TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES

Adopted by City Council on June 23, 2020

Technical Update approved on March 21, 2023
by the Transportation Commission as authorized by
City Council Resolution
No. 20-59

Prepared by:
City of Irvine
Department of Public Works and Transportation
Table of Contents

WHY A TRAFFIC STUDY IS REQUIRED ..................................................................................................... 1

WHEN IS A COMPREHENSIVE AND LIMITED SCOPE TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIRED? ......................... 1
METHODOLOGY OF SUBMITTAL............................................................................................................... 3
Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Approval ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Miscellaneous Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................... 4
OBJECTIVES OF A TRAFFIC STUDY ......................................................................................................... 5
TRAFFIC/LIMITED SCOPE TRAFFIC STUDY FORMAT ............................................................................ 5
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 6
Future Traffic Without Proposed Development.................................................................................... 7
Projected Traffic ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Committed Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 8
Proposed Project Level of Service (LOS) Improvements.................................................................... 9
Definition of LOS Improvements ............................................................................................................ 9
Model Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................... 9
Adjustments to Trip Generation ........................................................................................................... 10
Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment .................................................................................................. 11
Phased Projects ................................................................................................................................... 11
Future Traffic with Proposed Development ........................................................................................ 12
Cumulative Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12
Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Level of Service (LOS) Analyses ......................................................................................................... 13
Performance Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 15
Special Issues (As Needed) .................................................................................................................. 16
Site Access Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 17
Pedestrian Circulation and Transit Connectivity .................................................................................. 18
Congestion Management Program (CMP) Consistency/Requirements .............................................. 19
CEQA VMT Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 19
Required Improvements/Recommendations ...................................................................................... 20
Improvement Needs ............................................................................................................................. 20
Schedule/Cost of Improvements.......................................................................................................... 21
Fee Assessment/Responsibility for LOS Improvements...................................................................... 21
Transportation Demand Management ................................................................................................. 22
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 22
INTER-JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWS ......................................................................................................... 23

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Traffic Study Outline .................................................................................................................... 25

Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Traffic Study vs Limited Scope Traffic Study Requirements ............................ 26
Exhibit 3: Traffic Study Types ..................................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 4: Expansion of Use Assumptions Matrix ....................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 5: CMP Monitoring Checklist ........................................................................................................... 31
Exhibit 6: CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt Projects ............................................................................ 34
Exhibit 7: North Irvine Traffic Mitigation (NITM) City Council Ordinance 03-61 .......................................... 35
Exhibit 8: VMT Impact Analysis Guidelines (SB 743) ................................................................................. 36
Exhibit 9: Level of Service ‘E’ Policy ...................................................................................................................... 37
Exhibit 10: City Council Ordinance 03-08 – Advanced Transportation Management Systems (ATMS)..... 38

2
WHY A TRAFFIC STUDY IS REQUIRED

Historically, and since the adoption of the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines
in 2004, now renamed Traffic Study Guidelines, a hierarchy of federal and state laws has
required the correlation of the Land Use Element building intensities in the General Plan
with the Circulation Element capacity (i.e., Government Code 65302(C), Congestion
Management Program (CMP), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
Measure M). Specific only to CEQA, new CEQA legislation (SB 743) adopted by the State
of California in 2017 mandates that local jurisdictions, by July 1, 2020, adopt a new
measure of traffic impact to satisfy CEQA requirements. This new Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) measure of traffic impact replaces the prior level of service (LOS) metric previously
defined for identifying CEQA traffic impacts. Analysis with this new VMT measure of traffic
impacts to satisfy CEQA requirements is inaddition to the LOS analysis outlined in this
Traffic Study Guidelines document. The City’s CEQA VMT Impact Analysis Guidelines is
included as Exhibit 8 of this Traffic Study Guidelines and is applicable for all projects that
require CEQA clearance.

The traffic study serves as a test of this correlation during the development review
process. The following outlines the criteria for when each type of analysis is applied.

WHEN IS A COMPREHENSIVE AND LIMITED SCOPE TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIRED?

A comprehensive traffic study shall be required under the conditions outlined in Exhibit
3. These conditions for preparation of a traffic study are based on adopted Zoning
Ordinance language, project description, level of discretionary or non-discretionary
approval required, and geographic location (i.e., specific Planning Area of the project).

• Discretionary projects generating 50 or more peak hour trips during the morning
peak period or the evening peak period from a project site where no budget/trip
cap has been established for the site and/or Planning Area; or

• Discretionary projects which exceed the established trip cap for the project site
by 50 or more peak hour trips.

The project’s trip generation shall be calculated using the City’s approved Irvine
Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) land use trip generation rates. If the City- approved
rates do not correlate to the use(s) proposed, the Director of Public Works and
Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director will approve the use
of another rate.

A comprehensive traffic study may also be required for:

• Projects pursuant to the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements or

as otherwise required by City Ordinances/resolutions.

1
A limited scope traffic study is required for:

• Discretionary projects generating between 1 and 49 AM or PM peak hour trips from

a project site where no budget/trip cap has been established for the site and/or
Planning Area; or

• Discretionary projects which exceed the established trip cap for the project site and/or
Planning Area by one to 49 morning or evening peak hour trips. If the project exceeds
the established trip cap by 50 or more morning or evening peak hour trips, see the
requirements for a traffic study above. The project’s trip generation shall be calculated
using the City’s approved land use trip generation rates. If City approved land use trip
generation rates do not correlate to the use(s) proposed, the Director ofPublic Works
and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director will approve
the use of another rate.

In cases where projects are within approved budget/trip caps and zoning, but are
proposing new or altering existing access points, the site access analysis procedures
outlined in the Special Issues section shall be followed in order to design and locate
access points.

Exhibit 2 highlights the key differences between a Comprehensive Traffic Study and a
Limited Scope Traffic Study.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) and Intensity Shifts

• Within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), TDRs are permitted. Outside of the IBC,
transfer of development (intensity shifts) may be allowed, if permitted by the zoning
ordinance and/or land use regulations. If a TDR or an intensity shift is proposed,
City approved land use trip rates shall be used in determining whether a traffic
study or limited scope traffic study is required. If the project involves a TDR or
intensity shift of 50 morning or evening peak hour trips or more, a traffic study will
be required. If the project involves a TDR or intensity shift of between1 and 49
morning or evening peak hour trips, a limited scope traffic study will be required.
In either case, a cumulative analysis may be required that includes all known
applications on file with the City at the time of the subject project’s scope of work
approval including General Plan Amendment or Zone Change applications(see
Cumulative Analysis).

The use of an existing traffic/limited scope traffic study for a project can be considered by
the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of
the Director if the land use assumptions, background conditions, and character of traffic
analyzed in the existing study are not significantly changed in the proposed project.

2
METHODOLOGY OF SUBMITTAL

Prior to beginning any study, the applicant and/or his/her transportation consultant shall
meet with City staff. This meeting is considered the “Pre-Application Conference.” The
purpose of the Pre-Application Conference is to establish assumptions and the process
of preparing the study. When inter-jurisdictional impacts are anticipated, appropriate
representatives from the affected agencies will be informed in writing of the agreed upon
assumptions by the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under
the direction of the Director.

In order to establish a Pre-Application Conference, the applicant shall submit to the

Director of Community Development a Pre-Application. For information on the submittal
of the Pre-Application, the applicant is referred to the “Pre-Application” Information Sheet
provided at the Community Development planning counter and City’s on-line formcatalog.

The following points will be discussed and methodology established at the Pre-
Application Conference regarding traffic:

Site Plan and Development Assumptions

Access Points
Committed Roadway Improvements1
Trip Generation
Trip Distribution
Trip Assignment
Preliminary Study Area
Background Traffic (Ambient Growth and Approved Developments)
Development Time Frame and Phasing
Processing Schedule
Other Pertinent Factors

Additional planning issues, submittal requirements, etc. may also be addressed at this
Pre-Application Conference, as identified and deemed appropriate by City staff.

The schedule shall be determined in accordance with the overall schedule associated
with the type of application being requested and/or with CEQA requirements. The Pre-
Application Conference shall also identify information which will be supplied by the City.

Scope of Work

Based on the agreements reached at the Pre-Application Conference, a scope of work

shall be prepared by the applicant’s transportation consultant and approved prior to
commencement of the study. Waiver of portions of these guidelines for a project may

1See definition in the Committed Improvements section.

3
be approved by the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under
the direction of the Director. Studies will not be accepted unless the traffic study scope of
work has been approved by city staff under the direction of the Director of Public Works
and Transportation.

The City Council reserves the right to approve traffic study scopes of work. Once
approved by the City Council, they will be processed in the same manner as if approved
by or under the direction of the Director or Public Works and Transportation.

An approved scope of work is valid for twelve months. Prior to commencing the study, the
applicant shall confirm with the City the appropriate version of ITAM to utilize. The study
must be submitted for the first screen check review within twelve months of the scope of
work approval. A new scope of work is required if the twelve month period expires without
a submittal.

Scopes of Work for projects within the North Irvine Traffic Mitigation (NITM) Program
are subject to the specific requirements defined in NITM Resolution 03-61 included as
Exhibit 7.

Approval

City staff under the direction of the Director of Public Works and Transportation shall
review a traffic study and determine if the traffic study is consistent with the approved
scope of work. If deemed consistent, city staff under the direction of the Director shall
approve and advance the traffic study with any recommendations to the next
reviewing/approval body for appropriate action.

Miscellaneous Submittal Requirements

Three (3) hard copies and an electronic copy of the first screen check draft study shall be
submitted in conjunction with the remainder of the development application package.Two
hard copies and an electronic copy of each subsequent screen check draft study shall be
submitted thereafter. It should be noted that no development application for which a study
is required, will be accepted without the appropriate number of copies of that study. Once
finalized, four copies of the final study including one appendix (if provided as a separate
document), as well as an electronic copy of the final document including appendix shall
be provided to staff for use in Commission packets and files. If City Council approval of
the project is required, a total of 10 copies of the final study shall be provided.

The applicant shall be responsible for the study and all costs associated with it. This may
include, but is not limited to, preparation of the scope of work, preparation of the study,
including consultant fees and computer model runs, review of the study by City staff and
Commissions/Committees/Council.

All studies must be prepared under the supervision of and signed, stamped and dated

4
by a Registered Traffic or Civil Engineer with appropriate transportation engineering
and/or planning credentials.

OBJECTIVES OF A TRAFFIC STUDY

The study has four basic objectives, as outlined below:

1. To provide a tool to analyze a specific project as it relates to the General Plan

(long term).

2. To provide a means to identify specific short term circulation, operational and

access needs.

3. To provide a basis for equitable traffic circulation improvement needs.

4. To demonstrate compliance with SB 743 for CEQA purposes, when

applicable.

TRAFFIC/LIMITED SCOPE TRAFFIC STUDY FORMAT

In order to provide consistency and facilitate staff review of studies, the format identified
below and in the approved scope of work must be followed. Under each heading, the
content and methodologies to be utilized are discussed. An outline of the study is attached
as Exhibit 1.

Executive Summary

The Executive Summary of the report shall be a clear, concise description of the study
findings. It shall include a general description of all data, project scope and purpose,
findings, conclusions, mitigation measures, and recommendations.

Technical publications, calculations, documentation, data reporting, and detailed design

should not be included in this section. The Executive Summary should be concise,
complete in itself, and not dependent on supplementary data included by reference.

Introduction

The Introduction shall supply the reader with a general description of the project. This
description shall include the size of the parcel, general terrain features, and the existing
and proposed uses of the site (including phasing) based on the zoning and general plan
categories outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. In addition,
specific uses for which the request is being made must be identified, as a number of uses
may be permitted under the same Zoning or General Plan Category. This information
shall include the square footage of each use or number and size of units proposed.

5
The intent of the study is to evaluate potential adverse effects to traffic for the most
probable case or maximum entitlement permitted for the development or parcel proposed
by the Subdivision Map, Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. If several different uses
are permitted, the land use(s) that identify the greatest overall traffic circulation
improvements shall be assumed in the study, unless the applicant specifies the uses for
the site. This most probable case analysis may be waived by the Director of Public Works
and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director only if the
development is conditioned for the specific uses analyzed in the study.

In addition, the location of the project site shall be described. As part of this description,a
vicinity map shall be provided. The map shall include roadways, which afford access to
the site and are included in the study area.

For projects which are reviewed in accordance with CEQA requirements, the required
alternatives to the project shall be analyzed. The proposed alternatives shall be defined
in the Introduction section.

The limits of the study area for the traffic study shall be based on the potential adverse
effects of the proposed project on the City’s existing and ultimate street network, and
the existing traffic conditions surrounding the site. In all instances, however, the study
area limits must include areas with significant impacts based on the approved
Performance Criteria (see the Performance Criteria section). If an agreement cannot be
reached on an appropriate study area boundary, the Director of Public Works and
Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director may require that a
preliminary study area be established through a “select zone” analysis of ITAM. This
preliminary study area shall be expanded or reduced, as appropriate, to meet the
Performance Criteria or adverse effects by phase of the development.

The study area boundary for a limited scope traffic study is limited to all project access
points and immediately adjacent intersections.

Existing Conditions

The study must identify the existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including
a description of the area to be affected by the development. This is to provide a
comparison of the impacts over time on land use and circulation. Existing roadway
conditions shall include the following:

• Existing roadway network

• Number of existing lanes
• Intersection lane configurations
• Traffic control (i.e., signal, stop sign, etc.) - For signalized intersections, where split
phasing or right turn overlap is in place, this information shall be provided in the
study

6
 • Traffic counts2,3
 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
 Peak hour intersection volumes, Both AM and PM by turning movements
• Pedestrian activity/circulation (identification of pedestrian activity, trails,
sidewalks in the project area)
• Level of Service calculations both daily and peak hour

Future Traffic Without Proposed Development

Projected Traffic

Future traffic without the proposed development is called “background” traffic or

“baseline” traffic. This baseline traffic consists of three components:

• Regional traffic - Through traffic which has neither origin nor destination within
Orange County.

• Sub-regional traffic - Through traffic which has either an origin or destination

within Orange County but not within the City of Irvine.

• Other development traffic - Traffic generated by all other development with

either origin or destination within the City of Irvine. If the proposed project
involves a TDR, General Plan intensity modification or intensity shift, the
development traffic of project applications on file with the City will be assumed
in a cumulative analysis (see Page 11 - Cumulative Analysis for details). A list
of all said projects shall be included as an attachment in the approved scope of
work

Within the City of Irvine, background traffic is generally estimated using ITAM.

The following horizon years are required to be analyzed:

2Counts for intersections on the CMP Highway System (i.e., Irvine Blvd., Irvine Center Drive, Jamboree
Road, and Laguna Canyon Road) shall be conducted on at least three separate days (not necessarily
consecutive). An average of three counts will be used for existing LOS in the Level of Service calculation.

3Count data must have been collected within the previous one year period from the approval date of the
scope of work but cannot be older than 18 months from the date of the first screen check traffic/access
study submittal unless deemed otherwise by the City. Count data must be collected during the AM
(generally between 7-10 a.m.) and PM (generally between 3:30-6:30 p.m.) peak periods. For access
analysis purposes, midday peak hour counts may be requested by the City depending on where the project
is located in relation to certain intersections. Counts should be conducted on a Tuesday, Wednesday or
Thursday during weeks not containing a holiday. Current counts which have been performed by the City
will be made available at the request of the applicant. However, if the City does not have counts or if the
counts are not current, the applicant will be required to perform the counts. Should concerns or
discrepancies arise regarding the traffic count data collected, the City may request additional counts.

7
 • Existing
• Short-term Interim Year (typically a 5-year horizon), assumptions include
committed roadway improvements by this timeframe and tolled corridor facilities
• Long-range Interim Year (typically 20 to 25 year horizon), assumptions include
committed improvements by this timeframe and tolled corridor facilities
• Buildout of City, assumptions include full buildout of adopted General Plan and
Master Plan of Arterial Highways and tolled corridor facilities

The database shall be modified to include only those uses for the project site which
exist at the time of application (i.e., existing land use - if vacant, the database shall have
zero land use for that site) or, in the case of legally vested development, that amount of
land use which is vested. Documentation of the vesting of land uses will be required of
the applicant with the application. Computer model runs will then be performed for all
horizon years. These runs will represent the background traffic volumes against which
the “with project” analyses will be compared to develop transportation improvements that
may be needed. In an expansion project, the expansion and any existing development to
be expanded will be considered the “with project” scenario (see Exhibit 3).

For limited scope traffic studies, the Short-term Interim Year will be the only horizon year
analyzed to identify potential LOS improvements. Cumulative analysis may be required
by the City as deemed necessary.

The study shall specify the volumes and levels of service associated with the daily, AM
and PM peak hour conditions. Daily information shall be shown in a graphic format. Peak
hour information shall be summarized in a table which identifies the levels of service
(volume-to-capacity ratios from the Intersection Capacity Utilization {ICU} worksheets).
In addition, ICU worksheets shall be attached as an appendix.

Committed Improvements

For interim conditions, improvements funded by government agencies (i.e., in the Capital
Improvement Program {CIP}) or other development (as approved by the Directorof Public
Works and Transportation) shall be identified. This list would include the nature of the
improvement project, its extent, implementation schedule, and the agency or funding
source responsible. An official list of these “committed improvements” shall be obtained
from the City. A list shall be provided showing the location of such facilities or projects.

The currently approved General Plan Master Plan of Arterial Highway Designation
(General Plan Figure B-1) and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH - for adjacent Cities’ or County roadways, as appropriate) shall be the basis for
roadway improvements considered to be in place for the buildout analysis. The network
assumptions for the analysis years will be discussed in the report.

8
Proposed Project Level of Service (LOS) Improvements

Definition of LOS Improvements

Improvements on the circulation network that are required as a result of development are
based on a comparison to the existing land use of the site at the time of submittal for
development approval or, in the case of vested development, that amount of land use
which is vested. Documentation of the vesting of land use will be required of the applicant
with the application.

Model Trip Generation

The calculation of traffic volumes used to determine traffic improvements required of the
development shall be based on the latest plans submitted for planning areas or on land
use intensity allowed (including a trip cap adopted by the City) under the existing (or
proposed) Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan.

For proposed mixed-use developments, the analysis will assume the plan presented by
the developer and any trip cap established for the area.

When a zone change is requested that proposes to increase the trip cap, the traffic
study for the proposed use will assess the potential adverse effects of the project by
comparing the new proposal to a no-project condition. Traffic improvements that are
required as a result of this comparison must be discussed in the traffic study and the
technical results of those improvements (i.e., ICU and LOS of intersections and/or links
with improvements in-place) must be summarized in the traffic study and included in the
appendix of the traffic study.

Trip generation rates shall be based on the most recently approved socioeconomic data-
based trip rates or as approved through the NITM Program for NITM area projects,when
applicable.

Land use trip generation rates will be based on the most recent edition of Institute of
Transportation Engineers utilized by ITAM (at the time of this publication ITE 10th Edition
was used).

Land use information will be converted to the following socioeconomic variables:

• Single-Family Residential
• Multi-Family Residential
• Population
• Employed Residents
• Retail Employment
• Service Employment
• Other Employment

9
 • K to 12 Students
• University Students

The conversion shall be based on the most recently approved land use to socioeconomic
data conversion factors. These factors are included in the technical documentation for
ITAM.

Additional information, such as income or special generators, shall be based on the

most recent regional model, Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) or
as otherwise approved by the City.

Non-ITE land use trip generation rates may be used, based on recognized local resources
or rates based on three-day traffic counts taken for three similar and preferably local sites,
if available, at the discretion of the Director of Public Works and Transportation or
designated staff under the direction of the Director. The detailed recommended rate
methodology shall be included in the scope of work and approvedby the Director of
Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director.

A summary table listing each type of land use, corresponding size or number of units
(square feet, dwelling units, beds, rooms, etc.) for the project site for all horizon years of
model runs shall be provided. The table should include:

• AM peak hour, PM peak hour and daily vehicle trips based on socioeconomic
data for each use, if feasible, otherwise for the project.
• AM peak hour, PM peak hour and daily vehicle trips based on land use trip rates
for each use.
• A comparison of the project trip generation and land uses versus the zoning level
trip cap allocation available on the site.

Adjustments to Trip Generation

The City may examine the feasibility of implementing a policy which would allow
applicants a reduction in trip generation rates for the subject project’s study. If the City
establishes such a program, a reduction in trip generation may be granted by the City, at
the applicant’s request, for the project. The City may require, at a minimum, that the
following information be included in the request and corresponding study: 1)
demonstration of the ability to achieve the specific levels of trip reduction assumed; and
2) documentation of a monitoring and compliance program to ensure the success of its
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The City may require additional
mitigation or the payment of fees if the project generates trips in excess of the levels
approved through the study. Additional information regarding TDM is provided in the
Transportation Demand Management section.

10
Where applicable, trip rate reductions for projects within Spectrum that participate in the
Spectrumotion TMA or other areas of the city that may be subject to participation in an
established TDM program may be considered if sufficient evidence is provided including
but not limited to the two conditions outlined above.

Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment

Traffic generated by the site must be distributed and assigned to the roadway network
in order to determine the project’s impacts. Trip distribution refers to the direction a vehicle
will take to access or leave the project site and can vary depending on:

• Type of proposed development surrounding the site;

• Similar land uses in the vicinity;
• Size of the proposed development; and
• Conditions on the roadway network in the vicinity.

For each horizon year, the distribution of project trips shall be shown in graphic format
using percentages of project traffic by geographical direction. Trip distribution shall be
based on model output. Adjustments to the model output may be necessary. However,
any adjustments shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and Transportation or
designated staff under the direction of the Director prior to the submittal of the study. The
text should describe the methodology and assumptions which are used in the
determination of trip distribution.

Trip assignment identifies the actual routes taken by project traffic to and from the site.
The identification of the project assignment shall be performed utilizing ITAM. Graphic
presentations, as well as discussions of the analysis and results in text of the trip
assignment, shall be provided in the report.

Phased Projects

This section discusses phased construction of developments, trips they will generate, and
phased mitigations planned. Studies for projects planned to be developed in phases must
document an impact assessment as the phases develop (i.e., Phase 1 impacts
separately, Phase 2 impacts would include Phase 1 impacts).

Traffic generation for the project phases shall be determined as outlined earlier in the
report based on the applicant’s phasing proposal. The development shall be conditioned
to adhere to the phasing schedule, as building permits shall be conditioned to be tied to
the approved phasing plan.

Projections of future traffic, both with and without the project, shall be determined as
outlined above. If the phase completion year does not have an existing database,
alternate methods of projecting traffic may be utilized, with the approval of the Director

11
of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director.

Future Traffic with Proposed Development

In order to develop mitigation measures for development, conditions with the project in
place must be known. These future conditions with the proposed development are based
on computer model runs for horizon years which include the project’s proposed land use.

As in “Future Traffic Without Proposed Development” above, traffic projections shall be

developed through the use of ITAM. The assumed land use for the project shall be based
on the proposed land uses for the site. This information shall be added to the database.
This will represent the “with project” condition.

Cumulative Analysis

A cumulative analysis is required if a proposed project involves a Transfer of Developer

Rights (TDR), General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance intensity modification or intensity
shift from one development area to another. Further, if a project does not involve one of
the above conditions, but other pending applications for projects within the traffic study
area do involve one of the above conditions, the Director of Public Works and
Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director may require that
the cumulative analysis described below be performed. The cumulative analysis will
include, in addition to those scenarios outlined and discussed in the “Future Traffic
Without Proposed Project” and “Future Traffic With Proposed Project” sections, a
“baseline plus cumulative projects without project” and a “baseline plus cumulative
projects with project” scenario for each horizon year. The cumulative analysis is one that
analyzes a project with other projects currently on file with the City that are likely and
foreseeable at the time of the project scope of work approval. For a cumulative analysis,
a project to be included as a cumulative project is defined as one that also involves a
TDR, General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance intensity modification or intensity shift from
one development area to another that also requires a traffic study. The analysis may
consider the inclusion of all project applications (also requiring a traffic study) on file
with the City at the time of the scope of work approval. At a minimum, the projects within
the study area boundary shall be included in the cumulative analysis. Projects outside the
study area boundary will be included in the analysis as determined by the Director of
Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director.
A list of all these projects to be assumed as part of the cumulative analysis shall be
included as an attachment in the approved traffic study scope of work. If the cumulative
analysis yields potential deficiencies, responsibility of improvements required will be
based on a fair-share contribution.

12
Analysis

Level of Service (LOS) Analyses

Level of Service (LOS) E shall be considered acceptable for links and intersections in
accordance with the City’s General Plan Objective B-1 and as approved in the Level of
Service E Policy for the Northern Sphere Area developments (see appendix B). LOS D
shall be considered acceptable for all other areas of the City.

In general, levels of service are defined in the City of Irvine General Plan as follows:

Level of Service A: The volume/capacity ratio ranges from 0.0 to 0.60. At this LOS, traffic
volumes are low and speed is not restricted by other vehicles. All signal cycles clear with
no vehicles waiting through more than one original cycle.

Level of Service B: The volume/capacity ratio ranges from 0.61 to 0.70. At this LOS, traffic
volumes begin to be affected by other traffic. Between one and ten percent of thesignal
cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during
peak traffic periods.

Level of Service C: The volume/capacity ratio ranges from 0.71 to 0.80. At this LOS,
operating speeds and maneuverability are closely controlled by other traffic. Between 11
and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more
than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods.

Level of Service D: The volume/capacity ratio ranges from 0.81 to 0.90. At this LOS, traffic
will operate at tolerable operating speeds, although with restricted maneuverability.

Level of Service E: The volume/capacity ratio ranges from 0.91 to 1.00. Traffic will
experience restricted speeds, vehicles will frequently have to wait through two or more
cycles at signalized intersections, and any additional traffic will result in breakdown of
the traffic carrying ability of the system.

Level of Service F: Long queues of traffic, unstable flow, stoppages of long duration with
traffic volumes and traffic, speed can drop to zero. Traffic volumes will be less than the
volume which occurs at Level of Service E.

For existing and future conditions, Levels of Service at intersections shall be calculated
using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. All calculations shall recognize
special phasing arrangements, where applicable. In addition, the lane capacity used in
the ICU calculations shall be 1,700 vehicles per hour, per lane. Adjustment factors for this
value shall consist of the following:

• A lost time of 0.05 shall be added to the ICU calculation.

13
 • If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is at least 19 feet and
parking is prohibited during the peak period, right turning vehicles may be
assumed to utilize this “unofficial” right turn lane. Otherwise, all right turn traffic
shall be assigned to the outside through lane. If a right turn lane exists,right
turn on red may be assumed, if not prohibited at that location. However, the
assumption of the number of vehicles turning right on red must be reasonable
and not conflict with any other critical movements. If a free right turn lane exists
(right turns do not have to stop for the signal), a flow rate of 1,700 vehicles per
hour, per lane may be assumed. The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of the
right turn lane should be reported but not included in thesum of the critical
V/C ratios.

Pedestrian adjustments shall be performed on a case-by-case basis and assessed

according to procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the latest version of the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) for those intersections which have more than 100 existing
pedestrians per peak hour, per intersection leg. No adjustment is required for pedestrian
volumes less than 100 per peak hour.

Link LOS shall be determined using the Average Daily Trips (ADT) V/C ratios and peak
hour link V/C ratios. Values of V/C associated with the various levels of service are stated
below:

LEVEL OF SERVICE V/C

A 0.00 - 0.60
B 0.61 - 0.70
C 0.71 - 0.80
D 0.81 - 0.90
E 0.91 - 1.00
F > 1.00

The capacities to be used to determine V/C ratios for roadway links shall be those
approved by the City of Irvine. They are outlined below, subject to future revisions:

Facility Type Number of Lanes Capacity

LOS D LOS E

Freeways 10 189,000 210,000

8 158,400 176,000
6 121,500 135,000

14
 4 81,000 90,000
Freeway Ramps 2 19,800 22,000
1 14,400 16,000
Expressway 6 121,500 135,000
Major Highway 8 64,800 72,000
6 48,600 54,000
Primary Highway 4 28,800 32,000
Secondary Highway 4 25,200 28,000
Commuter 2 11,700 13,000
Commuter (Rural) 2 16,200 18,000

Roadway facility types shall be based on the General Plan Circulation Element’s Figure
B-1, Master Plan of Arterial Highways. If not listed on the above table, facility/number of
lanes/capacity will be interpolated.
**NOTE: Intersections and roadway links shall be analyzed and meet the performance
criteria on an individual basis. Grouping and screen line calculations will not be accepted.

Performance Criteria

Performance criteria are established in order to determine what traffic improvements

would be required of the development based on its impacts.

A traffic LOS impact occurs when:

• A location is at acceptable level of service (LOS) in the baseline condition and
the project causes the location to become deficient; or
• A location is deficient (i.e., at unacceptable LOS) in the baseline condition and
the project causes the location to further deteriorate by two percent or more.

For intersection analysis, if an intersection is determined to have an LOS impact based

on the criteria above, then the project will be required to mitigate the intersection, at a
minimum, back to the baseline condition.

For intersections and roadway links projected to be deficient in the most recent Circulation
Phasing Analysis Report, the criteria as follows will be applied in the interim year (short
term) only:

Greater than or equal to 0.01, rounded to the third decimal place, then project
mitigation will be required back, at a minimum, to baseline as determined in
“Definition of Impact” or contribution of fair share towards a mitigation back to an
acceptable level of service. If mitigation back to baseline condition is not feasible
by determination of the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated
staff under the direction of the Director, then the contribution of fair share towards
a mitigation will be considered.

15
 For roadway link analysis, if a roadway link is determined to have an LOS
deficiency based on performance criteria, the project will be required to mitigate
back, at a minimum, to baseline as determined in “Definition of Impact”.
Improvement opportunities include capacity augmentation, in accordance with the
provisions of Objective D-1, Implementing Action (m) of the Circulation Element.

For roadway links projected to be deficient based on ADT V/C ratios, further Peak Hour
Link Analysis (PHLA) is required to determine if the roadway link has an LOS impact
based on performance criteria.

Peak Hour Link Analysis

A Peak Hour Link Analysis (PHLA) will be required for all links which exceed the
defined Level-of-Service (LOS) standards when comparing the forecasted average
daily traffic (ADT) volume-to-roadway capacities, as defined by the City. The PHLA
shall be consistent with the December 16, 1996, Transportation and Infrastructure
action approving the “Revised Peak Hour Link Analysis Methodology”.

The PHLA will determine directional AM and PM V/C ratios for each link which is
projected to exceed LOS standards. The peak hour capacity will be determined by
multiplying the midblock number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of
1,600 vehicles per hour. Where the distance between controlled intersections is
one or more miles, the midblock number of lanes shall be multiplied by a lane
capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour.

If the peak hour V/C ratio results do not meet City LOS standards, additional lanes
will be needed for each deficient direction consistent with the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways. The added lane(s) may function either as an auxiliary lane (does
not go through the downstream intersection) or a through lane, as determined by
the ICU analyses of the downstream intersections and roadway links.

When the study area boundary, arterials and intersections fall under the jurisdiction of
agencies outside the City of Irvine, the City may establish per CEQA regulations the
applicable performance criteria but will consider the applicable performance criteria and
practices for those jurisdictions.

A VMT impact analysis may be required for improvements that are needed to address
project-related intersection or roadway link deficiencies. Refer to VMT Impact Analysis
Guidelines (SB 743) included in Exhibit 8.

Special Issues (As Needed)

Every project is unique and, therefore, may have special issues which require

16
discussion and analysis. In many instances, concerns are raised regarding issues, which
though transportation related, are not always included in studies. These include, but are
not limited to, site access, traffic signals, stacking/queuing analyses and pedestrian
circulation. The inclusion of any or all of the special issues analyses shall bedetermined
by the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction
of the Director prior to approval of the scope of work. The scope of work shall outline the
extent and type of analyses required. Analysis of these issues shall be provided in the
manner outlined below.

Site Access Analysis

The project’s impact to access points and on-site circulation will be analyzed. The
analysis will, as appropriate, include the following:

• number of access points needed without negatively impacting traffic flow along
the arterials, deceleration lanes into the site
• spacing between driveways and intersections
• signalization of driveways
• shared access
• turn conflicts/restrictions
• adequate sight, distance/corner clearance
• driveway improvements
• any other operational characteristics

If the proposed project is a residential use with privacy gates or a non-residential use with
controlled access gates, the applicant shall provide a stacking analysis for review and
approval. If the proposed project is a non-residential use with security gates, a stacking
analysis is not required unless required by the Director of Community Development (per
City Zoning Ordinance Section 4-4-8, Gates). The adequacy of the interface with the
arterial network may be analyzed and necessary improvements to adjacent intersections
may be required.

The site access analysis shall comply with adopted City standards and utilize, as
appropriate, the City’s Transportation Design Procedures (dated February 2007).

ITAM will be used to determine the project’s trip distribution. The trips shall be manually
reallocated to the access points based on the latest ITE land use trip generation rates
for the site.

Any existing trips or trips associated with other approved uses, utilizing the same access
points as the proposed project’s trips, will be added in order to capture the full impacts to
the access points.

When details of a project site may not be available, such as at the zoning level, access
points and their locations are considered conceptual in nature. The final placement of

17
such access points shall be finalized and approved as part of the subsequent
development application or when the project details have been refined.

Independent of traffic study requirements and thresholds, when a project is within

approved trip budget/caps and zoning and is only altering existing or proposing new
access points, the discussion outlined in this Site Access Analysis section is the only
applicable section of the document.

The scope of work for and the approval of a site access analysis that is independent of
a comprehensive traffic study or limited scope traffic study are the purview of the Director
of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the Director.
All site access analyses that are part of a larger traffic study shall be approved as part of
the larger study consistent with the parameters discussed in this document.

Traffic Signals

The need for new traffic signals shall be based on warrants outlined in the latest edition
of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

The application of signal warrants, including the appropriate warrants, figures and
assumptions (ex: roadway speed) to be utilized shall be clearly outlined and identified in
the study’s scope of work.

In determining the location of a new signal on an arterial street, traffic progression is of

paramount importance. Impacts on the progression for arterial network may be analyzed
using procedures deemed appropriate by the City’s Traffic Engineer. Currently, the City
uses SYNCHRO software for signal progression purposes. The applicant shall contact
the City Traffic Engineer prior to commencement of a signal progression analysis to
discuss the study and appropriate signal progressionmethodology and assumptions.

Pedestrian Circulation and Transit Connectivity

The City places special emphasis on the safety and protection of pedestrians and
bicyclists especially school children on their way to and from school. The study shall
identify all existing and future pedestrian interface locations affected by the project,
pedestrian facilities within a project and explore the need for appropriate traffic control
devices. City General Plan Objective B-3: Pedestrian Circulation shall be the goal of every
project. In addition, to the extent applicable, the study shall address the project’s
conformance to City General Plan Objectives B-4: Bicycle Circulation and B-5: Riding and
Hiking Trail Networks.

Other special issues and the appropriate analyses required to address said issues shall
be identified by the City at the pre-application conference.

18
Congestion Management Program (CMP) Consistency/Requirements

In June 1990, California voters approved Proposition 111 which established a nine cent
per gallon gas tax, staged over a 5-year period, for the purpose of funding transportation
related improvements statewide. In order to be eligible for the revenues associated with
Proposition 111, Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation (AB 471 amended
to AB 1791) requires urbanized counties in California to adopt a Congestion Management
Program. The goal of CMP is to promote a more coordinated approach to land use and
transportation decisions. As part of the requirements for CMP, a traffic impact analysis
may be required of certain developments. The City of Irvine requires that all roadways,
including those on the CMP Highway System, be analyzed as outlined below. Completion
of the City of Irvine “CMP Monitoring Checklist: Land Use Coordination Component”
(Exhibit 4) shall be required of the applicant or his/her consultant, as outlined in the
Congestion Management Program (CMP) Consistency/Requirements section. The
completed checklist shall be submitted with the application for development.

As part of the study, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that roadways on
the CMP network will not deteriorate due to the development below the requirements for
CMP purposes. Exemptions from the requirements for CMP are outlined in Exhibit 6.
Exemption from the completion of a CMP traffic impact analysis does not exempt the
applicant from the completion of a traffic impact analysis based on the City of Irvine
requirements.

Within the City of Irvine, the following roadways are on the CMP Highway System:
• Irvine Boulevard
• Jamboree Road
• Irvine Center Drive
• Laguna Canyon Road/SR-133
• Tollways: SR-133, SR-241, SR-261, SR-73
• Freeways: I-5, I-405

For these roadways and specifically any intersections on these roadways, the completion
of the “CMP Monitoring Checklist: Land Use Coordination Component” for the City of
Irvine (Exhibit 5) is required. Any future additions to the CMPHS will be subject to the
same CMP requirements outlined in this section.

CEQA VMT Impact Analysis

A summary of the project’s VMT Impact Analysis shall be provided for all projects subject
to CEQA requirements. If a VMT Impact Analysis is not required, then this will be stated
in this Special Issues section. The VMT Impact Analysis will be based on the CEQA VMT
Impact Analysis Guidelines (SB 743) included in Exhibit 8. Any technical updates to the
VMT threshold goal values contained in the VMT Impact Analysis

19
Guidelines (SB 743) are subject to approval by the Transportation Commission at the
recommendation of the Director of Public Works and Transportation.

Required Improvements/Recommendations

Improvement Needs

LOS improvements to the roadway network (including intersections) required due to the
project shall be identified for all portions of the network which meet the Performance
Criteria outlined above. The recommendations section shall include:

Proposed Recommendation LOS Improvements: This section shall describe the

location, nature, and extend of proposed improvements to assure sufficient
roadway capacity. Improvements required shall be identified for all years analyzed.
A plan drawing of each improvement may be required in the study illustrating the
length, width, and other pertinent geometric features of the proposed
improvements.

The determination of whether a plan is needed shall be made by the Director of

Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the
Director.

Level of Service Calculations: A table illustrating the effectiveness of the

improvement for all years analyzed shall be provided. The table shall include the
LOS for the “with” project scenario without proposed LOS improvements, and the
“with” project scenario with proposed LOS improvements.

The application of an Advanced Transportation Management Systems (ATMS)

credit may be considered as an alternative mitigation measure. Such consideration
will be made only if the City maintains an appropriately adopted ATMS policy and
implementation methodology, and such ATMS consideration is made in full
compliance with both. (See Appendix B - City Council Ordinance 03-08 adopted
March 25, 2003).

For LOS improvements required at Circulation Phasing Analysis Report identified

intersections, if a previously identified ultimate improvement is required in the
interim year, fair share will be determined through negotiations with the Director
of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff under the direction of the
Director and the applicant.

It should be noted that various types of improvements may be required of the

development. In addition to LOS improvements required to meet the performance criteria
as outlined above, additional improvements may be required as a result of the TDP
operational analysis. In addition, mitigation measures may be required to address VMT
impacts. All identified improvements that are the responsibility of the project must be
summarized and will be conditioned on the project through conditions of approval,

20
where applicable. If conditions of approval are not applicable (i.e., amendment to the
General Plan and/or Zoning Code), these improvements must be identified in the
applicable General Plan and/or zoning amendment action.

Schedule/Cost of Improvements

The timing of the proposed improvements, based on the various years analyzed, shall be
identified in this section of the report.

In addition, preliminary cost estimates for the improvements may need to be identified, if
deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff
under the direction of the Director. These cost estimates shall include, but not be limited
to, costs associated with studies, design, signalization, signing, pavement markings,
bridges, engineering, construction and construction administration as well as right-of-way.

The construction component shall include, but not be limited to, maintenance of traffic,
clearing and grubbing, earthwork, subgrade stabilization, base material, paving, curb and
gutter, and sidewalks. Reconstruction improvements shall be increasedaccordingly to
account for such items as removal of concrete pavement, bituminous pavement, poor
soil, subsoil excavation and replacement with acceptable material,connecting streets, and
driveway connections.

Current unit values for the various items shall be used in the cost estimates. These values
will then be adjusted, if necessary, based on Construction Pricing Indices orother
appropriate inflation indices.

Fee Assessment/Responsibility for LOS Improvements

A few mechanisms exist for the purpose of assigning responsibility for mitigation of LOS
traffic impacts to the development. A project may be fully or partially responsible for
implementing an improvement needed and may do so through construction of the
improvement as part of the project or through agreement between the City and the
developer to define the terms of the implementation of the improvement.

Fair-share responsibility of an improvement may be identified if the LOS traffic impact is

identified in the cumulative (or “pending”) scenario. The fair-share responsibility
calculation is defined by the ratio of the project’s contributing peak hour volume to the
total peak volume at an intersection or roadway link.

For intersections, the fair-share responsibility is defined as the project’s contributing peak
hour volume at all approaches divided by the total peak hour volume at allapproaches,
during the peak hour period in which an impact is identified. If an impact occurs during
both the morning and evening peak periods, then the project is responsible for the higher
fair-share percentage calculated.

21
For roadway links, the fair-share responsibility is determined based on a multi-step
process. First, the higher percentage calculated by direction, based on the contributing
peak hour volume for each directional link of the roadway segment divided by the total
peak hour volume for each directional link of the roadway segment. If an impact occurs
during both the morning and evening peak periods, then the project is responsible for the
highest fair-share percentage calculated by directional link and by peak period.

Development within the North Irvine Mitigation Program (NITM) is subject to the NITM
Ordinance in terms of NITM mitigation fee responsibilities. Sections of the NITM
Ordinance (Resolution 03-61) are included as Exhibit 7.

Transportation Demand Management

In some cases, there are opportunities to provide for transportation alternatives to the
single occupant automobile, or to shift the impacts of automobile use. Developers may
be required to provide facility improvements in accordance with the City’s Trip Reduction
Ordinance (TRO), City Council Ordinance No. 91-22, subsequently updated as City
Council Ordinance No. 96-03, that encourage use of alternative modes of transportation
to and from the worksite. In addition, projects within the Irvine Spectrum and Irvine
Business Complex (IBC) will be subject to Spectrum Trip Reduction and IBC Trip
Reduction Programs. TDM is further discussed in the VMT Impact Analysis Guidelines
(Exhibit 8).

The City may examine the feasibility of implementing a policy which would allow
applicants a reduction in trip generation rates for the subject project’s study. If the City
establishes such a program, a reduction in trip generation may be granted by the City, at
the applicant’s request, for the project. The City may require, at a minimum, that the
following information be included in the request: 1) demonstration of the ability toachieve
the specific levels of trip reduction assumed; and 2) documentation of the monitoring and
compliance program to ensure success of its TDM program. The City may require
additional mitigation or the payment of fees if the project generates trips in excess of the
levels approved through the study. Exhibit 8 should be referenced for further discussion
of TDM.

Another approach may be to determine allowable trip thresholds instead of granting

square footage thresholds. Monitoring shall be used to establish progress toward trip
thresholds. The applicant shall be responsible to limit trip generation through ridesharing,
transit, and other means. If the applicant fails to limit trips to the approved threshold, the
City may require the applicant to forego future development (for phased projects), provide
additional mitigation measures, or pay fees. Each applicant shall be conditioned to
implement a monitoring and compliance program to ensure the successful
implementation of its TDM program.

Conclusion

This section of the study shall summarize the required improvements and the proposed

22
mitigation measures. This shall include:
• Roadway Improvements
• Resultant LOS with Proposed Improvements in Place
• Costs
• Schedule
• Funding Sources
• TDM Inclusion
• Identification of TDM Monitoring
• Results of VMT impact analysis (if applicable)

INTER-JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWS

Review of the traffic study by jurisdictions potentially affected by the development shall
be consistent with city requirements and CEQA guidelines when applicable, as well as
any agreements that may be in place between the City and that jurisdiction.

Any comments received from the affected jurisdiction shall be addressed by the applicant,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Transportation or designated staff
under the direction of the Director.

If LOS improvements within other jurisdictions are identified, such improvements shall
be identified. The applicant shall be conditioned to enter into an agreement between the
applicant (and/or his/her successors), the City of Irvine and the affected jurisdiction.
This agreement shall establish the manner in which the improvements will be made,
timing of those improvements and the procedure by which funding shall be made by the
applicant for the improvements.

REVISIONS TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES

The Transportation Commission at the recommendation of the Director of Public Works

and Transportation may periodically revise the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines when it is
determined: (1) such revisions are consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of
the City as declared by the City Council, and (2) such revisions are essentially technical
and/or administrative and conforming in their nature and, thus, do not require processing
through normal amendatory proceedings of the City.

Any technical updates to the VMT significance thresholds to address SB 743 that are
contained in the VMT Impact Analysis Guidelines (Exhibit 8) are subject to approval by
the Transportation Commission at the recommendation of the Director of Public Works
and Transportation. All other revisions to the Traffic Study Guidelines shall be approved
by Resolution of the City Council.

23
EXHIBITS

24
 Exhibit 1: Traffic Study Outline

I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction
A. Study Area

III. Existing Conditions

IV. Existing Conditions with Proposed Development

V. Future Traffic Without Proposed Development

A. Projected Traffic
B. Committed Improvements

VI. Proposed Project Impacts

A. Model Trip Generation
B. Adjustments to Trip Generation
C. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
D. Phased Projects

VII. Future Traffic With Proposed Development

VIII. Cumulative Analysis (if applicable)

IX. Analysis/Performance Criteria

X. Special Issues (As Needed)

A. Site Access Analysis
B. Transit Connectivity and Pedestrian Circulation
C. Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Consistency/Requirements
D. Circulation Phasing Locations
E. CEQA VMT Analysis Summary
F. Others, as appropriate

XI. Required Improvements/Recommendations

A. Improvement Needs
B. Schedule/Cost of Improvements
C. Fee Assessment/Responsibility for Improvements
D. Transportation Demand Management

XIII. Conclusion

25
 Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Traffic Study vs Limited Scope Traffic Study Requirements

A comprehensive traffic study and a limited scope traffic study are generally prepared in
the same manner and under the same general criteria. The following table highlights
the key differences between a comprehensive traffic study and a limited scope traffic
study:

Comprehensive Traffic Limited Scope Traffic

Study Study

Study Area Per guidelines Limited to adjacent

intersections

Analysis Short-term and Long-range Short-term Interim Year

Interim Years, General Plan (Project Buildout)
Buildout Year
Scopes of Work Approved by Director of Approved by Director of
Public Works and Public Works and
Transportation or designated Transportation or
staff under the direction of the designated staff under the
Director direction of the Director
Approval Director of Public Works and Director of Public Works
Transportation and Transportation
recommendation to the recommendation to the
Commission body and/or City Commission body and/or
Council City Council if appropriate

26
 Exhibit 3: Traffic Study Types

Traffic Study When is this type of study required? What is included in this
Type study?
APPLICABLE CITYWIDE (except NITM and IBC areas)
Comprehensive • If proposed project requires a General Plan • Potential project impacts
Traffic Study Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC); or (including cumulative impacts)
• Proposed project is estimated to generate 50 or • Existing, short-term, long-
more peak hour trips beyond existing or previously range, build-out conditions
entitled use(s) • Large study area
• Includes Access Study if site
access and operations known
Limited-Scope If proposed project is estimated to generate • Potential project impacts (incl.
Traffic Study between 1 and 49 peak hour trips beyond existing cumulative impacts)
or previously entitled use(s). • Existing and short-term
conditions
• Localized study area
• Includes Access Study
Access Study If proposed project includes a new, removed or Analysis of site access and
relocated driveway with no other changes to land operations (e.g., driveway
use or estimated peak hour trips that would trigger lengths, turn pocket lengths,
the need for a comprehensive or limited-scope etc.)
traffic study

Trip • If proposed project is determined by City

Generation/Unit Engineer in coordination with the City Traffic Comparison of project
Comparison Engineer to be in “substantial conformance” with description and trips against
Report prior map approval when applicable; and previously approved project
• If the proposed project land use is generally and trips
consistent with the previously approved project
“A” map, “B” map or CUP/Master Plan; and
• If the proposed project generates trips equal to
or less than prior approval based on ITE trip
rates (or other trip generation rate approved by
the City).
APPLICABLE IN NORTH IRVINE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION (NITM) AREA ONLY
(Planning Areas 1, 5, 6, 9, 40 and 51)
Comprehensive If proposed project requires a General Plan • Potential project impacts
Traffic Study Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC); (including cumulative impacts)
• Existing, short-term, long-
range, build-out conditions
• Extensive NITM study area
(defined in NITM Ordinance)
• Includes Access Study if site
access and operations known

27
Map-Level • If proposed project includes a large-scale (“A” • Potential project impacts
Traffic Study map) that entitles land uses; or • Short-term condition
• If proposed project includes a more detailed (“B” • Extensive NITM study area
map) that increases trips above prior approved • Includes Access Study
map-level traffic study.
Traffic • If proposed project is determined to be “additive” • Potential project impacts to
Evaluation consistent with Section 9-0-3(C) of the City’s confirm findings of previously
Report Municipal Code and General Plan Land Use approved project
Element Objective A-4; or • Smaller study area than
• If proposed project includes a change in land uses previously approved study
that is inconsistent with the previously approved • Includes Access Study
project “A” map, “B” map or CUP/Master Plan; or
• If proposed project is determined by City Engineer
in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer to not
be in “substantial conformance” with the roadway
network from a previously approved project “A”
map or “B” map; and
• If proposed project does not propose an increase
in trips.
Access Study If proposed project includes a new, removed or Analysis of site access and
relocated driveway with no other changes to land operations (e.g., driveway
use or estimated peak hour trips that would trigger lengths, turn pocket lengths,
the need for a more comprehensive study etc.)

Trip • If proposed project is determined by City Engineer

Generation/Unit in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer to be Comparison of project
Comparison in “substantial conformance” with prior map description and trips against
Report approval when applicable; and previously approved project
• If the proposed project land use is generally and trips.
consistent with the previously approved project “A”
map, “B” map or CUP/Master Plan; and
• If the proposed project generates trips equal to or
less than prior approval based on ITE trip rates (or
other trip generation rate approved by the City).
APPLICABLE IN IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX (IBC) ONLY
(Planning Area 36)
Comprehensive • If proposed project requires a General Plan • Potential project impacts
Traffic Study Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC); or (including cumulative impacts)
• If proposed project requires a Transfer of for multiple study years:
Development Rights (TDR); or existing, short-term, long-
• If proposed project is estimated to generate 50 or range, build-out conditions
more peak hour trips beyond existing or previously • Large study area
entitled use(s). • May include ADT Waiver
Report if project proposes an
ADT beyond the ADT DIV
• Includes Access Study if site
access and operations known

28
Limited-Scope If proposed project is estimated to generate • Potential project impacts (incl.
Traffic Study between 1 and 49 peak hour trips beyond existing cumulative impacts)
or previously entitled use(s). • Existing and short-term
conditions
• Localized study area
• May include ADT Waiver
Report if project proposes an
ADT beyond the ADT DIV
• Includes Access Study
Access Study If proposed project includes a new, removed or Site access and operations
relocated driveway and no other changes to land (e.g., driveway lengths, turn
use or estimated peak hour trips are proposed that pocket lengths, etc.)
would trigger the need for a comprehensive or
limited-scope traffic study
Trip • If proposed project is determined by City Engineer
Generation/Unit in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer to be Comparison of project
Comparison in “substantial conformance” with prior map description and trips against
Report approval when applicable; and previously approved project
• If the proposed project land use is generally and trips
consistent with the previously approved project “A”
map, “B” map or CUP/Master Plan; and
• If the proposed project generates trips equal to or
less than prior approval based on ITE trip rates (or
other trip generation rate approved by the City).
Average Daily
Trips (ADT) If proposed project results in additional average • Potential project impacts
Waiver Report daily trips (ADT) beyond the ADT Development (including cumulative impacts)
Intensity Values (DIVs) designated to that parcel for adjacent roadway links in
the existing, short-term, long-
range and build-out conditions
• Localized study area

29
 Exhibit 4: Expansion of Use Assumptions Matrix

If a proposed development exceeds its trip budget or zoning entitlement, an analysis is

performed using the following matrix:

Horizon Year Vacant Existing Development

Short-term Interim Year Baseline – zero Baseline – Existing
With Project - Total development on the
development proposed ground
by this timeframe With Project – Total
development proposed
by this timeframe
including any retained
existing development
Long-range Interim Year Baseline – approved Baseline –approved
zoning zoning
With Project – Total With Project – Total
development proposed development proposed
by this timeframe by this timeframe
including any retained
existing development
General Plan Buildout Baseline – approved Baseline –approved
Year zoning zoning
With Project – Total With Project – Total
development proposed development proposed
by this timeframe by this timeframe
including any retained
existing development

Note: All previously approved/analyzed entitlement is assumed to have been mitigated.

30
 Exhibit 5: CMP Monitoring Checklist

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

(CMP) MONITORING CHECKLIST
LAND USE COORDINATOR COMPONENT

The CMP legislation requires that the CMP Agency monitor the implementation of the
Orange County CMP, including CMP land use coordination component requirements.
The following is a CMP Monitoring Checklist for the Land Use Coordination Component
which has been developed to monitor impacts on CMP Highway System (CMPHS)
links and intersections.

1. Project Applicant:

2. Project Name:

3. Project Description (Describe proposed land uses, square footage, # of

dwelling units, size of parcel, etc.):

4. Previous Approvals:

5. Address/Location:

6. Case Number:

7. Date of Case Submittal:

8. Total Average Daily Trips:

9. Level of Service at CMP intersection:

CITY OF IRVINE • ONE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA • P.O. BOX 19575, IRVINE,
CALIFORNIA 92623 • (949) 724-6000

31
Development Project Submittal:

10. Does the proposed development project generate 2,400 or more Average Daily
Trips?
Yes No

11. Does the proposed development project generate more than 1,600 Average
Daily Trips with direct access to, or in close proximity to, a CMP HighwaySystem?
Yes No

** If you have answered NO to Items 10 and 11, a CMP Traffic Study is not
required.

** If you have answered YES to Items 10 and 11, a CMP Traffic Study is required.
Please continue.

CMP Traffic Impact Analysis:

12. Did the Traffic Study identify whether any CMP Highway Systemlinks/intersections
would exceed their established Level of Service standard as a result of project
related traffic?
Yes No

13. If so, which CMPHS links/intersections and proposed mitigation?

14. Which, if any, of these impacted CMPHS links/intersections are located outside
the boundaries of the City of Irvine?

15. Did the City of Irvine participate in interjurisdictional discussions with the affected
jurisdictions to develop a mitigation strategy for each impacted link/intersection?
Yes No

If Yes to 15, briefly explain:

32
Projects Exempt From CMP Requirements:

16. Is the proposed development project exempt from CMP requirements?

Yes No

17. If so, please identify why the project was exempt from CMP requirements.

** A brief explanation to those items answered NO should be provided by the

Transportation Engineer/Analyst.

Checklist Reviewed By:

Director of Public Works and Transportation Date

33
 Exhibit 6: CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt Projects

Those projects which are exempt from the mandatory CMP Traffic Impact Analysis are
listed below. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive. Any inquiries regarding exemptions
shall be transmitted in writing to the City of Irvine and the Orange County Transportation
Authority, attention CMP Program Manager.

1. Applicants for subsequent development permits (i.e., conditional use permits,

subdivision maps, site plans, etc.) for entitlement specified in and granted in a
development agreement entered into prior to July 10, l989. 3

2. Any development application generating vehicular trips below the Average Daily
Trip (ADT) threshold for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis, specifically, any project
generating less than 2,400 ADT total, or any project generating less than 1,600
ADT directly onto the CMPHS.2,3

3. Final tract and parcel maps.1,2,3

4. Issuance of building permits.1,2,3

5. Issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy.1,2,3

6. Minor modifications to approved developments where the location and intensity

of project uses have been approved through previous and separate local
government actions prior to January 1, 1992. 1,2,3

1A CMP TIA is not required for these projects only in those instances where
development approvals granting entitlement for the project sites were granted prior to the
effective date of CMP TIA requirements (i.e., January 1, 1992).
2Exemption from conduction of a CMP TIA shall not be considered an exemption
from such projects’ participation in approved, transportation fee programs established by
the local jurisdiction.
3Vehicular trips generated by CMP TIA-exempt development applications shall not
be factored out in any traffic analyses or levels of service calculations for the CMPHS.

Source: Orange County Congestion Management Program-2001, Orange County

Transportation Authority

34
Exhibit 7: North Irvine Traffic Mitigation (NITM) City Council Ordinance 03-61

35
 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 03-61

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE

ADOPTING SCOPE OF WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
NORTH IRVINE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION (NITM)
PROGRAM

WHEREAS, by City Council Ordinance No. 03-21, the City of Irvine has adopted
the North Irvine Transportation Mitigation ("NITM") Program, for the purposeof funding,
implementing and expediting the coordinated and phased installation of required traffic
and transportation improvements identified in previously certified CEQA documents in
connection with land use entitlements for City Planning Areas 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 30, 40,
and 51; and

WHEREAS, Section 6-3-703.E of the NITM Program requires the City Council
to adopt, by Resolution, the required scope of work for a Comprehensive NITM Traffic
Study, a Transfer of Intensity Analysis, a NITM Future Development Area Fee
Allocation Plan, and a TTM/TPM Traffic Study, each of which is required to be
conducted and/or prepared pursuant to the NITM Program (the "NITM Scopes of
Work"); and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby

resolve as follows:

1. The scopes of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A"
as the NITM Scopes of Work are hereby approved.

2. Pursuant to Section 6-3-703.E of the NITM Program, the Director of

Community Development is hereby authorized to revise any of the attached
NITM Scopes of Work upon the unanimous recommendation of all of the
members of the NITM Advisory Committee.
 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Irvine at a regular
meeting held on the 27th day of May 2003.

ATTEST:

I JERI L. STATELY, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that
the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Irvine, held on the 27th day of May 2003.

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Krom, Mears, Shea, Ward and

Agran

NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None

ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None

2 CC RESOLUTION 03-61
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

I. Background

The North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) Program was initially conducted in
conjunction with the entitlement of Northern Sphere development, Planning Area 40, and
the City of Irvine's Great Park (the "NITM Properties"). This program will provide the
required funding for implementing the identified circulation improvements within the study
area. It is recognized that this program will require periodic updates in response to the
changes in land use and circulation system surrounding the analysis area.
Furthermore, changes may be warranted in response to applications for modified
development plans within the areas subject to the fee Ordinance. Therefore, the
following procedures are established for conducting Comprehensive NITM Traffic
Studies.

II. When a Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study is Required

A comprehensive NITM Traffic Study is required to be prepared in conjunction with anyof

the following:

• 5-Year Reviews or Interim Reviews to reflect the latest land use, circulation, traffic
modeling assumptions and procedures, and significant changes in the development
features outside the NITM Properties. (See Section III.D.)

• Interim Reviews, as requested by an applicant, to address a proposed General Plan

Amendment/Zone Change affecting one or more Future Development Areas. (See
Section III.E.)

• Interim Reviews, as requested by an applicant, to address potential reduction to the

List of NITM Improvements and associated NITM Fees due to land use intensity
reduction within one or more Future Development Areas. (See Section III.F.)

The City shall initiate 5-Year Reviews in accordance with the NITM Program until such
time that all required NITM Improvements are implemented and the collected fees are
expended.

All Comprehensive NITM Traffic Studies shall be reviewed by the NITM Advisory
Committee.

ID. Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study Scope and Methodology

Each Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study shall contain the following key elements and
shall be prepared in accordance with the methodology outlined below:

EXHIBIT A
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

A. Executive Summary

The type of review shall be discussed in this section. If the review is related to a
project application, a short, clear, and concise description of the project triggering
the review and the analysis findings shall be included in this section. Also included
in this section shall be a summary of the recommended changes to the List of
NITM Improvements and the correspondingly recommended NITM Fee
modifications.

B. Introduction

This section of the report shall include a comprehensive description of the Project
including the size of the Future Development Area and existing and proposed uses
within each zoning category. Also included in this section shall be a detailed
comparison of the proposed project to the assumptions included in the April 30,
2003 NITM Program Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates or the
latest Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study, whichever is more current.

The following elements shall be identified for the purpose of conducting the
Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study:

Project Site

Project-specific information.

A project vicinity map showing the existing and the planned roadways to
serve the project site, and a project site plan shall be included in this
section of the report.

2. Study Area Boundary

The study area boundary for all Comprehensive NITM Traffic Studies
shall be as shown on Exhibit A.

3. Existing, General Plan and Proposed Site Uses

Existing site uses and zoning as included in the April 30, 2003 NITM
Program Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates or the latest
Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study, whichever is more current, shall be
described. Proposed land uses shall be described and tabulated.

C. Existing Conditions

A summary of the status of the List of NITM Improvements (i.e.

whetherconstructed, funding commitments from other programs) shall be
discussed in this section.

882/048 I 70-0488
389920.02 a0S/20/03 Page 2 of7
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

D. 5-Year Reviews And Interim Reviews

It is anticipated that land use patterns and circulation system conditions will
change in the future. These changes may impact the need for certain
unconstructed NITM Improvements. Therefore, this review procedure shall be
conducted to assess the need for the NITM Improvements previously identified on
the List of NITM Improvements. This review procedure will not add any further
projects to the List of NITM Improvements but could identify that some NITM
Improvements are not needed or identify alternative improvements to the current
List of NITM Improvements.

The following future conditions shall be analyzed for 5-Year Reviews and Interim
Reviews, except for (i) Interim Reviews associated with a General Plan
Amendment/Zone Change (GPZ/ZC) and (ii) project intensity reductions, which
are discussed in Sections III.E. and III.F.:

1. New Interim Year (currently Year 2007)

The latest adopted Interim Year ITAM shall be used for conducting this
study. Land use and circulation assumptions within the NITM study area
shall be reviewed to ensure consistency with the latest approvals and
project features. The model network and land use assumptions shall be
updated, as required. The purpose of this analysis is to aid the City in its
identification of NITM Improvement phasing priorities or alternative
improvements.

2. Interim Year Long Term (currently Year 2025)

The latest adopted Interim Year Long Term ITAM (currently Year 2025)
shall be used for conducting this analysis. Land use and circulation
assumptions within the NITM study area shall be reviewed to ensure
consistency with the latest approvals and project features. The model
network and land use assumptions shall be updated, as required. The
purpose of this analysis is to determine if any NITM Improvements are no
longer required based on updated assumptions or if alternative
improvements are appropriate.

3. Build-out (Currently Post 2025)

The latest adopted Build-out Year (currently Post 2025) ITAM shall be
used for conducting this study. Land use and circulation assumptions
within the NITM study area shall be reviewed to ensure consistency with
the latest approvals and project features. The model network and land use
assumptions shall be updated, as required. The purpose of this analysis is
to determine if any NITM Improvements are no longer required based on
updated assumptions or if alternative improvements are appropriate.

882/048170-0488
389920.02 a0S/20/03 Page 3 of7
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

4. Cost Estimates

Cost estimates for all projects on the List of NITM Improvements shall
beupdated for 5-Year Reviews only. Actual costs will be reflected for
constructed improvements. Updated estimates will be prepared for
unconstructed improvements.

5. Fair Share Allocation Update

Upon review of the List of NITM Improvements resulting from the analysis
conducted in Sections III.D.2. and III.D.3. and by utilizing the ITAM model
version and methodology used in the April 30, 2003 NITM Program Nexus
Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates or the latest Comprehensive
NITM Traffic Study, whichever is more current, NITM Fees shall be
recalculated as specified in Section 6-3-706 of the Ordinance. The fair-
share percentage allocation to any Future Development Area shall be the
same allocation as established in the April 30, 2003 NITM Program Nexus
Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates or as revised with the Interim
Reviews conducted per Sections III.E. and III.F. or as revised through a
Transfer of Intensity Analysis. Any new improvements which have not
been included in the List of NITM Improvements are assumed to have
been caused by land use/circulation changes outside of the NITM
Properties and thus will not be added to the List of NITM Improvements.
However, the 5-Year Review and Interim Reviews will include a
discussion on alternative funding strategies that could be adopted to
ensure construction of these new improvement needs.

E. Interim Reviews For General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applications

As discussed ear1ier, project related Interim Reviews are required to be prepared

for several scenarios. A GPA/ZC in a Future Development Area or deletion of a
General Plan level roadway will require an Interim Review. The impacts of such a
land use change or road deletion must be analyzed and appropriate potential
mitigation measures must be identified. The applicant is 100% responsible for
implementing any new circulation mitigation measures resulting from the
GPA/ZC that are not included in the List of NITM Improvements. Also, the
applicant shall be responsible for any increased fair-share allocation for NITM
Improvements allocated to the future development of the Future Development
Area in which the subject GPA/ZC is located, which would simultaneously result
in a reduction of fair-share allocation to other Future Development Areas, as
specified in Section 6-3-706 of the Ordinance.

GPA/ZC associated NITM Reviews shall conduct the following analysis:

882/048170-0488
389920.02 a0S/20/03 Page 4 of7
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

1. Interim Year ( currently Year 2007)

The latest adopted interim year ITAM version shall be revised to reflect
the proposed project changes and new findings shall be presented
regarding the phasing needs for NITM Improvements or alternative
improvements.

2. Interim Year Long Term (currently Year 2025)

The latest adopted Interim Year Long Term (currently Year 2025) shall be
revised to reflect the proposed project changes. The purpose of this
analysis shall be to determine if a) any new improvements are needed, b)
any NITM Improvements are no longer needed or c) alternative
improvements are appropriate.

3. Build-out (currently Post 2025)

The latest adopted Build-out ITAM (currently Post-2025) shall be revised

to reflect the proposed project changes. The purpose of this analysis shall
be to determine if a) any new improvements are needed, b) any NITM
Improvements are no longer needed or c) alternative improvements are
appropriate.

4. NITM Fee Update for GPA/ZC

Upon review of the List of NITM Improvements resulting from the

analysis conducted in Section III.E.2. and III.E.3., and by utilizing the
ITAM model version and methodology used in the April 30, 2003 NITM
Program Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, the NITM
Fees shall be recalculated per the requirements of Section 6-3-706 of the
Ordinance and reflecting any fair-share allocation modifications based on
previously approved 5-Year Reviews, Interim Reviews and/or Transfer of
Intensity Analyses. However, the fair-share allocation to any Future
Development Area, except the Future Development Area site included in
the GPA/ZC, shall not exceed the allocation established prior to the
Interim Review. In no case will the NITM Fees for a Future Development
Area which is not the subject of a GPA/ZC be increased.

F. Interim Reviews For Project Intensity Reductions

Intensity reductions in a Future Development Area without a GPA/ZC would

potentially reduce the number or extent of NITM Improvements identified in the
List of NITM Improvements. Such reductions shall not result in the increase of
NITM Fees to any other Future Development Areas. Therefore, the following
scenarios may be analyzed by the project applicant for determining if NITM Fees·
can be reduced:

882/048170-0488
389920.02 a0S/20/03
Page 5 of7
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

1. Interim Year (Currently 2007)

The latest adopted interim year ITAM (currently 2007) study traffic model
shall be revised to reflect proposed project changes if such changes might
impact the City's assessment of NITM Improvement priorities or
alternatives.

2. Interim Year Long Term (currently 2025)

The latest adopted Interim Year Long Term ITAM (currently 2025) shall
be revised to reflect the proposed project changes and new findings will be
presented including updated improvements. The purpose of this analysis
is to determine if the reduced land use intensity will eliminate any needed
NITM Improvements or result in alternative improvements.

3. Revised Build-out (currently Post 2025)

The latest adopted NITM analysis traffic model shall be revised to reflect
the proposed project changes and new findings shall be presented
including updated improvements. The purpose of this analysis is to
determine if the reduced land use intensity will eliminate any needed
NITM Improvements or result in alternative improvements.

4. NITM Fee Update For Intensity Reductions

Upon review of the List of NITM Improvements resulting from the

analysis conducted in Sections III.F.2. and III.F.3., and by utilizing the
ITAM model version and methodology used in the April 30, 2003 NITM
Program Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, the NITM
Fees shall be recalculated by eliminating any NITM Improvements no
longer needed and reflecting any fair-share allocation modifications based
on previously approved 5-Year Reviews, Interim Reviews and/or Transfer
of Intensity Analyses. The fair-share percentage allocation to any Future
Development Area for the remaining projects on the List of NITM
Improvements shall be the same level as established prior to the Interim
Review.

N. Comprehensive Traffic Study Technical Elements

A. Fair-Share Allocation

It is recognized that updated trip generation rates, circulation assumptions and land
use assumptions will be used in Comprehensive NITM Traffic Studies prepared in
conjunction with the NITM Program. However, for the purpose of re­calculating
the fair-share allocation of Future Development Areas for the List of NITM
Improvements, the methodology and assumptions (i.e. trip generation rates)

882/048 I 70-0488
389920.02 a0S/20/03
Page 6 of7
 Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study

shall be consistent with the methodology and assumptions used in the April 30,
2003 NITM Program Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates.

B. Trip Distribution

Trip distribution shall be based on ITAM model distribution.

C. Trip Assignment

Trip assignment shall be based on ITAM model assignment.

V. Performance Criteria

The performance criteria to re-assess the List of NITM Improvements and revise NITM
Fees for 5-Year Reviews and Interim Reviews shall be consistent with the methodology
utilized in the April 30, 2003 NJTM Program Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust
Associates, and is attached as Exhibit B. It is recognized that performance criteria for
assessing the impacts for a proposed GPA/ZC for CEQA purposes would be updated, as
applicable.

882/048170-0488
389920.02 a0S/20/03
Page 7 of7
 Table 1-:2
CIRCULATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
I. Arterial Roads
V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on average daily traffic (ADT) volume/capacity (V/C) ratios
calculated using the following capacities:

City of Irvine
Major Arterial 8 lane 72,000
6 lane 54,000
Primary Arterial 4 lane 32,000
Secondary Arterial 4 lane 28,000
Commuter 2 lane 13,000

City of Orange
Major Arterial 8 lane 75,000
6 lane 56,300
Primary Arterial 4 lane 37,500
Secondary Arterial 4 lane 24,000
Commuter 2 lane 15,000

County of Orange and Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo and Tustin
Major Arterial 8 lane 75,000
6 lane 56,300
Primary Arterial 4 lane 37,500
Secondary Arterial 4 lane 25,000
Commuter 2 lane 12,500

As required by the City of lrvine Link Capacity Analysis guidelines, arterial deficiencies
identified based on ADT V/C ratios are to be further examined using peak hour data.

Performance Standard

CMP arterials outside the City of lrvine, PA33 (Spectrum I/Irvine Center) arterials and Lake
Forest commercial streets: Level of Service E (peak hour V/C less than or equal to 1.00).

All other arterials: Level of Service D (peak hour V/C less than or equal to 0.90).

II. Intersections

V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values
calculated using the following assumptions:

Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane

North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) Program Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.

Nexus Study 1-8 010279NJTM.doc

EXHIBIT B
 Table 1-2 (cont)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

II. Intersections (cont)

V/C Calculation Methodology (cont)

Clearance Interval: 0.05

Right-Turn-On-Red Utilization Factor*: 0.00 for County of Orange intersections, 0.75
for intersections in all other jurisdictions.
* "De-facto" right-tum lane is assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet from edge to
outside of through-lane exists and parking is prohibited during peak periods.

Performance Standard

CMP and Irvine Planning Area 33 (Spectrum I/Irvine Center) intersections, the Bake Parkway/
I-5 northbound ramp intersection, and intersections of Lake Forest commercial streets: Level
of Service E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00).

All other intersections: Level of Service D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90).

III. FreewayfTollway Mainline Segments

V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on peak hour V/C ratios calculated using the following capacities:

2,000 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for mixed-flow (general purpose) lanes.

1,600 vphpl for a one-lane buffer-separated HOV facility.

1,750 vphpl for a two-lane buffer-separated HOV facility.

Performance Standard

Level of Service E (peak hour V/C less than or equal to 1.00).

IV. Freeway/Tollway Ramps

V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on peak hour V/C ratios calculated using the following capacities:

Metered On-Ramps

A maximum capacity of 900 vehicles per hour (vph) for a one-lane metered on-ramp
with only one mixed-flow lane at the meter.

North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) Program Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.

Nexus Study 1-9 0I 0279NITM.doc
 Table 1-2 (cont)
CIRCULATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

IV. Freeway/Tollway Ramps (cont)

V/C Calculation Methodology (cont)

Metered On-Ramps (cont)

A maximum capacity of 1,080 (20 percent greater than 900) vph for a one-lane metered
on-ramp with one mixed-flow lane at the meter plus one high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
preferential lane at the meter.

A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane metered on-ramp with two mixed­ flow
lanes at the meter.

A maximum capacity of 1,800 vph for a two-lane metered on-ramp with two mixed­
flow lanes at the meter.

Toll Ramps (On-Ramps and Off-Ramps)

A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane toll ramp with one cash (stopped) lane
and one FasTrak (unstopped) lane.

Non-Metered and Non-Tolled On-Ramps and Off-Ramps

A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane ramp.

A maximum capacity of 2,250 (50 percent greater than 1,500) vph for a two-lane on­ ramp
that tapers to one merge lane at or beyond the freeway mainline gore point and for a two-
lane off-ramp with only one auxiliary lane.

A maximum capacity of 3,000 vph for a two-lane on-ramp that does not taper to one merge
lane and for a two-lane off-ramp with two auxiliary lanes.

Performance Standard

Level of Service E (peak hour V/C Jess than or c qual to 1.00).

Abbreviations: CMP - Orange County Congestion Management Program

North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) Program Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.

Nexus Study 1-10 010279NITM.doc
 EXHIBIT A-2

TENTATIVE MAPS (TTM/TPM) TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPES OF WORK

 Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

The traffic study is intended to analyze the potential impacts of a proposed project on the affected
segments of the circulation system and to identify appropriate mitigation measures where needed.
The analysis will assess the potential impacts of a project in the short range City model horizon
year scenario.

The study will address the transportation impacts of a project at the Tentative Map (TTM/TPM)
level. The participation of the project in the NITM Program will address the project's long range
and area-wide impacts. This study will serve as the basis of design for all internal project level
roadways and it is intended to satisfy the requirements of all future phases of development within
the project area, which will be developed consistent with the assumptions used in this analysis.

The Map level traffic study will also be utilized by the City in determining the priority of
implementation for the List of NITM Improvements. Additionally, the City will use the
information presented in these studies in evaluating the applicants' request for construction of
improvements and corresponding credit and reimbursements in accordance with Section 6-3-709
of the Ordinance.

The traffic study will include the following key elements:

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This section will provide a short, clear and concise description of the project and the
traffic study findings. Also, included in this section will be the proposed project
mitigation measures. A discussion will be included to indicate that for purposes of this
traffic analysis the project is assumed to be fully built-out by the City model short range
horizon year (Interim Year - currently 2007).

II. INTRODUCTION

This section of the report will include a comprehensive description of the project
including size of the planning area, general terrain features, existing and proposed uses
within each zoning category, and key elements of the traffic analysis.

The following elements are identified for the purpose of conducting the traffic study:
 Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

A. Project Site

Project-specific information.

A project vicinity map showing the existing and the planned roadways to serve the
project site, and a project site plan will be included in this section of the report.

B. Traffic Study Boundary

The traffic study boundary for all map level traffic studies will be consistent with
the study area included in the April 30, 2003 NITM Program Nexus Study
prepared by Austin-Foust Associates.

C. Existing, General Plan and Proposed Site Uses

Existing site uses and zoning will be described. Proposed land uses will be
described and tabulated.

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. Existing Site Uses

Existing land use on the site will be identified.

B. Existing Roadways and lntersections

The characteristics of the site's surrounding roadway network will be surveyed to

verify the existing number of lanes, traffic signal locations, intersection
configurations, and other visible factors which may have to be analyzed.

Existing roadway volumes, volume to capacity ratio and Level of Service at

intersections will be included for the surrounding roadways and intersections
adjacent to the project site.

IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS

The following future condition will be analyzed in the report:

A. Interim Year (currently 2007) without Proposed Project

The most current City of Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) Interim
Year version, with the most recently approved land uses and corresponding

Approved: _

Date: Page 2 of9 05/20/2003

 Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

network assumptions, will be used for conducting this analysis. Any additional
development beyond the existing uses in the project area that might be assumed in
ITAM will be deleted for the analysis of this scenario.

B. Interim Year (currently 2007) with Proposed Project

The most current City of Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) Interim
Year version, with the most recently approved land uses and corresponding
network assumptions, will be used for conducting this analysis. The project will
be assumed to be fully built-out for this analysis.

V. MODELING METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The latest adopted Short Range Horizon Year (currently 2007) version of ITAM, which
has been updated with the most recently approved land uses and corresponding
circulation system features, will be used for conducting the traffic analysis. The modeling
methodology and post processing procedures utilized in the model will be consistent with
the methodology used in the April 30, 2003 NITM Program Nexus Study prepared by
Austin-Foust Associates or the latest Comprehensive NITM Traffic Study, whichever is
more current.

VI. PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT

A. Trip Generation

A summary of trip generation characteristics and trip generation rates for each and
all proposed land uses will be included in the report, consistent with ITAM trip
generation rates and methodology. This information will be provided in a tabular
form in the report.

B. Trip Distribution

The directions of approach to and departure from the site will be obtained based
on the ITAM distribution and will be shown on an exhibit in the report. Where
modifications are needed, appropriate methodology will be presented in the report
for review and approval by the City.

C. Trip Assignment

Trip assignment will be based on model assignment.

Approved: _

Date: Page 3 of9 05/20/2003

Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

VII. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

The performance criteria to determine project impact and mitigation will be consistent
with the City's criteria as utilized in the NITM Program analysis, which are consistent
with the criteria used in Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Northern Sphere,
Planning Area 40, and the City's Great Park. The traffic analysis performance criteria are
further detailed on the attached Table 1. Also, the peak hour link analysis methodology
utilized in the Northern Sphere and Great Park traffic studies will be followed for
evaluating roadway capacity conditions and need for mitigation measures.

The use of and justification for utilizing the ATMS credit is subject to approval by the
Director of Public Works per the applicable provisions of the City's ATMS program.

In accordance with the adopted City Council Resolutions No. 02-64 and 02-65, Level of
Service "E" will be deemed acceptable in the: Irvine Spectrum Area (Planning Areas 13, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39) and at Sand Canyon/I-5 interchange intersection.

VIII. PHASING

The project will be assumed to be fully built-out by Interim Year (currently 2007).

IX. SPECIAL ISSUES

A. Project Site Access and Internal Circulation Analysis

The traffic study will evaluate the design and location of the proposed project
access locations. Traffic control measures, including traffic signal warrant
analysis, will be completed and discussed in the study. Also, the traffic analysis
will address the internal circulation system design, traffic control measures, and
lane requirements. Additionally, the study will provide recommendations for left
turn and right turn pocket design features and lengths at all project access points,
new intersections and modified existing intersections.

B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation

The pedestrian and bicycle circulation and corresponding traffic control measures
within the project area will be discussed in this section of the report.
The report will include a discussion demonstrating how Policies a, b, and c of
General Plan Objective B-3, and how Policies a-k of Objective B-4 will be met
with this project.

C. Circulation Phasing Report Intersections

Approved: _

Date: Page 4 of9 05/20/2003

Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

Should the project adversely impact any Circulation Phasing Report identified
intersections (latest City of Irvine version) within the project study area, an
analysis, as required, will be included in this section of the study.

D. CMP Checklist

A Congestion Management Program (CMP) checklist will be completed in this

section. Any affected CMP facility will be analyzed consistent with the CMP
procedures.

E. Other issues as deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works.

x. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS

Project mitigation measures will be identified for the analysis horizon year. Based upon
the results of the analysis, physical and/or operational improvements required in order to
mitigate any potentially adverse project impacts will be identified in the traffic study. If
NITM Improvements are proposed to be constructed as part of the project, the analysis
shall be performed to identify the Level of Service at the location of the NITM
Improvement both with and without the proposed NITM Improvement.

If the analysis identifies an impact at a location where there are no proposed NITM
Improvements, then the applicant must implement the required improvement to mitigate
this impact if the deficiency is caused by the project. However, if the project is adding to
an existing deficiency at this location then the applicant will be required to pay its fair
share of the required improvements to mitigate this impact. The fair share responsibility
shall be determined consistent with the procedures utilized to determine NITM Fees.

XI. CONCLUSIONS

A summary of the results of the analysis and recommended improvements will be

prepared.

XII. REVISIONS TO TRAFFIC STUDY

Revisions to the traffic study will be provided to respond to City of Irvine comments.

XIII. SIGNATURE

The traffic study will be prepared under the supervision of and signed, stamped and dated
by a registered traffic engineer or a registered professional civil engineer with appropriate
engineering and/or planning credentials.

Approved: _

Date: Page 5 of9 05/20/2003

 Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

Table l

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

I. Arterial Roads

V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on average daily traffic (ADT) volume/capacity (V/C) ratios
calculated using the following capacities:

City of Irvine
Major Arterial 8 lane 72,000
6 lane 54,000
Primary Arterial 4 lane 32,000
Secondary Arterial 4 lane 28,000
Commuter 2 lane 13,000

City of Orange
Major Arterial 8 lane 75,000
6 lane 56,300
Primary Arterial 4 lane 37,500
Secondary Arterial 4 lane 24,000
Commuter 2 lane 15,000

County of Orange and Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo and Tustin
Major Arterial 8 lane 75,000
6 lane 56,300
Primary Arterial 4 lane 37,500
Secondary Arterial 4 lane 25,000
Commuter 2 lane 12,500

Performance Standard
CMP arterials outside the City of lrvine, PA33 (Spectrum I/Irvine Center) arterials and Lake
Forest commercial streets: Level of Service E (peak hour V/C less than or equal to 1.00).

All other arterials: Level of Service D (peak hour V/C less than or equal to .90).

Mitigation Requirement
For V/C greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is
required to bring link location back to acceptable level of service or to no-project conditions if
project contribution is .02 or greater or greater than .03 for CMP roadways outside the City of
Irvine (the impact threshold specified in the CMP).

(continued)

Approved: _

Date: Page 6 of9 05/20/2003

Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

Table I (cont)
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

II. Intersections

V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values
calculated using the following assumptions:

Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/Jane

Clearance Interval: .05
Right-Tum-On-Red Utilization Factor*: .00 for County of Orange intersections, .75 for
intersections in all other jurisdictions.
• "De-facto" right-tum lane is assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet from edge to
outside of through-lane exists and parking is prohibited during peak periods.

Performance Standard
CMP and Irvine Planning Area 33 (Spectrum 1/lrvine Center) intersections, the Bake Parkway/
I-5 northbound ramp intersection, and intersections of Lake Forest commercial streets:
Level of Service E (peak hour ICU Jess than or equal to 1.00).

All other intersections: Level of Service D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90).

Mitigation Requirement
For ICU greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is
required to bring intersection back to acceptable level of service or to no-project conditions if
project contribution is greater than .03 at CMP locations (the impact threshold specified in the
CMP), .02 or greater at locations in the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods,
Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Orange and Tustin, and .01 or greater at County of Orange locations (the
impact threshold specified in the GMP).

III. Freeway/Tollway Mainline Segments

V/C Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on peak hour V/C ratios calculated using the following capacities:

2,000 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for mixed-flow (general purpose) lanes.
1,600 vphpl for a one-Jane buffer-separated HOV facility.
1,750 vphpl for a two-lane buffer-separated HOV facility.

Performance Standard
Level of Service E (peak hour V/C less than or equal to 1.00).

Mitigation Requirement

Approved: _

Date: Page 7 of9 05/20/2003

Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

For V/C greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is required
to bring freeway/tollway mainline location back to acceptable level of service or to no-project
conditions if project contribution is greater than .03 (the impact threshold specified in the CMP).

Table 1 (cont)
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

IV. Freeway/To11way Ramps

VIC Calculation Methodology

Level of service to be based on peak hour V/C ratios calculated using the following capacities:

Metered On-Ramps
A maximum capacity of 900 vehicles per hour (vph) for a one-lane metered on-ramp with
only one mixed-flow lane at the meter.
A maximum capacity of 1,080 (20 percent greater than 900) vph for a one-lane metered on­
ramp with one mixed-flow lane at the meter plus one high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
preferential lane at the meter.
A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane metered on-ramp with two mixed-flow
lanes at the meter.
A maximum capacity of 1,800 vph for a two-lane metered on-ramp with two mixed-flow
lanes at the meter.

Toll Ramps (On-Ramps and Off-Ramps)

A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane toll ramp with one cash (stopped) lane!
and one FasTrak (unstopped) lane.

Non-Metered and Non-Tolled On-Ramps and Off-Ramps

A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane ramp.
A maximum capacity of 2,250 (50 percent greater than 1,500) vph for a two-lane on-ramp
that tapers to one merge lane at or beyond the freeway mainline gore point and for a two­
lane off-ramp with only one auxiliary lane.
A maximum capacity of 3,000 vph for a two-lane on-ramp that does not taper to one merge
lane and for a two-lane off-ramp with two auxiliary lanes.

Performance Standard
Level of Service E (peak hour V/C less than or equal to 1.00).

Mitigation Requirement
For V/C greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is
required to bring ramp back to acceptable level of service or to no-project conditions if project
contribution is greater than .03 for ramps at CMP intersections (the impact threshold specified in
the CMP), .02 or greater for ramps at intersections in the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Irvine, Laguna
Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Orange and Tustin, and .01 or greater for ramps
at County of Orange intersections (the impact threshold specified in the GMP).

Approved: _

Date: Page 8 of9 05/20/2003

Tentative Maps (TTM/TPM)
Traffic Study Scope-Of-Work

Abbreviations: CMP - Orange County Congestion Management Program

GMP - Growth Management Plan

Approved: _

Date: Page 9 of9 05/20/2003

 EXHIBIT A-3

TRANSFER OF INTENSITY ANALYSIS

 Transfer of Intensity Analysis

1. Transfer of Intensity Analysis

A Transfer of Intensity Analysis shall be prepared in connection with a proposed

transfer of development rights or intensity (dwelling unit transfers) between
Future Development Areas as permitted in City of Irvine Zoning Code, Sections
9-5-7, 9-6-7, 9-8-7 and 9-9-7. The purpose of a Transfer of Intensity Analysis is
to identify the amount of Total Future Development Area NITM Impact Fees
which will be transferred from one Future Development Area to another Future
Development Area.

2. Transfer of Intensity Analysis Scope-of-Work

a. In conjunction with the filing of a request for a transfer of development

rights, the applicant shall submit a Transfer of Intensity Analysis to the
Director. This request will identify the specific number of dwelling units
to be transferred from one Future Development Area to another Future
Development Area.

b. The Transfer of Intensity Analysis shall identify the amount of Total

Future Development Area NITM Fees to be transferred based on ADT trip
generation. The NITM Fees to be transferred will be in direct proportion
to the percentage of trip generation within a Future Development Area that
is being transferred. For example, if 5% of the ADT is being transferred,
then 5% of the Total Future Development Area NITM Fees will be
transferred.

05/20/2003
 EXHIBIT A-4

NITM FEE ALLOCATION PLAN

 NITM Fee Allocation Plan

Pursuant to the NITM Ordinance, an applicant may, prior to the earlier of (i) the Issuance of First
Building Permit, or (ii) the Commencement of Construction, elect a payment method other than
that of paying, at that time, all of the Total Future Development Area NITM Fees for a particular
Future Development Area. After such election has been made, a NITM Fee Allocation Plan
("Plan") must be submitted to the City of Irvine ("City") Director of Community Development
("Director") in conjunction with the submittal of an application for each TPM or TTM within
that Future Development Area that covers property which has not already been mapped in a
previous TPM or TTM.

NITM Fee Allocation Plan

The following procedures must be followed in developing a Plan:

1. Identify Payment Option

With submittal of the First TTM or TPM within an FDA, identify the payment option
to be selected for the first TTM or TPM as outlined in Section 6-3-705.B of the
Ordinance. Payment of all or a portion of Total Future Development Area NITM
Fees can be satisfied through use of available credits and/or construction of NITM
Improvements (see 3 below).

2. Alternative Payment Selection

After the applicant has elected one of the three alternative payment selection options
identified in Section 6-3-705.B, the applicant shall submit a Plan that assigns NITM
fees to the entire TTM/TPM and apportions these fees to each of the Parcels within
the TTM/TPM. The Plan shall include the following elements:
a. In the case in which the TTM or TPM covers the entire FDA, the Plan shall
identify whether the Total Future Development Area NITM Fees shall be
funded through an Assessment District ("AD"), Community Facilities District
("CFD"), contractual arrangement, building permit impact fees, utilization of
available credits, construction of NITM Improvements or a combination of
the above. If a portion of the Total Future Development Area NITM Fees are
to be satisfied through the use of available credits and/or construction of
NITM Improvements, the Plan must identify which Parcel(s) will utilize such
credits or NITM Improvements towards satisfaction of its Total Parcel NITM
Fee obligation.
b. For cases in which the TTM or TPM is a portion of the FDA, the Plan shall
include an allocation of the Total TPM/TTM NITM Fees for the subject TTM
or TPM, as well as a summary of the status of the remaining Total Future
Development Area NITM Fee obligation, by providing the following:

Page 1 of4 05/20/2003

NITM Fee Allocation Plan
Page 2 of 4

• Submission to the Director of a trip generation-based "Cost

Assignment Matrix" clearly showing the amount of the Total Future
Development Area NITM Fees to be allocated to the TTM or TPM and
the amount of the Total Future Development Area NITM Fees to be
allocated to other properties within the FDA. The amount to be
allocated to a TTM or TPM shall be based on the percentage of
socioeconomic-based trip generation ADT of the TTM or TPM to the
total ADT within the FDA. The socioeconomic-based trip generation
. rates shall be the same rates utilized in the April 30, 2003 NITM
Nexus Study prepared by Austin-Foust and Associates. If a TTM or
TPM has previously been approved within a FDA, the Total
TTM/TPM NITM Fee allocation for the subsequent TTM or TPM
shall be based on the percentage of ADT of the subsequent TTM or
TPM to total ADT within the FDA less the ADT of the previously
approved TTM or TPM. The following example demonstrates how
this allocation procedure will be implemented:

Total FDA NITM Fee = $10,000,000

Total FDA ADT = 10,000

Initial TIM ADT = 2,000

Remainder of FDA ADT = (10,000-2,000) = 8,000
Initial TTM NITM Fee = $1OM x (2,000/10,000) = $2,000,000
Remainder of FDA NITM Fee = $8,000,000

Second TTM ADT = 4,000

Second TTM NITM Fee == $8M x (4,000/8,000) = $4,000,000
Remainder of Total FDA NITM Fee = $4,000,000

05/20/2003
NITM Fee Allocation Plan
Page 3 of 4

• Identification of how the allocation of Total TTM/TPM NITM Fees

will be funded through AD, CFD, contractual arrangement, available
credits, construction of NITM improvements or a combination of
theabove. The Plan should summarize the status of the Total Future
Development Area NITM Fee obligations for the FDA.

• Summary of the portion of the Total Future Development Area Fees

that will not be funded by the TTM or TPM.

• If a portion of the Total TTM/TPM NITM Fees are to be satisfied

through the use of available credits and/or construction of NITM
Improvements, the Plan must identify which specific Parcel(s) will
utilize such credits or NITM Improvements towards satisfaction of its
NITM Fee obligations.

c. Assessment District or Community Facilities District Financing

Where AD or CFD financing is used, provide information on the boundary
of the AD or CFD, timing of availability of funds, and NITM
Improvements to be constructed by AD or CFD. The Plan shall identify
how NITM Fees within the TTM or TPM are to be paid if bond proceeds
are not available prior to issuance of the First Building Permits or
Commencement of Construction.
d. Contractual Arrangement
Where a contractual arrangement financing is to be used, describe
proposed arrangement including payment schedule, utilization of available
credits (if any), and timing of construction (if any) of NITM
Improvements (see 3 below). The Plan shall identify how NITM Fees
shall be paid within the TTM or TPM if the NITM Improvements are not
constructed per the terms of the agreement required in Section 6-3-709 of
the Ordinance.
e. Building Permit Fees
Where NITM Fees are to be paid with building permits, provide how the
Total TTM/TPM NITM Fee obligation will be distributed among the
Parcels within the TTM or TPM. The actual unit fees must be identified at
the time a subsequent TTM or TPM or Master Plan is filed, as noted
below.

05/2-0/2003
NITM Fee Allocation Plan
Page 4 of 4

• The developer of each Parcel shall be responsible for paying the

Total Parcel NITM Fees, even if the development ultimately
proposed and constructed is less than the amount of development
assumed when the Plan was approved. The Total Parcel NITM Fees
may only be modified in conjunction with the approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Transfer of Intensity, or a
Five Year Review, Interim Review, or annual inflation escalator.
• With the exception of the annual inflation escalator, the Total
Parcel NITM Fees assigned to each Parcel may not be adjusted for
any reason once a final map has been recorded within that Parcel
and a building permit has been issued.
• In conjunction with subsequent applications to develop or
subdivide a Parcel, the applicant shall submit a plan to allocate the
Total Parcel NITM Fee obligation through a unit based fee
payment schedule with a fixed amount per dwelling unit, building
square foot or acre. The plan shall account for the entire Total
Parcel NITM Fee obligation. This plan must be approved prior to
the issuance of the first building permit or commencement of
construction within the Parcel.

3. Identify those NITM Improvements and associated costs that the applicant is proposing to
construct in conjunction with the development of the TTM or TPM in lieu of payment of
NITM Fees. If these improvements and associated costs do not cover the Total
TTM/TPM NITM Fees covered by the Plan, explain how the remainder of the Total
TTM/TPM NITM Fees will be paid. Submit an exhibit showing any applicant owned
right-of-way, which has been identified for NITM Improvements, and associated costs
that the applicant is proposing to provide to the City in conjunction with the development
of the TTM or TPM in lieu of payment of NITM Fees. Any reimbursements or credits
for such improvements and/or right-of-way are subject to the provisions of Section 6-3-
709 of the Ordinance.

05/20/2003
Exhibit 8: VMT Impact Analysis Guideline (SB 743)

RESERVED

36
 CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Adopted by City Council on June 23, 2020

Technical Update approved on March 21, 2023
by the Transportation Commission as
authorized by CityCouncil Resolution No. 20-59

Prepared by:

City of Irvine

Department of Public Works and Transportation

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 1
CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE PROJECTS ................................................................ 2
Screening ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Impact Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5
Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................................................ 6
MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................................ 6
CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ................................................. 7
Screening ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Impact Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................... 9
CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS FORMAT ................................................................................................. 9
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 10
Introduction and Project Description...................................................................................................... 10
Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................. 10
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Attachment 1: SB 743 Implementation Technical Appendix

INTRODUCTION

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact analysis is required in order to comply with the
State’s updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Senate Bill
(SB) 743 (Steinberg). On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB743
into law, which requires a shift in the way cities measure environmental impacts. The
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is requiring all cities to measure transportation
impacts using VMT as the metric to determine the significance under CEQA. This
approach promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of
multimodal transportation networks prioritizing safety and access for all street users, and
a diversity of land uses.

State guidelines require that all cities implement VMT as the metric for CEQA impact
analysis by July 1, 2020. This document serves as the implementation guide for VMT
impact analysis required for land use and transportation projects within the City of Irvine.

The City’s methodology for evaluating traffic operations based on level of service (LOS)
outside of the CEQA requirements will remain unchanged.

BACKGROUND
The VMT approach was selected by OPR to address traffic impacts with the goal of
reducing vehicle emissions by optimizing land use planning through job-housing
balancing in localized areas and by enhancing the multimodal transportation system, both
of which promote less dependency on vehicles. Prior CEQA laws addressed traffic
impacts also with the goal of reducing vehicle emissions but by way of improving Level of
Service (LOS) or traffic delay. The LOS is improved by construction of new roadways or
additional capacity on roadways, that in turn reduces vehicle idling and thereby lowers
emissions. The unintended consequence is that the added capacity supports vehicle
dependency, thereby increasing vehicle emissions.

VMT captures the daily automobile trips generated by a proposed development, multiplied
by the estimated number of miles driven for each trip. In December 2018, OPR issued a
Technical Advisory that recommended using VMT per capita for residential projects and
VMT per employee for office projects as “efficiency” metrics, rather than the absolute
VMT. The VMT per capita for residential projects (or VMT per employee for office projects)
is then compared to a threshold of significance to determine whether a project results in
a significant impact. The thresholds of significance are determined based on the
regional or sub-regional existing VMT rates for similar land uses or some desired
reduction thereof.

The rationale for using the per capita and per employee “efficiency” metric is that
population growth is unavoidable, and therefore total VMT is expected to increase.
However, decreasing VMT on a per-person basis, in combination with other measures
to increase vehicle efficiency and reduce fuel carbon content, will result in a measurable
decrease in greenhouse gas production.

1
CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE PROJECTS

Consistent with the framework outlined in the OPR Technical Advisory, the steps taken
to satisfy CEQA for land use project evaluation include: (1) first determine which projects
require a VMT impact analysis (i.e., screening); (2) calculate the project VMT metric; (3)
compare the metric to a threshold to determine whether the project creates significant
impacts(s) on the environment; and (4) develop mitigation to reduce or avoid the
significant effects. An overview of the process is illustrated in Figure 1 (right column).
Each step is described within this document and the attached Technical Appendix
provides documentation to support the City’s screening process, methodology,
thresholds and mitigation measures.

Screening

All discretionary land use projects subject to CEQA will be considered for a VMT impact
analysis as part of the environmental review process. A discretionary development
application is a development proposal that requires approval by the City Council, Planning
Commission, or Zoning Administrator at a public hearing, before grading or building permit
applications may be submitted and/or approved.

Examples of discretionary development applications include, but are not limited to:

• Master Plans (MP) for development of certain sites and land uses in particular
zoning districts;
• Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for development of proposed land uses not
permitted by right in a particular zoning district as identified in the Zoning
Ordinance; and
• Subdivision, Maps (i.e., tentative tract and/or parcel) for development that divides
land into lots for the purpose of sale, leasing, or financing.

If an analysis of environmental impacts related to transportation (i.e., VMT impact

analysis) is required for a discretionary project, but the project applicant demonstratesto
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Transportation (or assigned staff under
the direction of the Director) that the project meets any one of the following five screening
criteria, then no further VMT impact analysis is required:

1. The project requires an Addendum to a certified EIR and can demonstrate that it
is not subject to VMT analysis per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and
15007(c) and applicable guidance from the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research.
2. The project results in a net increase of 250 or less weekday daily trips based on
latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates (or other
trip generation rate approved by the City).
3. The project is located in a Transit Priority Area (i.e., within half-mile distance of
existing rail transit station or located within half-mile of two or more existing bus
routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during morning
and evening peak hours) except when the project:
2
 a. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
b. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the
project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the
project to supply parking);
c. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as
determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning
Organization; or
d. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate,
or high-income residential units.
4. The project is a 100 percent restricted affordable housing units (Note: If less than
100 percent, the number of restricted affordable units is not subject to VMT impact
analysis. “Restricted” for VMT analysis purposes shall mean having a recorded
instrument against the property that defines affordability terms).
5. The project is locally serving such as 100,000 square feet or less of retail use, a
daycare use or a locally serving public school (kindergarten through 12th grade).

3
 Figure 1
VMT Impact Analysis Methodology Flow Chart for Land Use Projects

4
Impact Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects

All projects that require CEQA analysis must include a VMT Impact Analysis discussion
(i.e., Tiers 1 and 2 in Figure 1) within the Special Issues section of a project’s traffic study.

For those projects that are not screened out, the project’s analysis of resulting VMT rate
must be evaluated and compared against the applicable adopted VMT rate threshold,
using the City’s VMT traffic model (ITAM TransCAD 2018 VMT). The City’s VMT traffic
model is calibrated and validated to represent baseline existing conditions, and this
unique VMT traffic model was used to determine existing VMT rates and will also be used
for VMT impact analysis for a project.

The steps for VMT impact analysis include:

• For residential projects, the project’s Residential VMT per capita rate will be
evaluated against the residential VMT per capita threshold goal:
 If the project’s residential VMT rate is less than or equal to the City’s
adopted residential VMT rate threshold, then no impact results and no
mitigation is required.
 If the project’s residential VMT rate is greater than the City’s adopted
residential VMT rate threshold, then the project has a VMT impact and
mitigation is required.
• For non-residential projects (i.e., office, industrial, retail greater than 100,000 total
gross square feet, hotels, hospitals, commercial recreation, university uses),the
project’s non-residential VMT per employee rate will be evaluated against thenon-
residential VMT per employee threshold goal:
 If the project’s non-residential VMT rate is less than or equal to the City’s
adopted non-residential VMT rate threshold, then no impact results and
no mitigation is required.
 If the project’s non-residential VMT rate is greater than the City’s adopted
non-residential VMT rate threshold, then the project has a VMT impact and
mitigation is required.
• For mixed-use projects that include both residential and non-residential uses, all
project land uses will be evaluated, except for those specific land uses screened
out in Tier 1. Both the residential VMT per capita and non-residential VMT per
employee will be evaluated separately. If either residential or non-residential
uses cause impacts, such uses will be mitigated.

Each residential project should consider if it is appropriate to account for other VMT-
contributing groups (i.e. residential projects with affordability component).

Each non-residential project should consider if it is appropriate to account for VMT-

contributing groups in addition to VMT-contributing employees (i.e., medical office
5
uses).

If the project results in a VMT impact, then mitigation is required to reduce the project’s
VMT rate to the City’s adopted VMT rate threshold.

Thresholds of Significance

The City’s goal and associated significance criteria is for new projects to generate 15
percent less VMT per capita (or per employee) compared to existing conditions, which
is consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory recommendations. City staff will periodically
update the VMT thresholds based on the latest calibrated and validated VMT traffic
model. Any technical updates to the VMT significance thresholds are subject to the
approval of the Transportation Commission at the recommendation of the Director of
Public Works and Transportation.

Table 1 identifies the existing residential VMT per capita and the non-residential VMT per
employee, as well as the proposed VMT per capita and VMT per employee significance
thresholds, using the City VMT traffic model. The residential significance threshold is
based on the countywide population VMT divided by the countywide population, while the
non-residential significance threshold is based on the countywide commute and other
(i.e., customer and client) VMT trips divided by the number of countywide employees.

Table 1
VMT Rate Threshold Goals for Projects within City of Irvine

Land Use Type Existing Threshold Goal*

(15 percent reduction)
Residential (VMT per population) 17.50 14.88
Non-residential (VMT per employee) 48.66 41.36
*Any technical updates to the VMT significance thresholds are subject to the approval of the Transportation
Commission at the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and Transportation.

If the project VMT rate exceeds the respective significance threshold, then the project
creates a significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES

When a project results in a significant VMT impact, it must identify the appropriate (i.e.,
essential nexus and rough proportionality) mitigation measures to reduce the impact to
a level that meets the City’s adopted VMT threshold. All feasible mitigation measures
must be incorporated into the project to substantially reduce the impact even if the project
cannot meet the adopted VMT threshold. The City’s VMT Mitigation and Percent
Reduction is presented in Table 2.

6
 Table 2
VMT Mitigation and Percentage Reduction

As shown in Table 2, residential and non-residential projects may apply two-and-a-half

percent (2.5%) VMT rate reduction for on-site connectivity improvements as part of the
project design to promote bicycle activity (i.e., bike facilities) and pedestrian walkability
(i.e., connected sidewalks from building entrances to public streets). Projects that are
participants in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, such as
Spectrumotion and comparable TDM programs in Planning Area 51, may apply a five
percent (5%) VMT rate reduction in support of the City’s goals toward reducing vehicle
emissions and VMT.

Projects may propose variations to the VMT Reduction Values identified in Table 2 as
well as mitigation measures that are not included in Table 2. The project applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Transportation (or
assigned staff under the direction of the Director) that the proposed mitigation measures
are supported by substantial evidence documenting their effect on reducing project VMT
per capita or VMT per employee.

If the project cannot meet the adopted VMT threshold rate after all feasible mitigations
are incorporated, then a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted along
with preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines.

CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

According to the OPR Technical Advisory, local agencies should consider the effects of
transportation projects on vehicle travel. Projects that lead to additional vehicle travel,
called “induced vehicle travel,” are required to analyze the growth impacts under CEQA.
The Technical Advisory identifies transportation projects that add through lanes on
existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes,
peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade separated interchanges as
projects that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel.

7
Screening

The following transportation projects would likely not lead to a substantial increase in
vehicle travel and therefore, do not require VMT analysis:

• Maintenance: Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair

projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g.,
highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field
elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit
systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not
add additional motor vehicle capacity.
• Roadside Safety: Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such as
median barriers and guardrails.
• Roadway Shoulder: Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown
space,” which is dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle
access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as motor vehicle
travel lanes.
• Non-through Lanes: Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that
are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn pockets, two-way left turn
lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes.
• Through Lanes:
 Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided that the
project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists,and,
if applicable, transit (e.g., protected and separated Class IV bikeway as well
as pedestrian refuges, bulb-outs, and elements that shorten pedestrian
crossing distances);
 Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit
vehicles;
 Addition of a new lane on the approach to an intersection that terminates
immediately downstream of the intersection;
 Reduction in number of through lanes;
 Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrian or
bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles
(e.g. HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles; or
 Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net
increase in number of traffic lanes.
• Traffic Control Devices:
 Installation, removal or reconfiguration of traffic control devices including
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features;
 Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras,
changeable message signs and other electronics designed to optimize
vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow; or
 Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow.
• Traffic Circles: Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles.
• Traffic Calming Devices: Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices.

8
 • Traffic Wayfinding: Addition of traffic wayfinding signage.
• Parking:
 Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces; or
 Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including
meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking
permit programs).
• Active Transportation:
 Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing
streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way; or
 Addition of Class bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities
that serve non-motorized travel.
• Fuel/Charging Infrastructure: Installation of publicly available alternative
fuel/charging infrastructure.

Impact Analysis Methodology for Transportation Projects

Transportation projects that are not screened out are required to prepare a VMT impact
analysis. This analysis must evaluate the net change in VMT with and without theproject
under the build-out condition scenario based on the City’s current version of the traffic
model at the time of analysis of the proposed transportation project. The difference
between with and without project VMT is the VMT attributable to the project.A project
that results in no net percentage increase in the total regional VMT results in no significant
impact and therefore, does not require mitigation. This impact analysis methodology for
transportation projects is consistent with the methodology employed by the California
Department of Transportation as outlined in its Transportation Analysis Under CEQA.

A project that results in a net increase in VMT may be deemed significant and may require
mitigation such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) that integrate advanced
communications technologies into transportation infrastructure and vehicles to advance
safety and mobility.

If a land use project is going to implement transportation improvements to address LOS

operational deficiencies and those improvements are not screened out, then the
improvements must be analyzed as part of the land use project’s VMT impact analysis.
Those transportation improvements would be included as part of the “with project”
scenario for analysis.

CEQA VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS FORMAT

This section describes the key elements of a typical VMT Impact Analysis. In order to
provide consistency and facilitate staff review of VMT Impact Analysis, the format
identified below must be followed. This VMT Impact Analysis shall be an appendix to
the project’s traffic study. A summary of the VMT Impact Analysis shall be included under
the Special Issues section of the project’s traffic study and reference made to the VMT
Impact Analysis within the Appendix of the traffic study.

9
Executive Summary

The Executive Summary of the report shall be a clear, concise description of the level of
VMT Impact Analysis required (Tier 1 or 2) and description of the study findings. It shall
include a general description of all data, purpose, findings, conclusions, mitigation
measures, and recommendations.

Technical publications, calculations, documentation, data reporting, and detailed design

should not be included in this section. The Executive Summary should be concise,
complete in itself, and not dependent on supplementary data included by reference.

Introduction and Project Description

The Introduction shall supply the reader with a general description of the project. This
description shall include the size of the overall project site including all comprising parcels,
general terrain features, all existing/proposed uses and their numbers by type (e.g., units)
and sizes (e.g., gross square footage, rooms) (including any project phasing) based on
the zoning and general plan categories outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the
General Plan.

In addition, the location of the project site shall be described and a vicinity map shall be
provided. The map shall include roadways, which afford access to the site and are
included in the study area. If multiple project alternatives are proposed, then all
alternatives must be defined and discussed in this section.

The study must identify the existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including
a description of the area to be affected by the development. This is to provide a
comparison of the impacts over time on land use and circulation.

The proposed land uses for the project site and any project-related traffic improvements
shall be described in this section.

Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The VMT impact analysis for the project is described in this section, including discussion
of the use of the City’s VMT traffic model (ITAM TransCAD 2018 VMT). VMTimpacts
caused by the project are identified based on the methodology outlined inFigure 1.
A project’s VMT impacts shall be mitigated to the adopted VMT rate thresholds adopted
in Table 1, and a discussion of the mitigation measures is includedin this section.

10
Conclusions

This section of the analysis shall summarize the analysis results and the proposed
mitigation measures. This shall include:

• Land Use project’s resultant VMT per capita and/or VMT per employer rate(s)
with proposed mitigation measures if applicable
• Transportation project’s resultant VMT with proposed mitigation measures if
applicable

11
 SB743 Implementation - VMT Technical Appendix
Updated on March 21, 2023 by City of Irvine Transportation Commission in
Coordination with Iteris
DRAFT | Version 1.5

Submitted to:

19.10234 | Prepared by Iteris, Inc.

Innovating Through Informatics™

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

DOCUMENT VERSION CONTROL

DOCUMENT NAME SUBMITTAL DATE VERSION NO.

Draft #1 March 5 2020 1.0
Draft #2 March 27 2020 1.1
Draft #3 April 17 2020 1.2
Draft #4 April 20 2020 1.3
City-prepared in coordination with Iteris,
Draft #5 1.4
2021
City-prepared in coordination with Iteris,
Draft #6 1.5
2023

Draft | Version 1.5 Iteris, Inc. | ii

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
3 OPR Technical Advisory ........................................................................................................................................ 3
4 Transportation Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 14
5 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Tables
Table 1 - Retail Centers and Existing Square Footage in Irvine ..................................................................................... 7
Table 2 - City of Irvine VMT from ITAM ......................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3 – Comparison of VMT metrics at Alternative Geographic Areas .................................................................... 12
Table 4 – Work Locations of Irvine Residents, Source US Census ............................................................................... 13

Figures
Figure 1 - VMT per Capita by TAZ compared to County Average .................................................................................. 5
Figure 2 - Existing HQTAs in Irvine Area ........................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3 – Existing HQTAs around Irvine and Tustin Metrolink Stations ....................................................................... 6
Figure 4 – Geographic Boundaries – SCAG Region, Orange County, and City of Irvine ............................................... 12

Draft | Version 1.5 Iteris, Inc. | iii

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Technical Appendix is to provide documentation to support the approach and thresholds that the
City of Irvine staff is recommending in order to become compliant with Senate Bill (SB) 743 and its requirements. This
document is intended to be updated periodically as additional information becomes available regarding the threshold
goals, assumptions and methodologies applied, and applicable mitigation measures are updated.

2 BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law. SB 743 tasked the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) with developing alternative methods of measuring transportation impacts pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), other than the current practice of using traffic congestion-based measures,
which tend to promote increased vehicle use. On December 30, 2013, OPR released a technical memorandum that
identified objectives for developing alternative criteria in support of the State’s goals for greenhouse gas reduction
by encouraging higher density, mixed-use development in urban areas served by public transit, and more diverse
travel options.

In August 2014, OPR proposed to replace roadway capacity and vehicle delay measures often displayed as Levels of
Service (LOS) with vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which estimates the total distance people drive by vehicle. This
shift in CEQA transportation metric promotes outcomes that reduce reliance on automobile travel, and thus aligns
with State goals for reducing emissions, investing in multimodal transportation networks and encouraging higher
density in-fill development.

In December 2018, after over five years of stakeholder-driven development through nearly 200 stakeholder
meetings, public convening, and other outreach events, the California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) certified
and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package including the guidelines for implementing SB 743. The final text,
final statement of reasons, and related materials are posted at https://resources.ca.gov/ceqa. The changes have
been approved by the Office of the Administrative Law and are now in effect.

The new CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts) generally
require that VMT-based metrics be used to evaluate transportation impacts beginning July 1, 2020. The CEQA
Guidelines give lead agencies discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT
impacts, however, the methodology must be based on substantial evidence. Importantly, SB 743 “does not
preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any
other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.” (Pub. Resources Code §
21099(b)(4).). Thus, it does not preclude the on-going use of congestion measures as a project performance metric
for operational analysis for conformance with planning for new development consistent with community values.
However, the congestion or operations analysis would not be applicable to determining the significance of
transportation impacts under CEQA.

The Agency’s Statement of Regulatory Impact Assessment for the updated CEQA Guidelines identified numerous
potential direct and indirect benefits of reducing vehicle miles traveled. Realization of those benefits will depend
on the degree to which, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines update, lead agencies use the streamlined approaches
for analysis of low-VMT projects, to mitigate high-VMT projects, or to choose lower VMT project alternatives. Lead
agencies determine whether any particular mitigation measure is feasible in the context of the project under
review. Further, CEQA allows a lead agency to approve a project that has significant environmental impacts so long
as it finds that the benefits of the project outweigh those impacts.

New section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines contains several subdivisions, which are described below. In brief, the
Guidelines provide that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating a project's
vehicle miles traveled. Methodologies for evaluating such impacts are already in use for most land use projects, as
well as many transit and active transportation projects. Methods for evaluating vehicle miles traveled for highway

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 1

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

capacity projects continue to evolve, however, so these Guidelines recognize a lead agency's discretion to
determine the appropriate measure to analyze such projects, provided such analysis is consistent with CEQA and
applicable planning requirements.

Subdivision (a): Purpose

Subdivision (a) clarifies that the primary consideration in evaluating a project’s transportation impacts for CEQA
purposes is the amount and distance that a project might cause people to drive. This captures two measures of
transportation impacts: auto trips generated and vehicle miles traveled. These factors were identified by the
legislature in SB 743. The last sentence clarifies that automobile delay is not a significant effect on the
environment.

Subdivision (b): Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts

While subdivision (a) sets forth general principles related to transportation analysis, subdivision (b) focuses on
specific criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. It is further divided into four
subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3) qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology.

Subdivision (b)(1): Land Use Projects

SB 743 directed OPR and the Agency to develop Guidelines “for determining the significance of transportation
impacts of projects[.]” (Pub. Resources Code § 21099(b)(1).) Therefore, to provide guidance on determining the
significance of impacts, subdivision (b)(1) describes factors that may indicate whether or not the amount of a
project’s vehicle miles traveled may be significant.

Subdivision (b)(2): Transportation Projects

Subdivision (b)(2) focuses on impacts that result from certain transportation projects. Subdivision (b)(2) clarifies
that lead agencies should presume that projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled, such as pedestrian, bicycle and
transit projects, will have a less than significant impact. This subdivision further provides that lead agencies have
discretion regarding what measure to use to evaluate roadway capacity projects, provided that any such analysis is
consistent with the requirements of CEQA and any other applicable requirements (e.g., local planning rules).
Importantly, this provision does not prohibit capacity expansion. It also does not relieve agencies of the
requirement to analyze any other potential impacts of such projects, including, but not limited to, greenhouse gas
emissions and other air pollutants. Finally, recognizing that roadway capacity projects may be analyzed at a
programmatic level, subdivision (b)(2) states that lead agencies may be able to tier from a programmatic analysis
that adequately addresses the effects of such projects.

Subdivision (b)(3)
This subdivision indicates that if existing methods are not available to estimate VMT for a particular project, a lead
agency may analyze the project’s VMT qualitatively, by evaluating factors such as availability to transit and
proximity to other destinations. It further provides that a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be
appropriate for many projects.

Subdivision (b)(4): Methodology

Lead agencies have the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to analyze a project’s vehicle miles
traveled. Depending on the project, vehicle miles traveled may be best measured on a per person, per-household
or other similar unit of measurement. Subdivision (b)(4) also recognizes a role for both models and professional
judgment in estimating vehicle miles traveled.

Subdivision (c): Applicability

The provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007. The new
procedures may be used immediately upon the effective date of the Guidelines if lead agencies are ready to begin
evaluating vehicle miles traveled, but jurisdictions ultimately have until July 1, 2020 to start analyzing vehicle miles
traveled.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 2

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

3 OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY

OPR developed a series of technical advisories to provide advice and guidance on evaluating transportation
impacts in compliance with SB 743. The most current and relevant document, the Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts (Technical Advisory), was published in December 2018. The Technical Advisory provides
non-binding technical advice, and is not a formal administrative regulation, like the CEQA Guidelines. However, it
does provide a reasonable framework for lead agencies as they implement CEQA Guidelines.

To date, the jurisdictions that have implemented SB 743 have all followed the broad approach outlined in the
Technical Advisory, with slight differences for local conditions. The City is also broadly following the approach set
forth in the Technical Advisory. The following section outlines the five main areas in the Technical Advisory and
provides discussion of the justification of the City’s proposed approach:

1. Screening Criteria
2. VMT Calculation Methodology
3. Thresholds of Significance
4. Mitigation Measures
5. Transportation Projects

3.1 Screening Criteria

The Technical Advisory suggests that lead agencies screen out projects that may not warrant VMT analysis under
CEQA based on project size, VMT generation characteristics, transit availability and provision of affordable housing.

OPR Guidance Regarding Small Projects: OPR suggests a small project that would generate 110 trips per day or
less generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact and thus not warrant further
CEQA analysis. However, a City may adjust this criteria to better reflect local conditions.

City of Irvine Recommendation: The current Irvine Traffic Study Guidelines require a full traffic study
if a project generates a net increase of more than 50 peak hour trips and a limited scope traffic study
if the project generates a net increase of between 1 and 49 peak hour trips. Fifty peak hour trips is
typically equivalent to roughly 450 to 500 daily trips. Considering both the OPR suggestion and current City
procedures, as well as existing conditions in the City and the studies and data discussed below, City staff
recommends the use of 250 daily trips as a suitable threshold for small projects. The City of Los Angeles also
decided to use the 250 daily trip threshold.

An ITE report on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) recommended that the small
projects threshold be based on regional standards for transportation analyses that were documented in the
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (ITE/SANTEC, 2000) and have been in use for over 18
years. Their recommendation was that for projects consistent with the General Plan or Community Plan, VMT
impacts could be presumed insignificant for projects generating less than 1,000 ADT. For Projects inconsistent with
the General Plan or Community Plan, VMT impacts could be presumed insignificant for projects generating less
than 500 ADT (www.SANDAG.org\SB743). Analysis by air quality specialists at LSA Associates also suggests that
compared to commonly used GHG emissions thresholds, GHG emissions from a project of less than 500 ADT could
typically be considered less than significant, as follows:

“In order to characterize the effect of changes in project-related average daily trips (ADT) to the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions the air quality model CalEEMod was used. This model was selected because it is provided by the California Air
Resources Board to be used state-wide for developing project-level GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used with the built-in default
trip lengths and types to show the vehicular GHG emissions from incremental amounts of ADT. The following table shows the
resulting annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions from the incremental ADT:

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 3

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod

Annual Vehicle Miles GHG Emissions (Metric Tons
Average Daily Trips (ADT) CO2e per year)
Traveled (VMT)
200 683,430 258
300 1,021,812 386
400 1,386,416 514
500 1.703,020 643
600 2,043,623 771
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Example project used: 50 Single-Family Homes in Orange County.
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
GHG = Greenhouse Gas

A common GHG emissions threshold is 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalenti (CO2e) per year (MT CO2e/yr). The vehicle
emissions are typically more than 50 percent of the total project GHG emissions. Thus, a project with 500 ADT would generally
have total project emissions that would be less than 1,300 MT CO2e/yr. As this level of GHG emissions would be less than 3,000
MT CO2e/yr, the emissions of GHG from a project up to 500 ADT would typically be less than significant.

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a concept developed to provide one metric that includes the effects of numerous GHGs. The
global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG characterizes the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to
another GHG. The GWPs of all GHGs are combined to derive the CO2e.”
Source: LSA Associates, Jan 15, 2020

OPR Guidance Regarding Redevelopment Projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses,
if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant
transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds developed by the
jurisdiction should apply.

City of Irvine Recommendation: One of the intended goals of SB-743 is to support infill development
to encourage active transportation and reduce average trip lengths. In order to encourage such infill
development, OPR suggests using a metric that looks at only the net trips generated by the
redevelopment project (project trips generated by the new development minus trips generated by the previous
development). For redevelopment projects, the City recommends calculation of net project trips generated in
accordance with OPR advice. If the net trips generated by the redevelopment is less that the Small Project trip
threshold of 250 daily trips (as discussed in the prior section) then no additional analysis is required. If a
redevelopment project does not meet this screening criteria, then the redevelopment project is evaluated for
impact analysis based on the applicable residential or non-residential VMT rate methodology in accordance with
OPR advice, as further discussed in subsequent sections of this document.

OPR Guidance Regarding Map-Based Screening of Projects Within Low VMT Areas: Residential and office (or other
land use) projects that are located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of
uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT and thus not warrant further CEQA analysis. Maps
created with VMT data from a travel demand model can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT.

City of Irvine Recommendation: City staff used ITAM to calculate VMT by Planning Area (PA) and by
the smaller Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geography. When staff reviewed the results it was determined
that the use of a particular geographic boundary was a somewhat arbitrary criteria for whether a
project should be screened out or not. For example, for two identical projects on opposite sides of the same street,
one might be screened out because it was in a particular PA or TAZ and another would not be screened out,
despite the fact that both projects would likely exhibit the same VMT characteristics. In order to treat all projects
consistently, City staff decided not to recommend map-based screening to identify areas of low VMT.

As an example in Figure 1, PAs with green and yellow shading represent lower VMT/capita, while PAs with pink
and red shading represent higher VMT/capita. There are several locations where a green-shaded PA (lowest VMT)
is adjacent to a pink-shaded PA (high VMT). A proposed development might produce similar VMT when placed on
one side of a street in a low VMT PA or the other side of the street in a high VMT PA.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 4

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

Figure 1- VMT per Capita by Planning Area compared to County Average

OPR Guidance Regarding High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs), also referred to Transit Priority Areas: A HQTA is
an area within a half a mile of a major transit stop or a bus transit corridor with service intervals of no longer than
15 minutes during peak commute hours. A “Major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit
station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus
routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.” as defined by Public Resources Code §21064.3.

OPR suggests that projects in HQTA’s should generally be presumed to have less than significant impacts, but that
such presumption might be inappropriate if the proposed development:

• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75

• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the
jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking)
• Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency,
with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization)
• Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units

Existing HQTA’s within Irvine are limited to the area around the Irvine train station in Planning Areas 32 and 51 and
the area near the Tustin Metrolink station in Planning Area 10. CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1),
states that lead agencies should generally presume that certain projects (including residential, retail and office
projects, including mixed use) proposed within a HQTA will have a less than significant impact on VMT and thus not
warrant further CEQA analysis.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 5

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

City qualify as HQTA’s in the future, projects in such areas would also be screened out. Any such additional
HQTA’s will be identified in this Appendix, as part of anticipated periodic future updates.

Figure 2- Existing HQTAs in Irvine Area

Figure 3– Existing HQTAs around Irvine and Tustin Metrolink Stations

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 6

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

OPR Guidance Regarding Retail Projects: Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips
rather than creates new trips, estimating the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area affected
with and without the project) is the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts. By adding retail
opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail
development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development
creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the other hand, which
can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact. Where such
development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less-than-significant. While the
Technical Advisory suggests that retail uses of less than 50,000 square feet should generally be considered locally-
serving, it expressly notes that many cities and counties define local-serving and regional-serving retail in their zoning
codes and that lead agencies are in the best position to decide when a project will be local-serving.

City of Irvine Recommendation: The City Council has received comments from residents that Irvine is
underserved by existing retail development. City Council has therefore adopted a policy to encourage
additional retail uses within the City. While the majority of shopping centers within the City are less than
50,000 square feet in size, analysis of existing shopping centers within the City shows that most larger shopping
centers are also neighborhood serving. Even shopping centers in the range between 100,000 and 250,000 square feet
typically serve the surrounding neighborhoods and are not believed to attract significant volumes of regional traffic.
Table 1 identifies the existing shopping centers in Irvine, with only four shopping centers currently exceeding 250,000
square feet. However, given the location of the shopping centers within the City, even relatively large shopping
centers such as Woodbury (315,469 square feet) seem unlikely to draw significant numbers of regional trips. Two
large shopping centers, Irvine Spectrum and Irvine Market Place (combined with Tustin Market Place) might be
considered regional draws due to both size and adjacency to freeways.

Table 1 - Retail Centers and Existing Square Footage in Irvine

NUMBER OF
FROM (SF) TO (SF) CENTERS DESCRIPTION
1 50,000 76 Multiple small retail establishments
50,000 100,000 7
Orchard Hills, Northpark Plaza, Harvard Place, Alton Square,
100,000 120,000 7
Woodbridge, Spectrum Crossroads, Lakeshore Towers
120,000 150,000 5 Northwood, Oak Creek, Quail Hill, Los Olivos, Irvine Concourse
Cypress Village, Culver Plaza, Heritage Plaza, Westpark Plaza,
150,000 250,000 7
Crossroads, Von Karman Plaza, Park Place
250,000 500,000 2 Woodbury, Alton Market Place (Costco)
Irvine Market Place (738,216 SF excludes adjacent Tustin Market
500,000 750,000 1
Place)
750,000 1,500,000 1 Irvine Spectrum
Total 106
Source: Citywide Land Use Database/The Irvine Company

Given the need for additional retail development within the City, as well as the fact that neighborhood shopping
centers in Irvine tend to attract traffic from their surrounding villages, staff is recommending that all retail projects
under 100,000 square feet be considered locally serving. For projects in excess of 100,000 TSF, the question of
whether the use is locally serving will be determined by City staff on a case-by-case basis depending on the size
and location of the proposed development.

Additionally other locally serving land uses under 50,000 square feet include daycare centers and public schools. For
these types of projects in excess of 50,000 square feet, the question of whether the use is locally serving will be
determined by City staff on a case-by-case basis, depending on the size and location of the proposed development.

OPR Guidance Regarding Affordable Housing: OPR guidance indicates that adding affordable housing to infill
locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Further, “…
low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace, if

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 7

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

one is available.” In areas where existing jobs-housing match is closer to optimal, low income housing nevertheless
generates less VMT than market-rate housing, therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable
housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Evidence supports a
presumption of a less-than-significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the
residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own
presumption of a less-than-significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed use projects)
containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence. Furthermore, a
project which includes any affordable residential units may factor the effect of the affordability on VMT into the
assessment of VMT generated by those units.

City of Irvine Recommendation: Affordable housing units will be considered exempt from VMT
analysis, consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory.

OPR Guidance Regarding RTP/SCS Consistency: Section 15125, subdivision (d), of the CEQA Guidelines provides
that lead agencies should analyze impacts resulting from inconsistencies with regional plans, including regional
transportation plans. For this reason, if a project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the lead agency should evaluate whether that inconsistency indicates
a significant impact on transportation. Since the City’s General Plan land use is integrated in to the RTP/SCS, it is
unlikely that an inconsistency would occur, however a project of the scale that would be inconsistent with an
RTP/SCS would likely require its own in-depth transportation analysis regardless

City of Irvine Recommendation: Major projects diverging from the General Plan will require a VMT
analysis unless the project is screened out. This is consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory.

OPR Guidance Regarding Goods Movement: Section 3 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act specifies that VMT to be analyzed is defined as the amount and distance of automobile travel
attributable to a project. SB 743 therefore does not require the inlusion of heavy-duty truck trips, utility vehicles or other
types of vehicles in the VMT analysis. In the case of trucks, the State’s strategy for the goods movement sector is not in
VMT reduction, but in advances in technology (zero and near-zero emission control strategies).

City of Irvine Recommendation: VMT analysis will be performed for automobile trips only, which is
consistent with State policy.

3.2 VMT Calculation Methodology

Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines explains that a “lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s
vehicle miles traveled.”

“Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s
vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in
any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise
those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate
vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the
environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the
analysis described in this section.”

“For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel
attributable to a project.”

City of Irvine Recommendation: The City of Irvine maintains an in-house traffic model, the Irvine
Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) which is currently used to forecast traffic volumes and calculate
Level of Service (LOS) and impacts associated with new development. The traffic model is based on
and is certified consistent with the regional Orange County Transportation Model (OCTAM). The City of Irvine

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 8

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

recently converted ITAM to TransCAD, a transportation modeling software also used by OCTA, and has developed
a VMT calculation tool that appends to the traffic model. The OPR Guidelines state that whatever model or tool is
used to develop the thresholds of significance must also be used to assess the VMT for an individual project, so as
to perform an “apples to apples” comparison.

The City’s proposed approach to calculating VMT “attributable to the project” is consistent with Section 15064.3 of
the CEQA Guidelines. In this approach, ITAM is run with the project land uses, and VMT statistics are calculated
using trip tables and travel distance “skims” for the project TAZ to calculate the project VMT rate. The project
VMT rate is then compared to the VMT threshold rate. The number of trips for each Origin-Destination pair are
multiplied by the distance of that trip for each travel purpose and time period using congested travel times. The
trip tables have the following trip purposes:

• Home-Based Work Direct and Strategic - HBW

• Home-Based Other - HBO
• Home-Based School - HSC
• Home-Based University HBU
• Home-based Shop – HBS1
• Home-based Social/Recreational – HBSR1
• Other-Based Other - OBO
• Work- Based Other - WBO
1 Combined with Home-based Other

External trips going to and from counties outside the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
region are added after this stage. The available time periods are Peak and Off-peak. This allows calculation of VMT
associated with different types of trips. Trips resulting in VMT can be separated into productions (P) that represent
the home end of a trip, and attractions (A) which represent the work end of the trip. For trips that do not start or
end at home, productions represent either the trip maker’s workplace or the trip origin. VMT is calculated for two
types of trips, Residential and Non-residential, separately:

1. Residential VMT = HBW(P) + HBSC(P) + HBU(P) + HBO(P)

2. Non-residential VMT = HBW(A) + HBSC(A) + HBU(A) + HBS(A) + HBSR(A) + HOB(A) + OBO(P and A) +
WBO(P and A)

Table 2 shows an illustrative example of VMT calculated from ITAM. In this example, Irvine residents “produce” 3.6
million daily VMT going to and from their place of employment wherever that may be, whereas all the
employment centers in Irvine “attract” 6.3 million daily VMT from the employees travelling to and from their job in
Irvine from their home (wherever that may be). Both numbers include Irvine residents who also work within Irvine
(about 28% of Irvine workers). The home-based work attractions are higher than the productions since Irvine is a
very job rich City so that more people work in Irvine than are resident workers. The jobs-to-resident ratio in Irvine
is 85% compared to the SCAG average of 41%.

Table 2 - City of Irvine VMT from ITAM

PURPOSE PRODUCTION ATTRACTION TOTAL % TOTAL VMT

Home-based Work 3,649,681 6,285,143 9,934,825 61%
Home-based School 57,230 42,881 100,111 1%
Home-based Other 1,292,970 1,802,655 3,095,625 19%
Home-based University 162,395 470,825 633,219 4%
Work-based Other 614,832 371,777 986,609 6%
Other-based Other 765,065 768,387 1,533,451 9%
TOTAL 6,542,173 9,741,668 16,283,841 100%
=Residential VMT
=Non-residential VMT

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 9

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

ITAM also calculates the associated population and employment of a project through its land use to socioeconomic
data conversion module. VMT, population and employment for any given project can be calculated. The approach
to testing whether a project has a significant impact is to compare the project VMT metric to the adopted
threshold for that metric as shown below (thresholds are discussed in Section 3.3):

• Residential projects: The residential methodology captures VMT associated with the project and the
population resulting from the project. This calculated VMT/capita is compared to the residential
threshold. Each residential project should consider if it is appropriate to account for other VMT-
contributing groups (i.e. residential projects with affordability component).
• Non-residential projects: The non-residential methodology captures all VMT (commute and other non-
residential) associated with the project and the number of employees resulting from the project. Non-
residential uses include uses such as offices, medical offices, hotels, and other land uses. Each non-
residential project should consider if it is appropriate to account for VMT-contributing groups in addition to
VMT-contributing employees . For example, a medical office may have a VMT-contributing group that
considers project-specific estimated number of patients per day in the project VMT rate calculation. Based
on extensive testing of this methodology and its application in the City of Irvine, this methodology meets the
intent of SB 743. This calculated VMT/employee is compared to the non-residential threshold.
• Mixed use projects: Both the residential VMT/capita and non-residential VMT/employee are calculated.
Each type of VMT is then compared to its corresponding threshold. This is consistent with OPRs Technical
Advisory P17 “Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply
the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail).”

3.3 Thresholds of Significance

3.3.1 PERCENTAGE REDUCTION FROM EXISTING VMT

A key step in the environmental review process is to determine whether a project may cause a significant effect on
the environment. Thresholds of significance can inform not only the decision of whether to prepare an EIR, but
also the identification of effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR, the requirement to make detailed findings on
the feasibility of alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the significant effects, and when found to
be feasible, changes in the project to lessen the adverse environmental impacts.

Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a threshold as “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or
performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally
be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be
determined to be less than significant.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7, subd. (a).)

Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines provides general criteria to guide agencies in determining the significance of
environmental effects of their projects, as required by section 21083 of the Public Resources Code. The Natural
Resources Agency updated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 to expressly clarify that agencies may rely on standards
adopted for environmental protection as thresholds of significance. An agency that relies on a threshold of
significance should explain how application of the threshold indicates a less than significant effect.

As discussed further below, the OPR Technical Advisory includes recommendations regarding the thresholds of
significance to be applied to various types of land use projects. However, individual jurisdictions are free to pursue
their own thresholds provided that substantial evidence supporting these thresholds is provided.

Residential Projects: A proposed residential project exceeding a level of fifteen percent below existing VMT per
capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. OPR states these thresholds can be applied to either
household (i.e., tour-based) VMT or home-based (i.e., trip-based) VMT assessments.

Office [Employment] Projects: OPR recommends that office [employment] projects that would generate vehicle
travel exceeding fifteen percent below existing VMT per employee for the region may indicate a significant

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 10

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

transportation impact. OPR uses the term “office” however the likely intent of the advisory was as “employment”.

Retail Projects: Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new
trips, OPR recommends a threshold based on the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area
affected with and without the project) as the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts.

Mixed-Use Projects: OPR states that lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project
independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included. In the analysis of each use, a
project should take credit for internal capture. Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s
dominant use.

Other Land Use Types: OPR states that land use projects, residential, office [employment], and retail projects tend
to have the greatest influence on VMT. For that reason, OPR recommends the quantified thresholds described
above for purposes of analysis and mitigation. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may
develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. However, most other types of
land uses such as public facilities, recreation and parks are generally perceived as community-serving and not
independent trip generators on the scale of residences or workplaces.

City of Irvine Recommendation: The City is proposing to use a fifteen percent reduction from existing
VMT per capita as the threshold for residential projects and fifteen percent reduction from existing
VMT per employee for non-residential projects. As noted above, for mixed use projects the threshold
would consist of both the residential VMT per capita and non-residential VMT per employee
components, consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory suggestions, which were developed to contribute to State
goals in reducing GHG emissions.

Retail projects over 100,000 SF that are not screened out will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if
any VMT analysis is required based on the project location potentially drawing regional trips. A developer of a
retail project over 100,000 SF could support their application by providing a market analysis of potential customers
and their likely origins as either locally serving or regionally serving. Adjustment to trip generation in ITAM to
account for locally serving trips being reallocated between existing shopping centers could then potentially be
requested by the applicant.

Retail projects requiring VMT analysis will be measured against the non-residential VMT threshold goal rate
rather than a comparison of the net VMT with and without the retail project. Through extensive traffic model
testing, the results indicate that new retail uses nearly always result in a theoretical increase in overall VMT.
This increase in VMT occurs in the model despite the nature of retail uses that typically redistribute traffic to
reduce overall VMT. For this reason, the City is proposing a methodology in which retail uses within a certain
locally-serving size do not require VMT impact analysis. However, if the retail use is larger, it must be
analyzed for impacts as a non-residential use based on VMT per employee. The City’s proposed methodology
for non-residential uses accounts for commute VMT as well as non-commute (i.e. customer, client) VMT;
therefore, this is the appropriate analysis for new larger retail uses proposed.

3.3.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS USED TO CALCULATE VMT THRESHOLDS

The OPR Advisory also provides jurisdictions with discretion in determining the geographical area used to develop
thresholds. This suggests that residential thresholds could be developed based on existing conditions at the city or
regional level while non-residential thresholds should be determined at the regional level due to the longer length
of employment trips compared to other trip purposes. Verbiage in the OPR Technical Advisory p16 suggest that for
very large regions (such as the SCAG region) the county might be a better proxy for regional travel: “In cases where
the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most workers would be expected to live, it might
be appropriate to refer to a smaller geography, such as the county, that includes the area over which nearly all
workers would be expected to live”.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 11

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

Figure 4 shows the geographical areas considered for determining VMT thresholds, including the entire SCAG sub-
region, Orange County and the City of Irvine. The City of Irvine could choose to develop thresholds at any of these
three geographic areas or alternatively propose some other geographic area. Table 3 shows the results of testing
of average residential VMT per capita and commute and total non-residential VMT per employee for these three
geographical areas.

The residential VMT per capita is similar between the three geographies although slightly higher for Irvine
residents. Commute trip lengths for jobs located in Irvine are also close to the average for Orange County and the
SCAG region. For these two components, the choice of geography used for the threshold is unlikely to significantly
affect the results. However, for total non-residential VMT, the City of Irvine has lower than average VMT for the
SCAG region, as the SCAG regional average was found to be substantially higher than both the Orange County and
City of Irvine averages.

Figure 4 – Geographic Areas Considered for VMT Thresholds

Table 3 – Comparison of VMT Metrics at Alternative Geographic Areas

GEOGRAPHICAL RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
AREA VMT/CAPITA VMT/EMPLOYEE

City of Irvine 18.65 42.51

Orange County 17.54 48.85

SCAG Region 17.85 63.15

This difference may be a function of the sparsity of the highway network in OCTAM and ITAM in large swathes
within the SCAG region that are distant from Orange County. Additional testing performed on the SCAG regional
model where the level of network detail is reasonably uniform throughout the SCAG region also showed the SCAG
regional average to be higher than the Orange County average, but not by such a large margin, so the sparse
network is only part of the reason. Other reasons likely include better access to other amenities in Irvine compared
to the region as a whole.

Consistent with the county’s regional OCTAM forecast model, the portions of external trips to and from San Diego

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 12

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

county outside of Orange County, are not included in the calculated project VMT nor threshold values. It was
determined through extensive analysis, however, that the percentage of VMT between Orange and San Diego
counties (in the range of 1.5%) is negligible.
City of Irvine Recommendation: Since the SCAG region is
Table 4 – Work Locations of Irvine
geographically large compared to Orange County and
Residents, Source: US Census
contains numerous areas with very different
characteristics to and a low interaction of trips with Irvine,
staff considered the SCAG regional average to be a less relevant
comparator than the Orange countywide average. Table 4 shows
census data indicating that the majority of Irvine resident workers work
within Orange County. The vast majority of other trip types by Irvine
residents, such as home to school and home to shop trips, which are
typically much shorter than home to work trips, also occur entirely
within Orange County.

For residential VMT, while the City of Irvine itself is a fairly large,
diverse City and the City average could reasonably be used as the
geographic unit for VMT, for consistency reasons and because the
residential rates for the city and the county are so similar, staff
recommends comparing both residential and non-residential project
VMT to the existing Countywide average as the most suitable
threshold.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 13

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

4 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
The methodology for testing transportation projects is different from a residential or office project in that it looks
at the total VMT, rather than an efficiency metric such as VMT per capita. The transportation project VMT analysis
looks at the build-out condition scenario with and without the project based on the City’s current version of the
traffic model at the time of analysis of the proposed transportation project. The difference between with and
without project VMT is the VMT attributable to the project. A project that results in no net percentage increase in
the total regional VMT results in no significant impact and therefore, does not require mitigation. This impact
analysis methodology for transportation projects is consistent with the methodology employed by the California
Department of Transportation as outlined in its Transportation Analysis Under CEQA.

For transportation projects that significantly increase roadway capacity, induced travel also needs to be assessed.
However, the analysis would only be performed for a subset of capacity increasing projects. According to the
Technical Advisory, “projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel,
and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis, include:”

• Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of
existing transportation assets
• Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and
U-turn pockets, two-way left turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes
• Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves
conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit
• Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety
• Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles
• Reduction in number of through lanes
• Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order
to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles
• Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features
• Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs and other
electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow
• Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow
• Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles
• Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices
• Initiation of new transit service
• Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in number of traffic lanes
• Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces
• Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits,
accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs)
• Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing
public rights-of-way
• Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non-motorized
travel
• Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure

Staff also carefully considered the addition of a lane through an at-grade intersection, including immediately
before and after the intersection, and whether a VMT analysis should be performed. Based on ITAM traffic model
testing, it was determined that this type of capacity enhancement and safety improvement would not substantially
change total VMT. A determination was therefore made that addition of a through lane that commences before an
intersection and terminates downstream of the intersection is exempt from VMT analysis.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 14

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

4.1 Induced Travel

OPR states the requirement to assess induced travel as follows:

“A transportation project which leads to additional vehicle travel on the roadway network, commonly referred to as
“induced vehicle travel,” would need to quantify the amount of additional vehicle travel in order to assess air
quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions impacts, energy impacts, and noise impacts. Transportation projects
also are required to examine induced growth impacts under CEQA. For any project that increases vehicle travel,
explicit assessment and quantitative reporting of the amount of additional vehicle travel should not be omitted
from the document; such information may be useful and necessary for a full understanding of a project’s
environmental impacts.”

“A lead agency that uses the VMT metric to assess the transportation impacts of a transportation project may
simply report that change in VMT as the impact.”

“While CEQA does not require perfection, it is important to make a reasonably accurate estimate of transportation
projects’ effects on vehicle travel in order to make reasonably accurate estimates of GHG emissions, air quality
emissions, energy impacts, and noise impacts. If a project would likely lead to a measurable and substantial
increase in vehicle travel, the lead agency should conduct an analysis assessing the amount of vehicle travel the
project will induce. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel
generally include:”

“Addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak
period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges.”

The advisory is silent on whether an additional through lane immediately before and after an intersection would
require induced travel analysis. Consistent with ITAM model testing, City staff has taken the view that such a
localized improvement would not lead to a substantial increase in travel. Additionally, local and collector streets do
not require an analysis of induced travel.

City of Irvine Recommendation: Induced travel analysis should be performed only for projects likely
leading to substantial increase in travel. Examples might include:

• Widening of Red Hill Avenue from four to six lanes between MacArthur Boulevard and Main Street
• SR-55 Overcrossing at Alton Parkway
• Extension of Portola Parkway to Lake Forest
• Extension of Marine Way easterly to Barranca Parkway

Available tools for estimating induced travel includes the UC Davis Induced Travel Calculator. The Advisory further
notes that adding a new connection, such as the Alton Parkway SR-55 overcrossing, actually has the potential to
reduce overall VMT:

“A project which provides new connectivity across a barrier, such as a new bridge across a river, may provide a
shortened path between existing origins and destinations, thereby shortening existing trips. In rare cases, this trip-
shortening effect might be substantial enough to reduce the amount of vehicle travel resulting from the project
below the range found in the elasticities in the academic literature, or even lead a net reduction in vehicle travel
overall. In such cases, the trip-shortening effect could be examined explicitly.”

The City’s proposed transportation project analysis would compare total VMT for No Project and With Project
conditions and report total change in VMT in absolute terms and as a percentage of City of Irvine related VMT.
VMT impact analysis guideline updates for transportation projects are expected when future OPR Technical
Advisory updates are provided based on coordination between OPR and Caltrans.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 15

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 16

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

5 MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA requires that an environmental impact report identify feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that
could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1,
subd. (a).) OPR lists potential mitigation measures, many of which require efforts beyond individual projects
because “…VMT is largely a regional impact”. Regional VMT-reduction programs or an in-lieu fee program based on
a programmatic CEQA evaluation are listed as options. OPR’s discussion of project alternatives focuses on
alternative locations or land uses on a site—which would generally not be an alternative for an individual project
applicant and would only be able to be handled at the General Plan, community plan or specific plan level.
Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled identified in the OPR guidelines can be grouped into several
broad Travel Demand Management (TDM) categories:

Commute Trip Reductions: The commute trip reduction category includes required commute trip reduction
programs, vans, vanpools or ride-share. Employer-sponsored vanpools or shuttles can connect employees to a
project site by providing new opportunities for access, through more direct routes at lower costs. Ride share
programs increase vehicle occupancy by providing ride-matching services. These types of strategies replace single-
occupancy vehicle trips with multiple riders in one vehicle. Other options include providing telework options,
providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike
parking, showers and locker rooms and a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.

Shared Mobility: The shared mobility category includes car share, bike share, and school carpool programs. Car
share programs allow people to have on-demand access to a vehicle, as needed, which can serve as a supportive
strategy that enhances other TDM strategies, such as parking unbundling. Bike share programs allow people to
have on-demand access to a bicycle, as needed, to improve access and connectivity. School carpool programs
encourage ride-sharing for students.

Bicycle Infrastructure: The bicycle infrastructure category includes implementing or improving on-street bicycle
facilities, bike parking, and showers/changing rooms. These measures can support safe and comfortable bicycle
travel through improvements in infrastructure, parking, and supportive facilities.

Parking Measures: The parking measures category includes reducing parking, unbundling parking, and pricing
parking. Unbundling parking can allow for a separation of parking cost from property cost, allowing those who
wish to purchase parking spaces that option. Similarly, parking cash out requires employers to offer employees a
“cash-out” option for the monthly value of the free or subsidized parking space.

Transit Improvements: The transit improvements category includes improving access to transit, a reduction in
transit headways, neighborhood shuttles and transit subsidies. A reduction in transit headways can make transit
service more appealing by reducing overall transit trip time, encouraging transit improvements and encouraging
drivers to switch from driving to transit use. Implementation of neighborhood shuttles involves project-operated
or sponsored shuttles that can provide new opportunities for access, connections to jobs or activity centers, and
transit. Transit subsidies involve the subsidization of transit fare for residents and employees of a project site and
can include the provision of transit passes to employees by employers.

Education and Encouragement: The education and encouragement category includes voluntary travel behavior
change programs and promotions and marketing. Voluntary travel behavior change programs can utilize two-way
mass communication campaigns and travel feedback programs that actively engage participants making travel
choices through a program coordinator. Promotions and marketing involves the use of marketing and promotional
tools to educate and inform travelers about site specific transportation options and effects of travel choices.

Neighborhood Enhancements: The neighborhood enhancements category includes traffic calming and pedestrian
network improvements. Implementation of traffic calming measures throughout and around a project site can
encourage people to walk, bike, or take transit through better connections and elimination of barriers. Some of

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 17

 CITY OF IRVINE
SB 743 Implementation – Technical Appendix

these TDM mitigation measures may not be appropriate for the City of Irvine, which is currently relatively
underserved by transit and contains several relatively low land use density areas. An individual developer or even
the City of Irvine has limited influence on OCTA to provide mitigation measures such as increased transit service for
a site-specific development.

Several industry efforts have been made to quantify the effectiveness of TDM measures, including the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) 2010 report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures, which have been used for Climate Action Plans (CAPs). A conservative estimate of the overall effect of a
comprehensive TDM program is on the order of a 5 percent VMT reduction, although some estimates are
significantly higher. The implementation of feasible and effective mitigations will require a proven nexus to
proposed project. Under the current CEQA transportation analysis, the nexus was between site trips and their
impact on the operations of the transportation system. This was concentrated nearer the project, so it was
relatively simple to develop mitigation measures that directly mitigated the impact in terms of the nexus to the
project’s activity and the location. Under SB 743, the significant impact would be more intense the farther away a
vehicle traveled from the project site.

City of Irvine Recommendation: The City will accept the following two potential mitigation measures
for future projects:

1. Onsite connectivity reduction of 2.5 percent VMT rate for on-site connectivity improvements as part of
the project design to promote bicycle activity (i.e. bike facilities) and pedestrian walkability (i.e.,
connected sidewalks from building entrances to public streets. The 2.5 percent is based on the ranges
provided in CAPCOA and subsequent research 1Handy, S. et al. (2014). Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on
Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document.
California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm. .
2. Reduction of 5 percent if the project develops or is part of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program.
This reduction is consistent with CAPCOA and subsequent research2 on trip reduction estimates and is
supported by observed data from the annual Spectrumotion surveys submitted to the City. 2Boarnet, M.
et al. (2014). Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources
Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm

A developer, however, is not restricted to these improvements and could provide additional improvements along with
supporting documentation substantiating the effectiveness of the mitigation. Staff has considered the possibility of a
Citywide VMT fee program to fund VMT-reducing mitigation measures. A CEQA transportation mitigation fee program
would differ from the current City fee programs in two ways. First, the improvements would be related to citywide non-
single occupancy vehicle mobility. Second, not all development projects would be required to pay fees, only those that
result in impacts and require a means for mitigating. There are challenges involved in the implementation of a VMT
Mitigation Fee Program including concerns regarding overall costs and the cost-effectiveness of VMT reduction
measures, as well as concerns about the economic impact of the fee on future development. As such, supplemental
funding through City or OCTA sources may be required. Examples of mitigation included in such a program would be
transit service funding or major infrastructure projects like pedestrian bridges over major arterials. The City could elect to
prepare a nexus fee study to support a VMT Mitigation Fee Program.

Staff also reviewed the possibility of City contributions to regional VMT programs that might be administered by
agencies such as SCAG or OCTA. Although the possibility of such regional fee programs has been widely discussed in
public forums there were no specific regional VMT fee programs in place or being developed at the time of review. 3
Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Banking and Exchange Frameworks, October 2018 Ether Elkind, Ted Lamm and Eric
Prather, UC Berkeley.

A concern from the City’s point of view about this type of program is that developments in Irvine could be paying fees
for transportation projects located outside of the City that would not necessarily benefit Irvine residents. Staff will
revisit the matter should a regional or countywide fee program be developed.

Draft | Version 1.0 Iteris, Inc. | 18

 1700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA 92705

iteris.com

© 2020 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved.

Innovating Through Informatics™

 Exhibit 9: Level of Service ‘E’ Policy

LOS “E” or better shall be considered acceptable within the Irvine Business Complex (PA
36, “IBC”), Irvine Spectrum Center (PA 33), and at the intersection of Bake Parkwayand
the I-5 northbound off-ramp. In conjunction with individual subdivision map level traffic
studies for development proposed in Planning Areas 5B, 6, 8A, 9, and 51, a LOS “E”
standard would be considered acceptable for application to intersections impacted in
Planning Areas 13, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39 and a portion of 51 as further described in the
following.

LOS “E” would be considered acceptable as described above, subject to all three of the
following conditions being met:

1. Preparation, submittal, processing and approval of a traffic study for the specific
subdivision map.

2. Level of Service “E” will only be considered acceptable for an intersection that does
not contain a residential quadrant unless residential development has a net density
of 30 dwelling units to the acre or greater. No Level of Service “E” will be accepted
along Sand Canyon, except at the Sand Canyon/I-5 Interchange
ramps/intersections subject to these three conditions being met.

3. Participation/funding toward an upgraded traffic signal system as defined in the

Traffic Management Systems Operations Study (TMSOS) which may be in place
at the time of processing of the individual subdivision map traffic studies. The City,
in conjunction with the specific subdivision map processing, shall determine the
level of participation/funding using criteria and a process developed concurrent
with submittal of subsequent subdivision maps.

LOS “D” or better shall be considered acceptable within all other areas.

37
Exhibit 10: City Council Ordinance 03-08 – Advanced Transportation Management
Systems (ATMS)

38
 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 03-08

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE

ADDING CHAPTER 10 TO DIVISION 11 OF TITLE 6 OF THE IRVINE
MUNICIPAL CODE. ESTABLISHING AN ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FEE

WHEREAS, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the Circulation

Element of the City of Irvine's General Plan, and to help mitigate the traffic impacts caused
by new development in the City of Irvine, certain public street improvements must be
constructed or implemented; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that an Advanced Transportation Management

System fee is needed to help finance an Advanced Transportation Management System
within the City of Irvine to reduce the impacts of traffic; and

WHEREAS, in establishing the Advanced Transportation Management System fee

described in the following Sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent
with its General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Irvine did hold a public hearing to
consider imposition of an Advanced Transportation Management System fee (ATMS fee),
notice of which hearing was given in the manner referred by law; and

WHEREAS, an analysis of the cost for Advanced Transportation Management

Systems facilities and improvements was conducted, and said study set forth the
relationship between the needed facilities and the estimated costs of those improvements.
The study, entitled" ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM'.', was
prepared by the City of Irvine, and-is dated August 8, 2002; and

WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection and review fourteen
(14) days prior to the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of all evidence, testimony and
reports offered at the public hearing does find as follows:

A. The purpose of the transportation fee is to help finance the Advanced

Transportation Management System facilities to help reduce the impacts of traffic
where the Level of Service (LOS) has been shown to be deficient; and

B. The City Council of the City of Irvine, having received and considered
appropriate facts and evidence, finds and declares that there is a reasonable
relationship between the ATMS, the ATMS fee, and the traffic impacts caused by
new development in the City of Irvine; and

1
 C. The cost estimates set forth in the "ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing
facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new development will not
exceed the total of these costs.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Irvine DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 10 is added to Division 11 of Title 6 of the City Code of the City of
Irvine to read as follows:

CHAPTER 10. AN ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FEE

Sec. 6-11-1001. Adoption Of Advanced Transportation Management System Study

The study entitled "Advanced Transportation Management System Study" is hereby

approved and incorporated herein. A copy of said study shall be kept for public reference
in the office of the City Clerk.

Sec. 6-11-1002. Scope and Purpose

A. An Advanced Transportation Management System fee (the "ATMS fee") is

hereby established in the City to help pay for an Advanced Transportation
Management System. The City Council shall, by Council resolution, set forth the
specific amount of the fee, describe the benefit and impact area on which the
development fee is imposed, and list the specific public improvements to be
financed. The "Advanced Transportation Management System Study" describes
the estimated cost of these facilities, and the reasonable relationship between
this fee and the various types of developments. As described in the fee
resolution, the ATMS fee shall be paid by each owner or developer prior to
issuance of a building permit.

B. The ATMS fee may be imposed only where all of the following conditions are
met:

1. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service is deficient;

and
2. The physical improvements needed to mitigate the ICU value cannot be
constructed because of physical or other constraints, which may preclude
the construction of the required improvements; and
3. The ATMS fee will allow for a 0.05 mitigation credit to the ICU value of
the existing signalized intersection; and
4. An ATMS credit has not been previously approved for the impacted
intersection; and
5. The ATMS credit can only be applied to existing signalized intersections.

2
 C. The ATMS fee is not at the option of the developer or property owner and may
be imposed at the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works and
Transportation.

D. The ATMS fee cannot be applied without the prior approval of the Director of
Public Works and Transportation. Any appeal must be addressed to the City
Council, which may override the Director's decision.

Sec. 6-11-1003. Review And Adjustment of Fee

On a bi-annual basis, or upon award of significant grants or developer improvements, the
City Council shall review the ATMS fee to determine whether the fee is reasonably related
to the impacts of developments and whether the described public facilities are still
needed. The City Council may periodically, by resolution, adjust the amount of the ATMS
fee established by this Chapter by using current construction cost index for the Los
Angeles area published in the most recent Engineering News-Records Construction Cost
Index, or by updating the Advanced Transportation Management Study to reflect changed
conditions.

The study entitled "Advanced Transportation Management System Study," a copy of which
is available in the office of the City Clerk, is approved and incorporated herein.

Sec. 6-11-1004. Exemptions

This Chapter shall not apply to the Irvine Business Complex, which currently has
operational traffic mitigation programs in effect.

This Chapter shall not be applicable to new or proposed signalized intersections.

Sec. 6-11-1005. Limited Use Of Fees

The revenues raised by payment of the ATMS fee shall be placed in a separate and special
account, and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be
used solely to pay for the City's construction of Advance Transportation Management
System Facilities or to reimburse the City for such facilities constructed by the City with
funds advanced by the City from other sources.

Sec. 6-11-1006. Enforcement

The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to initiate such legal proceeding as
may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.

This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following this ordinance's passage by
the City Council.

Sec. 6-11-1007. Severability

The City Council of the City of Irvine hereby declares that should any section, paragraph,
sentence or word of this ordinance of the Code, hereby adopted, be declared for any
reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions
of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portions as may be
declared invalid.

3
 Sec. 6-11-1008. Savings Clause
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance
of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of
ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date
hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal
provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this
ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance
provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject
matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as
new enactments.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Irvine at a

regularmeeting held on the 25th day of March, 2003.

OF IRVINE

ATTEST:

I, JERI L. STATELY, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HEREBY DO

CERTIFY thatthe foregoing Ordinance was introduced for first reading on
March 11, 2003, and duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Irvine held on the 25th day of March, 2003, by the
following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Krom, Mears, Shea, Ward and Agran

NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None

ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None

4
 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF IRVINE )

I, JERI L. STATELY, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that

on the 3rd day of April, 2003, I caused to have posted the foregoing true and correct

copy of Ordinance No. 03-08 of the City of Irvine in the following public places in the

City:

1) Bulletin Board in Walnut Village Shopping Center, Culver and Walnut,

Irvine.

2) Bulletin Board in University Park Shopping Center, Culver at Michelson,

Irvine.

3) Bulletin Board in Northwood Shopping Center, Irvine Boulevard at Yale,

Irvine.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand .and affixed the official

seal of the City Council of the City of Irvine, California, the 3rd day of April, 2003.

ITY OF IRVINE