 553-0666 or Dan Winton of Paone, Callahan,
McHolm & Winton at (714) 955-2900.
149102-05
-4-