The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO071_MCDONALDS RESTAURANT TP0071 March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS o��•' ��O,din CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL A Traffic Study No 71(Public Hearing) Item mo.8 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the establishment TS71 of a McDonald's Take-Out Restaurant facility on property located in the SP-6 District UP3401 Denied AND B. Use Permit No 3401 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a McDonald's Take-Out Restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating on property located in the"Retail and Service Commercial"area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lots 2 - 20, Block 127, Lake Tract, and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, comprising the entire block bounded by 28th Street,Newport Boulevard(southbound),26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Newport Peninsula Center Associates,Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed concerns that staff had regarding the subject application. He said that the location of he on-site parking is an area where customers of the restaurant may not park. He said that immediately adjoining the restaurant ere is the City Municipal Parking Lot, and said lot would be ore convenient and would be used more by the customers than e proposed on-site parking area. Mr. Hewicker said that 12 -26- i • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS �� GOy`�Y•dc� �0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL parking spaces would be provided on the subject property for the restaurant use where the Municipal Code requires 86 parking spaces; 16 employees are proposed during the peak summer months; and the applicants have requested to waive 86 percent of the required off-street parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker addressed staffs concern regarding the pedestrian traffic and the heavy automobile traffic between the beach and 26th Street on West Balboa Boulevard. He stated that based on the concerns for the pedestrians, the Public Works Department has requested that the sidewalk along the 26th Street frontage of the site be widened. He said that the only way the sidewalk can be widened would be to realign 26th Street and Parking Lot on the southerly side of 26th Street, and take additional right-of-way off of the landscaped strip in the Municipal Parking Lot on the southerly side of 26th Street. Mr. Hewicker addressed staffs concern regarding the applicants' intentions to keep the trash picked up in the surrounding area and on-site. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff also has a concern that the applicants have requested that the restaurant be open past 10:00 p.m. He said that the Police Department has written a report regarding problems with teenagers on the Balboa Peninsula after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the quality of life for the residents in the immediate vicinity be considered. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hewicker replied that the restaurant is not proposing a drive-thru operation. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. David Baade, 1151 Dove Street, Attorney representing the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Baade addressed the Traffic Study that was prepared for the proposed take-out restaurant wherein he stated that the findings of the consultant were that the proposed project would have a -27- • • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS °0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1NOEx ' ROLL CALL minimal impact on traffic and the parking on-site would be adequate based on an analysis of similar operations. He indicated that the parking requirements were not met according to the Zoning Code; however, the traffic study indicates that the parking available on-site is sufficient for the anticipated use. Mr.Baade addressed the concerns regarding the hours of operation wherein he stated that the applicant owns the shopping center where the proposed take-out restaurant would be located, and he said that security is provided for all of the tenants on the property. He pointed out that franchise-owned restaurants operate strict facilities as opposed to company-owned facilities. Mr. Baade requested that the hours of operation be until 12:00 midnight during the week and 2:00 a.m. on weekends with a condition that the hours be reviewed within one year. Mr. Baade addressed the concern regarding trash wherein he explained that McDonald's Take-Out .Restaurants police one square block around the facility. He explained that the applicants would install trash bins off of the premises, if necessary. Mr.Baade addressed the request to widen the sidewalk wherein he described the portion of the sidewalk that could be widened without widening 26th Street. He requested that the condition be modified to extend only to the area of the sidewalk adjacent to West Balboa Boulevard and 26th Street. Chairman Debay addressed her concerns regarding the location of the on-site parking spaces,and the peak traffic hours on the Balboa Peninsula. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Traffic Study indicates the peak hour at various traffic signals. He said that most of the signals on the Balboa Peninsula deal with beach traffic, and the Traffic Study did not differentiate winter from summer traffic. Mr. Baade discussed off-site parking of existing take-out restaurants. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, John Lardas, owner of the McDonald's Take-Out Restaurant located on West Coast Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lardas replied that there is an excess amount of parking spaces at -28- • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL said restaurant since the drive-thru operation opened, and prior to the drive-thru operation, he said the parking spaces would be full only during the noon hour. Mr. Hewicker explained that the City required the McDonald's Restaurant located on West Coast Highway to provide parking spaces for square footage that was originally proposed and never built. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Lardas stated that the volume of business at the proposed restaurant is expected to be less than the West Coast Highway facility, that there would be more walk-up traffic at the subject site, and not as many parking spaces would be required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the difference in volume between the two take- out restaurants, Mr. Lardas stated that a 25 percent reduction of business is anticipated at the subject operation as opposed to the take-out restaurant on West Coast Highway. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Rhonda Hunt-Del Bene, Real Estate representative for McDonald's Restaurant in Orange County, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Hunt-Del Bene explained that the first floor of the restaurant consists of approximately 2,700 square feet, and a dry storage area on the second floor consists of approximately 427 square feet. She said the applicants are considering moving the upstairs storage area to the first floor whereby 20 seats would be eliminated on the first floor of the restaurant and the number of required parking spaces would be reduced. Ms. Hunt-Del Bene further explained that the take-out restaurant cannot be reduced much smaller than 2,700 square feet to 2,900 square feet. Mr. Hewicker explained that the outdoor dining area was included in the gross square footage of 3,486 square feet. In response to concerns expressed by Chairman Debay and Commissioner Pers6n regarding a modification to the original proposal, Ms. Hunt-Del Bene explained that the applicants could eliminate 427 square feet if the Planning Commission requested less square footage. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr.Hewicker explained that if 427 square feet would be eliminated, the parking requirement would be -29- • • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL reduced by 9 parking spaces, or by 10 percent of the parking requirement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Lardas and Ms.Hunt-Del Bene replied that the take-out restaurant on West Coast Highway has 5 cash registers and the proposed facility would have 7 cash registers; that the preferred area for the delivery truck to park would be on Newport Boulevard in the early morning; and the restrooms located in the common areas are equipped for the handicapped. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Person with respect to modifying the closing hour to 10:00 p.m.every night, Ms. Hunt-Del Bene explained that there would be a considerable loss in volume if the take-out restaurant closed at 10:00 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Lardas explained that the restaurant's peak hour is between 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m., and the busiest day is Saturday. Mr. Lardas stated that from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight the restaurant would be the busiest during the summer months. Mr.Baade reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein-he indicated that the typical McDonald's employee either rides a bicycle or the bus to work. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Baade explained that the proposed facility was discussed with the Central Newport Beach Community Association and he referred to the letter dated February 27, 1991, stating their opposition to the take- out restaurant. Chairman Debay referred to the letter from the Balboa Peninsula Point Association dated March 6, 1991, stating their opposition to the operation. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Stephen Cloobeck, property owner, 60 Cove Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Cloobeck replied that he personally polices the shopping center to be certain that the tenants are complying with the required hours of operation. Mr. Cloobeck further replied that -30- 1 • • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS O'��'�r GO��Y• d�� 0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ras ROLL CALL the permitted operating hours for Grillo's Restaurant are from p.m. to 2:00 a.m. during the week. Mr. Hewicker stated Grillo's Restaurant is in violation of the use permit inasmuccustomers were served at tables in the restaurant facility durin noon hour on this date. Mrs. Carol Clark, 203 - 28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and she expressed her opposition to the subject operation. She addressed the heavy traffic, the full Municipal Parking Lot during the summer months; and the litter from the take-out restaurants that are located in the area. In response to questions posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the property owner may operate the on-site parking lot in any manner they desire, and could restrict the on-site parking lot to customers only. Mr. Webb further replied that staff has a concern regarding where the take-out restaurant's employees would park during the summer months. Mr. Richard Babineau, 123 - 27th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission,and he stated his opposition to the proposed take-out restaurant.He addressed the impact of traffic,trash,noise, parking, and pollution that exists in the area. Mr. Babineau delivered a petition signed by the adjacent neighbors stating opposition to the proposed operation. He stated that a gardener, uses a leaf blower at 6:30 a.m. to clean the subject property. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Babineau stated that drivers turn down 27th Street and drive through the alley to 28th Street to avoid the traffic congestion on the Balboa Peninsula. Mr. Duane Bandy,201 -28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that the quality of life has deteriorated in his neighborhood and the residents do not want the neighborhood to decay more than what currently exists. Mr. Tom Hyans, President of Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the Community Association's aforementioned letter. Mr. Hyans addressed the meeting that the Association's Board of Directors held in April,1990,wherein the applicant's representative -31- • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL I presented a general concept for the redevelopment of the subject property contingent upon the Wells Fargo Bank leaving the site. He indicated that the Board of Directors was in favor of the proposed redevelopment with the exception of the proposed take- out restaurant or a facsimile. Mr. Hyans addressed his disapproval of the Traffic Study; that the relocation of 26th Street is incomprehensible;that the proposed parking is inadequate;and the location of the outdoor eating area. Mr. Douglas Boyd, President of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he referred to the Association's aforementioned letter. He stated his concern regarding the use of the 26th Street Municipal Parking Lot inasmuch as the demand for parking would exceed what the parking lot can handle. Mr.Babineau reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that parking spaces are rented during the summer months at the shopping center parking lot. Mr.Baade reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he requested that one should not assume that McDonald's Restaurant will not pick up the trash, and that there would be loitering around the take-out restaurant. Mr. Baade stated that the Traffic Study determined that the traffic impact from the proposed project is minimal, and there would be sufficient parking on-site based upon the consultant's analysis. In conclusion, Mr. Baade requested that the proposed project be looked at on its own merits and not be looked at as a negative factor because other restaurants or facilities in the City do not take care of their own problems. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Commissioner Pers6n made a motion to deny Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No.3401 subject to the findings in Exhibit"B"., He stated that he had difficulty with the project on its own merits, and the decision has nothing to do with other take-out restaurants in the neighborhood.He stated that the take-out restaurant would not work at the proposed location because of the pedestrian traffic on -32- • • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONE RS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 26th Street throughout the summer, and there would be an impact on traffic in the area. He suggested a finding in Exhibit"B" stating that the proposed project would create an unacceptable amount of pedestrian traffic in the area during the summer months. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the proposed hours of operation would create a serious policing problem on the Balboa Peninsula and he expressed a concern that self-policing may not be adequate. He concluded that he was surprised that McDonaid's Restaurant requested a facility at the subject location. Commissioner Di Sano reluctantly supported the motion. He addressed the restaurants that currently exist on the Balboa Peninsula without use permits, and he indicated that those are the facilities that are a primary concern of the property owners. He stated that he approves of restaurants that may be regulated by conditions of use permits, and the restaurants that do not have rules of operation prohibit restaurants from coming into the area that could be controlled by the City. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City has tried to encourage pedestrian traffic because it is non-vehicular traffic, and he said it is difficult to add a finding that there would be an unacceptable level of pedestrian traffic. Chairman Debay stated that the maker of the motion addressed the safety of the pedestrians crossing West Balboa Boulevard because of the traffic layout. Commissioner Pers6n suggested a finding concerning the problem with pedestrian safety inasmuch as there is no traffic light at the intersection. Commissioner Merrill concurred that pedestrian safety is a concern. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the traffic congestion on the Balboa Peninsula,and he said the restaurant during the peak traffic hours would not create additional traffic because there is no place for the traffic to go.He said that McDonald s Restaurant maintains its facility and trash, and it is not appropriate to compare it with other restaurants that do not maintain their facilities. He supportedenough public serving the motion on the basis there are g p facilities in the area, and the public objects to an additional take- out restaurant operation. Commissioner Glover supported the motion. She stated that the West Coast Highway facility has been managed well; however, she -33- C • March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS �0�ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � rINDEXsaid there is not enough space for an additional restaurant in tharea. Chairman Debay addressed the location and intensity proposed fothe restaurant. She commented that the subject proposal does no fit the typical McDonald's Restaurant franchise. Motion was voted on to deny Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No. 3401 subject to the findings in Exhibit "E", including an additional finding regarding pedestrian safety. MOTION All Ayes CARRIED. A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the previously certified environmental document. 2. Make the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. 4. The Findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the denial of the Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No. 3401. -34- March 7, 1991MINUTES COMMISSIONERS e�'niP G y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL B TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 71 1. Take no action on the Traffic Study; and 2. Make the finding listed below: Findine: 1. That Traffic Studies are not needed for projects that are denied. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3401 1. Deny Use Permit No. 3401 with the findings listed below. Findines' 1. That the proposed take-out restaurant represents a land use of greater intensity than that which is presently existing on the property. 2. That the proposed take-out restaurant will require a greater amount of off-street parking than is currently provided on the subject property, and that said facility is located in an area that has a demonstrated lack of available on-street parking. 3. That the placement of a high intensity take-out restaurant use in a portion of the site, which is so removed from available on-site parking, will result in an unworkable site plan that creates an unacceptable and confusing on-site circulation pattern. 4. That the location and proximity of the proposed take-out restaurant to nearby residential uses will result in an unacceptable increase in the level of late night noise and traffic experienced by nearby residential areas. -35- COMMIS$WONERS March 7, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3401 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. 6. That the proposed project would create an unacceptable amount of pedestrian traffic in the area during summer months, and pedestrian safety needs to be considered. In response to questions posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does not consider the Balboa Peninsula cruising problem, the late hour traffic numbers, or traffic leaving the beach. Chairman Debay and Commissioner Edwards suggested that a special traffic study be inaugurated to address the issue of summer and winter traffic on the Balboa Peninsula. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is set up to analyze peak hour traffic and intersections throughout the City. se Permit N . 3 86 Amend d on in a Public n Item No.9 Request amend a previously approved use permit which vPsoseA permitted the ablishment of a restaurant with on-sale alcoholic uP3409 beverages, live ent ainment and dancing, valet parking and off- site parking for employ on property located in the"Recreational Cont'd to and Marine Commercial" of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan 4-4-91 Area. The off-site parking ar is located at the southeasterly corner of Riverside Avenue and n Street. The proposed amendment involves a request to operate a second floor portion of the subject restaurant as a separate use m the third floor restaurant operation. Said proposal also inclu a request to operate the second floor restaurant at lunch on Mon through P Friday,whereas the second floor portion of the existing re urant is currently limited between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 2:00 -36- i Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 191 Agenda Item No. 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No. 71 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the establishment of a McDonald's Take-Out Restaurant facility on property located in the SP-6 District AND B. Use Permit No. 3401 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of a McDonald's Take-Out Restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Lots 2 - 20, Block 127, Lake Tract, and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 2727 newport Boulevard, comprising the entire block bounded by 28th Street, Newport Boulevard (southbound), 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard,in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Newport Peninsula Center Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Application These applications involve a request to permit the establishment of a McDonald's Take-Out Restaurant facility with indoor and outdoor seating on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed TO: Planning Commission - 2. take-out restaurant. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Background At its meeting of October 23, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3238 which permitted the establishment of Grillo's Italian Restaurant which includes a daytime take-out restaurant and a nighttime full service restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on the subject property. Said approval also included a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces for the daytime take-out restaurant. Said approval was granted with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated October 23, 1986. At its meeting of December 8, 1986, the City Council reviewed and sustained the action of the Planning Commission concerning Use Permit No. 3238. Attached for the Planning Commission's information is an excerpt of the City Council minutes dated December 8, 1986. It should be noted that the Council revised Condition No. 21 so as to require the Planning Commission to review the use permit in seven months. A copy of the final findings and conditions of the City Council are attached. Before the seven month Planning Commission review could be conducted, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) at its meeting of May 21, 1987. Said approval included a request to expand the hours of operation so as to permit the full service restaurant to be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., on weekends and holidays, and from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., during the week.. Said approval also included the use of a valet parking service for the full service restaurant. The Planning Commission's approval was granted with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated May 21, 1987. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is a 57,141± 1 square foot commercial site that is currently developed with two commercial buildings containing a total of 24,659±2 gross square feet of office, bank, retail and restaurant uses. The following table sets forth the amount of floor area devoted to each use: 1 It should be noted that staff does not have a precise square footage of the subject property at this time and that this figure is based on the City's computer mapping system. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit detailed information of the site area and building square footages. 2 This figure of total gross floor area for the existing structures is based on composite floor plans from the Building Department microfilm files and therefore can not be considered a precise figure. TO: Planning Commission - 3. Existing Uses Floor Area Grillo's Restaurant 1,300± sq.ft. Subway Sandwich 855± sq.ft. Florist 462± sq.ft. Jack's Surfboards 6,983± sq.ft. Wells Fargo Bank 4,609± sq.ft. Offices 9,278± sq.ft. Project Bathrooms 678± sq.ft. Mechanical and Telephone Room 494± sq.ft. Total Gross Floor Area 24,659± sq.ft. To the north of the subject property, across 28th Street, are existing single family and two family residential uses; to the east, across the southbound leg of Newport Boulevard, is a motel,retail commercial uses and a small bar;to the south, across 26th Street is a Municipal parking lot; and to the west, across West Balboa Boulevard, are several lots with two family residential uses. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for 'Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The subject project is a permitted use within this designation. In addition, the Land Use Element of the General Plan specifics a land use intensity limit of 0.511.0 FAR for the subject property, Based on this requirement, the Base Development Allocation for the site is 0.5 times the site area or 28,570.5± square feet (57,141± sq.ft. x 0.5 = 28,570.5 sq.ft.). Inasmuch as the proposed project involves a property that is proposed to be developed with a mixture of Base FAR uses such as retail and office uses and Reduced FAR uses such as restaurants and take-out restaurants, Section 20.07.040 of the Municipal Code provides that the Base Development Allocation shall not be exceeded by the sum of the weighted square footages of each use. Weighted square footages are determined by multiplying the gross floor area of a given use by a weighted factor of 1.67 for Reduced FAR uses, 1.0 for Base FAR uses and 0.5 for Maximum FAR uses. The following table sets forth the weighted development for each type of uses within the project: proposed P J TO. Plan Commission - 4. Type Use Square Footage x Weighting Factor. = Weighted Development Retail 8,300± sq.ft. x 1.0 = 8,300± sq.ft. Office/Bank 10,881± sq.ft. x 1.0 = 10,881± sq.ft. Mech/Bath Rms. 1,172± sq.ft. x 1.0 = 1,172± sq.ft. Restaurant 1,300± sq.ft. x 1.67 = 2,171± sq.ft. McDonald's Take-Out 3,486± sq.ft.3 x 1.67 = 5,822± sq.ft. Total Weighted Development 28,346± sq.ft. Allowable Weighted Development 28,570± sq.ft. In accordance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act, the subject application also requires the approval of the Coastal Commission. Analysis The applicant is proposing to convert approximately 3,086 square feet of an existing office building and a 400± square foot outdoor area into a McDonald's Take-Out restaurant with outdoor seating at the Newport Peninsula Center located on the westerly side of southbound Newport Boulevard, between 28th Street and 26th Street. As indicated on the attached site plan, the proposed facility will occupy the southeasterly corner of the most southerly building on the site and will include a small 400± square foot outdoor patio adjacent to 26th Street. As indicated in the attached letter from the McDonald's Corporation, the facility will include 60 interior seats and 30 exterior seats in the patio dining area. There will also be 16 employees on duty during peak hours of operations during the summer and 12 employees during the winter season. The proposed hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. during the summer and 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight during the winter season. Required Off-Street Parking The Municipal Code requires one parking space for each employee on duty during peak hours of operation and one parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area within the take-out restaurant facility (including outdoor eating areas), unless modified or waived by the Planning Commission. Based on the proposed 3,086± sq. ft. of gross floor area and the 400± sq. ft. of outdoor eating area (3,486± sq. ft. total) and 16 employees, 86 parking spaces are required for the proposed take-out restaurant (3,486± sq.ft. 1/4 50 sq.ft. = 69.72 3 This figure includes a 400± square foot patio dining area. TO. Planning Commission - 5. or 70 spaces + 16 employee spaces = 86 spaces). In addition to the take-out restaurant parking, the following table sets forth the parking requirement for the existing uses that are intended to remain on the site plus the proposed McDonald's Restaurant: Midweek Weekend/Holiday Parking Requirement Parking Requirement Net Day Night Day Night Use Square Footage Bank/Office 10,500± sq.ft. 42 0 0 0 Retail 8,072± sq.ft. 33 0 33 0 Grillo's Restaurant Established by UP 3238 (Amended) 6 20 20 20 McDonald's Take-Out 86 86 86 86 Total Spaces Required 167 106 139 106 Total Spaces Provided 93 93 93 93 Parking Deficiency 74 13 46 13 Proposed Off-Street Parking Because of the indicated parking deficiency that will result from establishing the proposed McDonald's Restaurant, staff requested that the consulting traffic engineer for the project prepare a parking demand analysis which is included on pages 13 - 18 of the attached traffic study. Based on this analysis, the consulting engineer concluded that the subject property will have a peak parking accumulation of 73 parking spaces during a weekday and a parking accumulation of 67 parking spaces will occur on a Saturday. Based on the 93 available on- site parking spaces, the consulting traffic engineer concludes that the worst case scenario will result in 20 excess parking spaces (27%) being provided after the establishment of the McDonald's Restaurant. Because of the methodology used by the traffic consultant, which included parking counts from the Carl's Jr. Restaurant facility on the Peninsula and the McDonald's Restaurant on West Coast Highway, the City Traffic Engineer has submitted the attached•comments concerning the parking study and project related traffic in the attached memorandum dated February 20, 1991. As indicated, the City Traffic Engineer has made the following conclusions: 1. There is considerable uncertainty in predicting the traffic and parking impacts of a major fast food restaurant in this location. 0 TO: Planning Commission - 6. 2. The impact of traffic on signalized intersections in the area will be minimal in any case. 3. The existing on-site parking should reasonably be able to handle the demand. However, there is clearly a possibility that at peak times on peak summer days, there may be insufficient parking. 4. Significant numbers of pedestrian will be required to cross West Balboa Boulevard in order to reach the site. The City Council has recently completed an extensive study of pedestrian safety along Balboa Boulevard in response to citizen complaints. Staff has also noticed that the parking analysis did not address the issue of usability of the parking spaces, inasmuch as all of the parking spaces are located on the northerly half of the property, whereas the proposed McDonald's Restaurant is to be located in the far southerly side of the site. Although it is difficult to know for sure what the effect this separation will have on actual parking usage, it is reasonable to expect that the parking spaces within the Municipal Parking Lot located immediately across 26th Street from the proposed restaurant, will provide more convenient parking opportunities when parking spaces are available. Traffic Study In accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the applicant is required to obtain the approval of a traffic study for the proposed take-out restaurant. Said traffic study has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's review. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1991. Analyses were completed and extrapolated to the year 1993. The City Traffic Engineer identified three (3) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy: Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Newport Boulevard and Via Lido West Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1%Traffic Volume Analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and the traffic of previously committed projects. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, the project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected morning and afternoon peak two and one-half hour volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required. Results of the one percent test indicate that the project traffic exceeded 1% at the intersections of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard and Via Lido. Therefore, level of service analyses were conducted at the subject two intersections using TO: Planning Commission - 7. the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure. The results of the ICU analyses a contained on page 12 of the attached traffic study which indicates that only a nominal impact on each of the two intersections and that the service will continue to remain at excellent conditions after the addition of cumulative projects and the proposed project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Proposed Hours of Operation As indicated previously, the proposed hours of operation for the take-out restaurant are from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. daily during the summer months and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight daily during the winter season. Considering the proximity of the facility to nearby residential areas, staff has identified as part of its environmental review, that the proposed take-out restaurant represents a potential for increased noise and traffic during late night periods that may adversely effect the nearby residential neighborhood. So as to reduce this impact to an insignificant level, the environmental document includes a mitigation measure which limits the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday. As indicated by the Environmental Coordinator, this mitigation measure can not be modified so as to increase the hours of operation, without an Environmental Impact Report. As indicated in the attached memorandum from the Police Department, they also have concern with the proposed take-out restaurant and its hours of operation. According to the Police Department, they have conducted recent studies which indicate that within a nine month period (January 1, 1990 to October 1,1990), the Newport Pier area, between 20th Street and 36th Street,generated 6,001 calls to the police and that during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., police activities dramatically increase. The Police Department also indicates that the existing Jack-in the-Box Restaurant at the corner of West Coast Highway and West Balboa Boulevard and the Carl's Jr. Restaurant at the corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street have been chronic and recurrent problems with customers who congregate and loiter in the parking lots of these facilities. In light of this concern, should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications, the Commission may wish to establish more restrictive hours of operation than suggested in the mitigation measures in Exhibit "A." Staff is also recommending that the applicant be required to provide on-site security which will regulate access to the parking lot and prevent loitering and the accumulation of unwanted visitors to the site. Pedestrian Circulation and Recommended Sidewalk Widening As indicated in the attached memorandum from the Public Works Department, the proposed take-out restaurant is expected to have up to 1,440 to 1,920 walk-in customers in a 12 hour period and according to the City Engineer, such a volume of pedestrian traffic will create two significant problems. The first problem has to do with the substantial increase in the number of pedestrians crossing West Balboa Boulevard at 26th Street. As indicated, the current daily traffic volume for this portion-of West Balboa Boulevard is 19,000 vehicles per day. Inasmuch as this intersection is not planned to be signalized and would not meet TO: Planning Commission - 8. vehicular signal warrants, the City Engineer concludes that the proposed take-out restaurant site is not a good location for a high concentration of pedestrians crossing West Balboa Boulevard. The second problem has to do with the inadequate 4 foot width of the existing sidewalk along the northerly side of 26th Street. Because of the expected increase in pedestrian traffic, the City Engineer is recommending that the northerly 4 foot wide sidewalk be widened by 4 to 6 feet. Such a widening will require that the alignment of 26th Street be shifted 4 to 6 feet to the south (memorandum incorrectly says to the east) into the Municipal Parking Lot. This would reduce the amount of landscaping in the Municipal Parking Lot, but it would not affect the number of parking spaces. It is noted by the City Engineer that inasmuch as the proposed shift in the right-of-way involves the entire street, it will be necessary for the applicant to reconstruct the curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving for both sides of the street. Said construction is estimated to cost between$30,000 to $40,000. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications, the following conditions have been recommended so as to address these two problems. 1. That the sidewalk along the 26th Street frontage be widened to 10 feet by moving 26th Street 6 feet southerly and reconstructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. 2. That a pedestrian traffic signal be installed at 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard if pedestrian or vehicular warrants are met within 5 years of the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the proposed take-out restaurant; and that a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $120,000.00 be deposited with the City to guarantee the construction of the signal. Drive-In and Outdoor Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code was adopted in 1967 by the City in order to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to review any proposed take-out restaurant through the use permit procedure. Development standards were established for take-out restaurants so as to insure that such facilities would be aesthetically compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards are set forth in Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code and include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking, traffic circulation, walls surrounding the take-out restaurant site, landscaping, parking lot illumination, signing, underground utilities and storage. Section 20.72.130 of the Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission shall have the right to waive or modify any of the above mentioned development standards for take-out restaurants if such modification or waiver will achieve substantially the same results and will in no way be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with said conditions. Inasmuch as the proposed facility is to,be located in a portion of an existing developed site, the applicant is requesting to waive the development standards pertaining to walls,landscaping,underground utilities, and as indicated previously, a portion of the required off-street parking. TO. Planning Commission - 9. It should also be noted that the applicant has not yet developed a specific sign program for the facility and that the signs shown on the attached rendering are for illustration purposes only. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this application, staff has included a condition of approval which requires the facility to comply with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 (Sign Ordinance) of the Municipal Code, unless a sign exception is approved by the Planning Commission. Specific Findings Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working.in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission make certain findings in conjunction with its approval of a traffic study. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit"A" are suggested. It should be noted that Exhibit "A" includes the acceptance of the environmental document which includes a mitigation measure which limits the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications with further restrictions on the hours of operation, that is possible. Said exhibit also includes the Public Works Department's recommended finding and conditions pertaining to the realignment of 26th Street and the requirement for a cash deposit for the possible future installation of a traffic signal at 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard. In conclusion, the Planning Commission should be aware that the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" have been suggested by staff so as to address the specific concerns raised by various City Departments and to make the proposed project acceptable to the Commission. However, should Commission determine that the extent of the conditions imposed on the project outweigh the benefits of the project to the City, then the project should be denied. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny these applications, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit 'B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT James D. Hewicker, Director By W. illia Ward Senior Planner x JR • i TO: Planning Commission - 10. Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit 'B" Vicinity Map Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated October 23, 1986 Excerpt of the City Council minutes dated December 8, 1986 Final Findings and Conditions of Use Permit No. 3238 (amended) dated December 8, 1986. Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated May 21, 1987 Negative Declaration Letter from McDonald's Corp. Letter from the McDonald's Corporation Traffic Study Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer Memorandum from the Public Works Department Memorandum from the Chief of Police Letter of Opposition from the Central Newport Beach Community Association Site Plan, Floor Plans and Rendering i TO: Planning Commission - 11. EXHIBIT "A' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 71, USE PERMIT NO. 3401 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 2. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incor- porated into the proposed project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study,Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto and that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 4. That the findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on Traffic Study No. 716 and Use Permit No. 3401. Mitigation Measures: 1. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains. 2. The hours of operation of the take-out restaurant shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday. 3. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 4. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code. � Jk 0 TO: Planning Commission - 12. 5. That in order to reduce the amount of waste generated from the restaurant, a waste reduction and recycling program shall be submitted to the General Services and Planning Departments for their approval prior to occupancy. B. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on one of the three study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the second and third intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3401 Findines: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and as conditioned is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter walls and a portion of the required parking, underground utilities and landscaping will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed take-out restaurant is part of a larger integrated development which is not conducive to such -standards, but is designed in a way that meets the .purpose and intent of such design standards. 3. That adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding beach and residential areas. 4. That the design-of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. �► To.. Planning Commission - 13. 5. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the take-out restaurant facility. 6. That the presence of a fast food restaurant at this location will substantially increase pedestrian traffic along 26th Street and across West Balboa Boulevard and that the existing 26th Street right-of-way has inadequate sidewalk widths to provide for the increased pedestrian traffic. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 8. The approval of Use Permit No. 3401 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and rendering except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets. 3. That the development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, underground utilities and a portion of the required parking spaces shall be waived. 4. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take-out restaurant facility is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the City. 5. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building and the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 6. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 7. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. Said bathroom facilities shall be accessible to the handicapped. TO: Planning Commission - 14. 8. That none of the on-site parking spaces shall be designated for the exclusive use of any one tenant. 9. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dBA at the property lines. 10. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless an exception permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 11. That no outdoor loudspeaker or music system shall be permitted within the facility. 12. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 13. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 14. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer and that hedges in the sight plane adjacent to existing driveways shall be kept below 24 inches in height measured from the sidewalk grade. 15. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 16. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 17. That 93 parking spaces shall be provided on-site for the commercial center. 18. That the applicant shall prepare and implement a security plan for the commercial center which includes adequate measures to regulate access to the parking lot and to prevent'loitering on the premises and the accumulation of unwanted visitors to the site. Said security plan shall be subject to the approval of the Newport Beach Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 19. That curb access ramps be constructed at the corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 26th Street and at the corner of Newport Boulevard and 26th Street. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. TO: Planning Commission - 15. 20. That the sidewalk along 26th Street frontage be widened to 10 feet by moving the alignment of 26th Street 6 feet to the south, and reconstruct curb, gutter, sidewalk and 4± feet of paving. This will require that the curb and gutter on both sides of 26th Street be replaced and that new sidewalk be constructed on both sides of the street. 21. That the applicant shall submit precise as built plans of the existing buildings on-site for the purpose of determining project compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.07 of the Municipal Code. 22. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 23. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 24. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission - 16. EXHIBIT 'B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 71, USE PERMIT NO. 3401 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the previously certified environmental document. 2. Make the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. 4. The Findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the denial of the Traffic Study No. 71 and Use Permit No. 3401. B. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 71 1. Take no action on the Traffic Study; and 2. Make the finding listed below: Findin : 1. That Traffic Studies are not needed for projects that are denied. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3401 1. Deny Use Permit No. 3401 with the findings listed below. a • 0 TO. Planning Commission - 17. Findings: 1. That the proposed take-out restaurant represents a land use of greater intensity than that which is presently existing on the property. 2. That the proposed take-out restaurant will require a greater amount of off-street parking than is currently provided on the subject property, and that said facility is located in an area that has a demonstrated lack of available on-street parking. 3. That the placement of a high intensity take-out restaurant use in a portion of the site, which is so removed from available on-site parking, will result in an unworkable site plan that creates an unacceptable and confusing on-site circulation pattern. 4. That the location and proximity of the proposed take-out restaurant to nearby residential uses will result in an unacceptable increase in the level of late night noise and traffic experienced by nearby residential areas. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3401 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. Y1 GI ITY ;n r SEE MAP .VO. .3 SEE MAP At . 4 ' v 90-6 GP -a d:C-2 \\ \\ e Sp -6 --SP-a S 4�•--�5 ~tom }F \\\ a \\\ C SP -6 9P-6 p r 1, C� V N GZ \\ L '' '� 'a 9P-a SP-6 Y e \\ \\ \ ! rl •`dQ'L' q. `t,L n 9p-a SP-a v p'r• \ 0 '•;t M1 Try b'q. 'L 5'( • T 'f•,t 29 \�� s \\ \\o Q's ti\ >v •\ O Q• .y' v Q' g'i• q\o 0 3^ p `� %• .e.s \N\y \�q\o ,,'\ 7-♦ �' Q:Q' � v `d' 2BrN yr 'j�l 'ar'•'o -' \ �y •y G A �J' PLO 7.y O`L O00 •\ _ Qc\ \ o a a \ r 3nrrua• � � '�T PP��/ \ j rm2'M=_ NMUYLMn"Le•2 ,� • \-NE'WP OR OY Rr2= RM-12�n i YLL '� .w YYO wr.aL wa��m \ xut T3�r Sac313.aR ucwlbcr Lry M[3 YI M MC•M R'M•Yeti S• \ \19 mL9yI1 ."ld7lP/ Y bps n•f,■tR LYgt•dAwMrW. Ll$NE YL I1LIN ft AYilotoIpp{tM 34UMt Y w1 L•1.L•t C•G•2,Y•LU.ibtIDO• 1+ r ta.1131, p� SEE MAP No. 9 r�v�lUYt•wat0/�rAr U°'«I/f MY/t•Fs3 6.A '�» -• DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA wi.0 AYrAn+wa3.vliAro Yvl :aYv i3tr•1�t•a n R•1 r••• Insnru R-A R-•a MULTIPLE RESIDEXTIAL +r•orur AGRICULTURAL RESIpENf3LL R-1 SINGIE FAMILY pESIDENnAL C-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL R-2 pVPLEX RESIDENTIAL 2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL OF FEES R-� 11E51'D.NULTIHI RVGLY RflIOENTML M-1 MANUFACTURING ORD.NOL G3S we ,� LL3 • N OOMSNNO OISTflIG18 UNCLASSIFIED DEC ",low Frrni Yarc! De In FYet 5hgwm Thu•:-1 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS October 23, 1986 yGt'� t^ G000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH )LL CALL INDEX No. 3235 (Continued Public Hearin ) Item No.7 permit the establishment of a take-out UP3235 ith incidental seating which specializes in frozen yogurt, on property located in theContinued t. The proposal also includes a request to to waive a po ion of the required off-street parking. 11-6-86 LOCATION: Pa 1 No. 1 of Parcel Map 163-23 (Res ivision No. 673) , located at 3025 East Cc t Highway, on the southeasterly corner o East Coast Highway and Iris Avenue, in the Albertson's Shopping Center in Cor a del Mar. ZONE: C-1-H APPLICANT: Lloyd Flodin, Orange OWNER: E. Morris Smith, Newport B ch Motion x Motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3 to the Ayes x x November 6, 1986, Planning Commission mee g as Absent X , x requested by the applicant. Motion voted on, ION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3238 (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to establish a combination daytime take-out UP3238 restaurant and a nighttime full service restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on property located in the Approved "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required parking spaces in conjunction with the daytime take-out restaurant operation. LOCATION: Lots 2 - 20, Block 127, Lake Tract, and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, comprising the entire block bounded by 28th Street,, Newport Boulevard, 26th Street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. -22- CI COMMISSIONERS � � October M NIQES � 999y S' Gyy�No 9��y'�F Fy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'OLL CALL '"1 INDEX ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Stevenson, Porto & Pierce, Inc. , Irvine OWNER:^ C & L Investments, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Mike Porto, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto requested that the Planning Commission approve Exhibit "B", to allow the facility to be open during the daytime as well as during the evening hours. Mr. Porto explained that the daytime use would be for retail purposes only to allow the applicant to sell packaged foods. Mr. Porto stated that the applicants concur with staff's recommendations regarding a moveable barrier between the seating area from the take-out counter. In response to Chairman Turner, Mr. Hewicker explained that staff's concerns are regarding the available on-site parking spaces because after the existing office space and commercial space is fully occupied there will be an increased demand for parking on the site, and he explained why it would be difficult for staff to enforce the daytime operations so as to restrict the facility to a take-out restaurant use with no seating available to patrons. In response to a concern posed by Commissioner Kurlander, the Planning Commission and staff discussed methods that could be imposed to ensure that the approved conditions would be transmitted to new ownership and how the approved conditions would be enforced. Mr. Porto stated that the property owners have made a substantial investment in the property improvements, and that parking for the tenants and their customers is important to the property owners. He said that the applicant's lease is structured so that if the applicant vacated the subject site then the property would revert back to the property owners. The public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Turner stated that he has a concern regarding the enforceability and being able to keep control of Motion x the property. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3238, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit -23- T v COMMISSIONERS A � MINUTES October 23, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Kurlander commented that Exhibit "B" would permit the applicant to open the facility during the daytime as a take-out restaurant use and during the evening as a sit-down restaurant, and he suggested that the application could be reviewed in six months. Chairman Turner reopened the public hearing, and Mr. Stephen Cloobeck, 60 Cove Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. In response to a question posed by Chairman Turner regarding the initial investment that the applicant would be making, Mr. Cloobeck replied that the applicants would not be making an additional investment for equipment if the Planning Commission approved the daytime and evening use with a review of the application in six months. The public hearing was closed at this time. Substitute substitute motion was made to approve Use Permit No. Motion x 3238, subject to the alternate findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "B" including the additional Condition No. 21 stating "that the 'application shall be reviewed by the Modifications Committee in six months". Motion Chairman Turner withdrew his original motion. Withdrawn Commissioner Merrill commented that the facility could be controlled during the daytime by limiting the number of employees. Chairman Turner replied that the Planning Commission should not get into a position to try to dictate how many employees an employer should have, and that the restriction would be difficult for the City to enforce. Commissioner Winburn reasoned that she would not support the motion because of the difficulty to enforce the daytime use. Commissioner Eichenhofer reasoned that it is difficult to condition restaurants located in critical problem areas, and then at a later date the same restaurants reappear requesting additional operational uses. She pointed out that the subject location does not have a critical parking problem during the winter months; however, during the summer months parking availability is totally different. She said that she would support the motion. -24- COMMISSIONERS (� Octob MINUTES October 23, 1986 �GZZ Z�ZZi�9 At'� �Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX XL CALL Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3238 subject to the alternate findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "B", including the addition of Ayes x x x Condition No. 21 stating "that the application shall be Noes x x reviewed by the Modifications Committee in six months". x MOTION CARRIED. Absent x FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surroun- ding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities, and a portion of the required number of parking spaces, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3238 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of the required number of parking spaces (22 spaces) shall be waived during the day. 3. That the facility shall be open only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. and that the full service operation of the restaurant facility shall be permitted only between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. -25- COyMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 23, 1986 4c � .o ;yyc� yGFc^ Gooc+ dGyy 9N 99y! '° Sce 9y�y oy f qy C yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .OLL CALL INDEX 4. That a barrier meeting the approval of the Plann- ing Director shall be provided to prevent public access to the seating area prior to 5.00 p.m. daily. 5. That one bathroom accessible to the handicapped shall be provided for each sex. 6. That two exits equipped with panic hardware shall be provided, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. 7. That no off-sale beer and wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant. 8. That the on-sale service of beer and wine shall be incidental to the primary food service operation of the restaurant. 9. That all employees shall park on-site. 10. That 6 on-site parking spaces shall be provided for the take-out restaurant use during the day, and 20 on-site parking spaces shall be provided for the restaurant use during the nighttime hours of operation. 11. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 12. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed use. 13. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be provided in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 14. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such• a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 15. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent streets, and adjoining properties. 16. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in -26- :=: ` COMMISSIONERS �. `• October MAN 9jfS �. AA ;. � 'F t� yGt^ � G O,on ay�^�,�y c�90 yyyc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ALL CALL INDEX accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 17. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor. 18. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 19. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 20. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. That Use Permit No. 3238 shall be reviewed by the Modifications Committee in six months.• Item No.9 Req t to change the operational characteristics of UP3239 the exi ' g Josh Slocum's Restaurant so as to increase the hours operation to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Approved daily, whereas a existing restaurant is currently limited to the hour etween 4:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. he proposal also inclu- des a modification to the 2oni ode so as to allow the use of compact and tandem park spaces in con- junction with a full time valet parkin ervicet and the approval of a lease for off-site parki urposes for a portion of the required parking spaces in ing property on the northerly side of West Coast High located at 2500 West Coast Highway. -27- T F/ ' G,, fY OF NEWPOT BL ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �(ti JAI' iDecember 8, 1986 INDEROLL \`council Member Strauss questioned the U/P 3235 1Puguage "related products" in Condition No: , to which the City Attorney respon ed could be revised to read "product of a similar nature" should the Count desire. With respect t Condition No. b, it was indicated that a Itional wording should be added to reflec that the trash receptacles shall be o the satisfaction of the Building Officia to which there were no objections. At this time the public heari was closed. .; Ayes x x x x x x The motion on the floor was voted on ad carried, including the changes to the Conditions of Approval as so noted in '�� the foregoing. _.. 2. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and U/P 3238 City Council review of USE PERMIT NO. (88) 3238 on property located at 2727 Newport boulevard, a request to establish a combination daytime take-out restaurant • :::4.:. with on-sale beer and wine on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required parking spaces in conjunction with the daytime take-out restaurant operation. Approved by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1986. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Stephen Klebeck, Independent Development Company, 2727 Newport Boulevard, representing C 6 L Investments, and owner and developer of the proposed project, addressed the Council and stated that he was available for questions. In response to inquiry of Council Member Strauss regarding the two Planning Commissioners who voted no on this project, Mr. Klebeck stated that they were concerned with how to minitor a take-out facility during the day that optimizes dining facilities at nighttime, for instance, how can you stop people from sitting down in the restaurant to eat something they have purchased during daytime hours. Because i of this concern, they have negotiated Volume 40 - Page 481 f . . C, fY OF NEWP T BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �G9 AEG y CIO N9Z �i'G9 G ROLL CAL December 8, 1986 INDEX with the tenant and it is integrated U/P 3238 Into their lease that they are a take-out restaurant during the day, ,. prior to 5 p.m., and that after that time, they may have sit-down dining. They are aware of the parking problem in ' the area, and they do intend to act as a ••• policing agent for the City. Hearing no,others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed, Motion x Motion was made to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued, wherein the Planning Director advised that if a problem is created with regard to the approved use, and it is called to the attention of the . Planning staff, the use permit is reviewed to assure that the applicant is • . operating within the perimeters of that , •• use permit. If the applicant is not acting within the confines of their use permit, then the City has the authority • to require that they do conform with the conditions of said use. The Planning Director indicated that the .. Planning Department does not have sufficient staff to monitor the various , . conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission. Council Member Hart indicated that possibly the subject of monitoring and .,",,::• , policing these types of issues could be discussed at budget time with a view to }• increasing the staff to handle such duties and responsibilities. The City Manager pointed out that Condition No. 21 does require that the subject use permit shall be reviewed by the Modifications Committee in six months. Following comments by various Council Members, Council Member Hart moved to amend the subject motion and revise Condition No. 21 to read as follows: "That Use Permit No. 3238 shall'be reviewed by the Planning Department in seven months." Ayes x x x x x x The above amendment was acceptable to • Noes x the maker of the motion, and the motion, as amended, was voted on and carried. Volume 40 : Page 482 { f F� FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF A JJVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3238 AS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 1986 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with sur- rounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circula- tion, walls, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities, and a portion of the required number of parking spaces, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3238 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities, and a portion of the required number of parking spaces (22 spaces) shall be waived during the day. 3. That the facility shall be open only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. and that the full service operation of the restaurant facility shall be permitted.only between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily. 4. That a barrier meeting the approval of the Planning Director shall be pro- vided to prevent public access to the seating area prior to 5:00 p.m. daily. ` 5. That one bathroom accessible to the handicapped shall be provided for each sex. 6. That two exits equipped with panic hardware shall be provided, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. 7. That no off-sale beer and wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant. B. That the on-sale service of beer and wine shall be incidental to the primary food service operation of the restaurant. 9. That all employees shall park on-site. 2' A A 10. That 6 on-site parking spaces shall be provided for the take-out restau- rant use during the day, and 20 on-site parking spaces shall be provided for the restaurant use during the nighttime hours of operation. 11. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of. the Municipal Code. ' 12. That a trash compactor shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed use. 13. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be provided in convenient loca- tions inside and outside the building. 14. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 15. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the adjacent streets, and adjoining properties. 16. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restau- rant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless other- wise approved by the Building Department. 17. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor. 18. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this Use Permit. 19. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 20. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. That Use Permit No. 3238 shall be reviewed by the Planning Department in seven months. �.1 ro co July 8, 1987 TO: File, Use Permit No. 3238 FROM: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Review by the Planning Department, 7 months from date of approval, as required by Condition of Approval No. 21. Staff inspected the site at 12:00 noon on Wednesday, July 8, 1987 as required by the City Council. The restaurant facility is operating within the conditions of approval of the use permit. William R. Laycock Current Planning Administrator WRL/11 MOD13 2$ )"•' �I MINUTES COMMISSIONERS May 21, 1987 F�iu�P99C 9J t y CCgO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL That the total square footage of signs on the southeasterly frontage of the hotel building is ow the maximum permitted. 5. That t granting of this exception permit will not be cc ary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipa Code, and will not be materially detrimental to a health, safety, comfort or general welfare o ersons residing in the neigh- borhood, or detrimen or injurious to property or improvements in the eighborhood, or to the general welfare of the Cit CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantia confor- mance with the approved plot plan and eleva n. 2. That the applicant shall obtain a building perm' Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item N0.2 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3238(A) permitted the establishment of a daytime take-out and a nighttime full service restaurant with on-sale beer and Approved_ wine on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Said approval also included a waiver of a portion of the off-street parking spaces required for the daytime take-out restaurant. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the hours of operation so as to permit the full service restaurant to be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. , on weekends and holidays whereas the existing use permit prohibits its operation before 5:00 p.m. daily. The proposal also includes a request to establish a valet parking service in conjunction with the full service restaurant operation. LOCATION: Lots 2 - 20, Block 127, Lake Tract, and a vacated portion of Newport Boulevard, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, comprising the entire block bounded by -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A A �G�oaF May 21, 1987 yOFFP .om�y9°�y �`yo�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F�sy ROLL CALL INDEX 28th Street, Newport Boulevard (south- bound) , 26th street and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery village/- McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Stevenson, Porto & Pierce, Inc. , Irvine OWNER: C & L Investments, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Michael Porto, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "An There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Ayes x x Exhibit "A". Absent x James Hewicker, Planning Director, reminded the applicant that there is a 21 day appeal period, and he said that the Coastal Commission must approve the requested hours of operation. Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) , MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the daytime operation of the subject full service restaurant, on weekends and holidays is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate daytime parking is available to the full service restaurant on weekends and holidays inasmuch as a majority of the office uses on the site are closed during those times. -4- z) COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 21, 1987 A A �G�O 0� yBG'+L-VPN�9P A 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t�F 92 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the subject property is sufficiently large to allow the use of valet parking without effecting the surrounding circulation system. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3238 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the subject restaurant operation and valet parking service shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of Use Permit No. 3238 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation for the full service restaurant shall be from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Saturday, Sunday and holidays. 4. That the use of valet parking shall in no way prohibit the opportunity for restaurant customers or other visitors to the site to self park. 5. That valets shall park cars in marked spaces only unless an alternate parking plan is approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That 6 on-site parking spaces shall be provided for the take-out restaurant between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday; and 20 on-site parking spaces shall be provided for the full service restaurant during the remaining permitted hours of operation. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -5- '2�� MINUTES COMMISSIONERS o May 21, 1987 1P)� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � Ty ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Item No.3 Ron to approve the establishment of a facility that UP3257 izes in the sales, service and installation of ile cellular phones on property located in the Approved District. The application also requests to three independent automobile repair businesses a same building complex and includes a modifi- cationt the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of p king spaces for a portion of the required eet rking. N: ots 47 and 48, Tract No. 3201, 1 cated at 3975 and 4001 Birch Street, on ' the northwesterly side of Birch Stre t, between Dove Street and Quail StreeN across from the Newport Place Planne Community. ZONE: M-1-A �%L APPLICANTS: Pack-Cell, Ho and Berkowitz, Cosmo's Sports Cars anNDavid Eisenberg, Newport Beach .\ OWNERS: Aldo and MadeleineNChiappero, Costa Mesa The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Howard Berkowitz, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Berkowitz stated that the applicants concur with the`'tifindings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the 2xception of Condition No. 11, requesting that the garage doors be removed and that the garages be availableNjor the parking of automobiles at all times. Mr. Berkowitz indicated that the garage doors could remain, open during the day, and the automobiles could be stored in the garages at night for security purposes. \, \ James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that ther have been problems in the past where staff has allowed garage doors to remain open elsewhere in the City, and -6- 2 CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1769 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department ElSacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange ® Public Services Division P.O Box 838 Date received for Filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 The review period will close on: February 27, 1991 Name of Project: use Permit No. 3401, Traffic Study No. 71 i Project Location: 2727 Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach, CA Project Description: Establishment of a McDonald's takeout restaurant in an existing commercial center. ;'; indi7{g.• : 'tfrsuant to the provisions•4.City Council Policy K 3 pertairiing to.proceclu es.and ' ghiddiiies ta-implemn&nt.the Califdrnid Envirohinerital Quality Act, tbe•Envirdmnental Affairs 'Committee-has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed pioject.will not 'have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures: See attached Initial Study Prepared By: PP Carlson/Sandra Genis - and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA Signature:, Tttl2:'Principal Planner- .'Date: ' 7anuary 21, •1991' 33 R . • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORK Date Filed July 24 , 1990 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Newport Peninsula Center Association 2. Address of project: 2727 Newport Blvd , Newport Beach, CA Assessor's Block and Lot Number' 047-100-03 and 047-100-04 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concern- ing this project: Stephen J. Cloobeck, 2727 Newport Blvd. . Newport Beach California, 92663 (714) 759-3232 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Not available 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Variance, cononal use permit. 6. Existing zoning district: Sp-6 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Retail commercial restaurant. Project Description 8. Site size. 56, 628 sq. ft. 9. Square footage. 23,069 sq. ft. 10. Number of floors of construction. N/A 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. -0- 12. Attach plans. To be provided at a later date. 13. Proposed scheduling. Six (6) months. 14. Associated project. N/A. 15. Anticipated incremental development. None. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, ra a of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 34 Environmental Setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. No change. •- -34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.),. intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Commercial — offices and shops. 2—story — 0 lot line. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data .and information required for this initial evalua- tion to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and informs- tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 7/25/90 Date S .gn e n (� For N�✓PV_A 'C�e.. _ KX� �r / C\PLT\EIRFORM 3 - Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration x of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? — x- c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, x either locally or regionally? — — 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either x marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of x surface runoff? — — C. Alterations to the course or flow of x flood waters? — — d. Change in the amount of surface water x in any water body? — — C. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, x dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? x g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an x aquifer by cuts or excavations? -- h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public x water supplies? — —' J. Exposure of people or property to water ds such as flooding or tidal related bazar x waves? — 2 - 3� Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — x 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or x upset conditions? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation x plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human x population of an area? — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? x 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -x_ - b. Effects on existing parking facilities„or demand for new parking? _ x _ c. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? x d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? _ X. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?_ x f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, x bicyclists, or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - 37 Yes Maybe No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the. obstruction of any scenic vista'or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing x recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or x historic archaeological site? — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or x historic building, structure, or object? — C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect x unique ethnic cultural values? — d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact x area? 21. 'Handatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of x California history or prehistory? — 6 d� PROTECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is locate within the commercial area separating Newport and Balboa Boulevard between 26th and 28th Streets. The applicant is proposing that a McDonald's Restaurant be located within the Newport Peninsula Center building. The Center currently contains a bank, a savings and loan, a florist, a restaurant open for dinner only, a take-out sandwich shop, and several retail stores. The applicant has requested a use permit to allow a restaurant use on the site and to waive the required number of parking spaces. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3(e) A common practice in restaurants is to wash out the kitchen mats. These mats are generally contaminated with kitchen grease, food waste and other residues. If the mats are washed out into the storm drain, the contaminated water flows directly into the Newport Bay. Washing the mats into a drain which empties into the sewer system will prevent this negative impact. Successful completion of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 3(i) The project site is located in the flood zone,potentially exposing people and property to flooding and water damage. The building was built prior to the adoption of flood zone regulations. Because the building is existing and the project is not creating a new hazard or environmental impact, this impact is considered insignificant. 6(a) The restaurant may generate more traffic and may have longer hours of operation than the surrounding uses which may result in an increase in noise levels. The project site's location within the business complex, furthest from the residential area, helps to mitigate the impacts. An additional mitigation measure limiting the hours of operation will further reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 7 The proposed project may produce a new source of light and glare. Additional interior and external lighting may increase the amount of light spilled onto adjacent properties. Compliance with the mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 10(a) Restaurant uses generally produce significant amounts of cooking grease. If this grease is dumped directly into the sewer system, it can upset the system. One possibility is that the sewer line may back up and cause flooding. To mitigate this risk of upset, grease traps will be required for the restaurant. Successful completion of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 1 q 3I 13(a) The proposed project will generate 234 trip ends in the morning 2 1/2 hour weekday peak and 225 trip ends during the 21/2 hour evening weekday peak. Existing circulation systems are adequate to handle the increased traffic. 13(b) The proposed project will increase demand for parking on the site. However, a parking impact analysis performed by Justin F. Farmer, Transportation Engineers, Inc., indicates that existing on-site parking will be adequate to handle the increase. 14(b) Similar fast-food restaurants on the Balboa Peninsula have experienced the need for increased police support. Fast-food restaurants seem to be a gathering place for teenagers. Noise and vandalism problems have occurred as a result of this. Therefore,based on the experience with other similar uses, there may be the need for increased police support. Limiting the hours of operation is one way to mitigate this potential problem. If a problem does occur, the restaurant may be required to provide private security on the premises. 16(f) The proposed project may increase the amount of waste generated from the project site. Fast-food restaurants generate large amounts of trash from the packaging of the take-out food. Successful completion of the mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains. 2. That the hours of operation be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to midnight on Friday and Saturdays. 3. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 4. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code. 2 �t a II S. That in order to reduce the amount of waste generated from.the restaurant, a waste reduction and recycling program shall be submitted to the General Services and Planning Departments for their approval prior to occupancy. SLG\ENV\2727M i 3 . 4� l M^.DonalA'R CorpnreUnn ' 6;170 LA Jnitr V.Ilagg Qrnvp Suite $00 1MC n V San 0-age. CaMofnia 92122 ID 0 0/535.8900 November 12, 1990 Mr. Kenneth T. France Commercial Center Development P.0, Box 7833 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ken: Reference: McDonald's Restaurant 2727 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California I am submitting this letter to you pursuant to your request for information regarding the proposed McDonald's operation at the location referenced above. 1 . Although we will not have a drive-thru at this particular location, our restaurant will be similar to a typical McDonald' s wherein we will have a full menu and a full size kitchen. We will have approximately 5 cash registers at the customer service counter and approximately 60 seats inside and 30 outside in the patio dining area. We will operate this restaurant as we would any other McDonald' s where our goal is to serve quality food in a clean and friendly atmosphere. It is McDonald's standard policy to have its crew police the area daily within approximately one square block of the store and pick up litter found within that radius. In addition, Mc0onald's will place aggregate trash receptacles with lids, sufficient for our property and parking lot. Since there is no drive-thru, most food will be consumed inside. Since this it a recreational area, if additional aggregate trash receptacles in pedestrian traffic paths between our store and the beach are necessary, this is open to discussion with the City. As you are aware, McDonald's is very environmentally conscious and is always the leader In the industry in effecting necessary changes such as the recent phase-out of Styrofoam. 2. Since this is a seasonal store, obviously we will have more employees during the summer months than in the winter months'. The maximum number of employees on any shift during the summer will be lVand 12 during the winter. The maximum number of employees parking on the lot during a shift would be two (managers) , Our crew members typically don't have cars and usually get a ride .to work, ride a bicycle or use public transportation. 4Z Mr, Kenneth T. France Page 2 November 12, 1990 3. The hours of operation during the summer months would be from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. and in the winter months from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a..m. I am enclosing, for your information, a preliminary floor plan of the store showing the kitchen layout and the seating area as well as an additional storage space on the second level . Should you have any additional questions or requirements. please notify me as soon as possible. Sincerely, on a —Del Bene Real Estate Representative pc John Lardas Tony Gomez 311Wsjc Enclosure i J Report on: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY MCDONALD•S RESTAURANT 2727 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 7 PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MISS PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE ;) ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 Prepared by: JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTAT-ION ENGINEERS, INC. 207 S. BREA BOULEVARD ,J BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 Our File F850 Revised January 11, 1991 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 THE PROJECT. . . . . . . 1 Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 - Site Plan First Floor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SETTING. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Site Area Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Area Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . TRIPGENERATION FORECAST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 1 - Data Associate w/CarltsJr. Sat. 9/190. . . 6 Table 2 - Summary of Trip Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 3 - Trip Generation Existing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 4 - Trip Generation Proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TRIPDISTRIBUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3 - Project Trip Distribution Peak. . . . . . . . . . . 10 TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 5 - Summary Of•V/C•& LOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 PARKING ANALYSIS. . . . ... 13 Table 6 - Parking Accumulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 7 - Parking Accumulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 8 - Parking Demand By Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 9 - Parking Demand By Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 SITEACCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CROSSWALKAVAILABILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 APPENDIX ..1 JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. INTRODUCTION A proposal has been made to convert approximately 3,489 square feet of office space into a fast food restaurant (McDonald's) at the Newport Peninsula Center, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, in the city of Newport Beach. Figure 1, page 2, illustrates the site location. It has been determined that a parking study is needed to determine whether, with the addition of McDonald's restaurant, there will be enough parking spaces at the center to meet the peak parking demand. Also, in order to comply with the city of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance a traffic and circulation•-study has been deemed necessary. s:J THE PROJECT The project consists of converting approximately 31489 square feet of office space into a fast food restaurant (McDonald's) at the Newport Peninsula Center. Figures 2, on Page 3, shows the first floor site plan at the Newport Peninsula Center. The site currently has one driveway on Newport Boulevard and one driveway on Balboa Boulevard. On-site parking is provided at grade level. A total of 93 parking spaces are provided. JUSTIN F. FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. �� L 5y�( ST wI 1 5. \TAt9CRT •T— < Nt .• e� REP a� d GZOT" S Q I t3$T J ROSS ST< 6 = = µ RD ' "�..+.fir I'•i I U RFG/ONAt�;;e�!'.•..,r.rt EVERGREEN PL ,'-^•�;�t ` ' E OOGw00D 5T w u z T RERN0.RD. +r',PARK ,• LOO., c+'••T`1 W 1 SURF S - ST :..iY:Isr7E1:I....;.:. o.I�HLt •r�'c CEOAR PL a :� I¢ . a BEACH ST x f nn '%•Sfi;i�l. 1• A QI I of W e� J K [N: IJoT'r N ty>,'FAII�Fa%,�B .5 `flyry•, - APB R_ „_,i;'fPROPf.:�;'':`;•:•: :- ��=�' 19TH • LL " , 700 600 500 400 r C S < NT R i T< r t S A D DoL1I CAA �•• PARKNILL''• CENTER RSI I ' l eAAO D0111A Cl •r : `T,,. DR TOWNS ST W E Q COSTA'>c a e DISCovtA.w _ a • J o SVMMIA WALB Ct r Y SLO T PL S'Op W..y I a �l 5 em oo,au = •. I E vnNbSOxG cT ,I. 8 g 18Tu. � ST i- < •:... 2 HP -rswwow- — -}-• tow —. — AMES S7 FAR1C� °' <pR AQ! �oD 90A. . �9r o St"OST°AA°t ` SRlo90 OR SUNSET OR . ,.., : V Q S ALIMAR o OR - �JQ`{g CHF� u SUNDAI'CI 0A A, - ^;-:• '� V4y w TERMINALS WY V P I uLAnruot cf \,. W '-•. � '•N•,:, c• EWTON; u v C 9 ..,t, 1.. a:�' �' _ 17TuY':Lt° n•.•t:i�r,t)�•5' . .3 •ST:. .. Vy • , %'j_;o ky-sJ,; '- Z} =y 7a ',A.i f'.;:'a'�'b4.7;_'-55- D il> ,c5 NEWHALL�ST`ih:.m �Aj`fit :: ��.: _ l.' .,•,�•,«I, H �:•�' ,9q 1• 4 A ,,r :i•v:m;• =;t '-oNi.+s wr. .) r,"0 • y ' ! A};• •,i5 ":: g j.:>` o •...ky .:: •.O 6iyi<F•Sp.:. A; C i+� 90 800 +r,'Y•:H•y.:r700 -!A'OG.,;t he•-}-!'. •i t ' J �.+" P A:' s,l I E a PROOUC710N PL-I CDIUAteu ST D O H I, '• •',� i BAALMElxsiTo tt �° �` Q dO° ••2 CANAL 5T P . -AoliciQ�T I G st off_ �° g i �CAIEOB Wig„ ISTH 4 S STIo' q �oee J •' 9. r,' q•...y O ;7 `' TKAAMLM i n 4'4J �> ,'L 'Sr•. p,EE e 1A o 1 I �oM b•- rciiusruv tfn ,\ J N peI q 0 ( D -t'NOVA 0 'ai e ! ) x L' 0 4 '/• '4rP4 K, I i .� OWEt SrEq t?� MYSSEr'4. tDA k' 2•. ^. ! a ,TLbS l d�QOt 4 - .4 E. OY , 5 eQ srsr� v ...� ttA'].Ku O .T I O Op1 H7 •ft u � eTA°t coa 0` Fr �8 O ' Dry e� � A • , F <" t�mo f `i�4�*'pyf l )O I � ti c � F ,'Fc"T B c4 . �Lr• ■ 11 D tf••�' \� '90y, tl} v0 bti A,'t'Zy `> S fNrON f nr. o w` ci I 1 .:;'L•+ 4gij %ffM Q GP P ee"4 O h f lSGtAOE•'�eJ y I C,A,LStFt`J �OSP � O S �t WO a•� � 7 0 O yolyOlf^�=,�a�0 yl yh }y IFF }f'p AV 4 .t1OJr �V y yhyy°~�eo=o �P�B�y^ 4jDD .BA NWY Z 7a92aBclY/��y — :�— y y O a 2{., • !A Vy co DOCX—P H Q6htit\ (' Q UDO SPo 1 Iw- ( aTOlr Cl, MARINA I'✓ p fib WEL,GE 'r• �L 8 \S v C �; ' 0 "I pQ0'C�j:,r�O o •F of - NFs L 1 .. D � 08�( �11/1t�o/ 'b1ti0 1a5171ST 3 ST I 6^>�ytiiN91 .I A AD'\�OR� A y Ywe� h4.Er SITE )),I I O �01 �! , — — —• — '- — — — T —� — — III 9,�,N 'oO:P ytiy/a/\�f/\\�� too 't s Eofr ; \ AV T� SEE�CS 5{ R 'T1Lc,O PEN, SUEA ��S` 'V'04RT t LIDO I ANc 0AACty Y �, O yr`\B(Y i A YACN: t AEA 1G�}ST w1y I AxIY et r.F 'L�� • M1 YltEt� Pt BOUVAR ST .01 ��111... •E Q\• l�A I•ICIIn0 Ap0`I 5 CAB�LLO St S DAA I tL SSNEO ST '1 O� ryO i Ax N iu �A S ST CNAN1Il A° y�P �il` m ^ w 'A NI •T m SNI, AAD wr ,M�`- Map Source Thomas Bros- FIG SITE VICINITY MAP 1 JUSTI\ F. IiAI2lII;R 2 'rIE,\.Nsroltr:\'rulN INr. 47 J i r r + I a 0 I 0• N W Y. V ' I itiln•r u rtilu nitlligllgnnrU4nrl"r' unuuuuuuttLLwu Ui llt u = ';� r i FIG SITE PLAN 2 FIRST F.L- OOR 1I 9 JUSTIN F. FARMER 3 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. `f :) I SETTING SITE AREA STREETS Newport Boulevard in the project area is a north-south divided arterial roadway which borders the site on the east. Newport Boulevard in the project area has an approximate width of 44 feet in the southbound direction and 44 feet in the northbound direc- tion and provides two travel lanes in each direction. No parking restrictions are posted on Newport Boulevard. Balboa Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway and borders the site on the west. Balboa Boulevard in the project area has a width of 74 feet and is striped with two travel -lanes in each direction. Left turn lanes are provided on Balboa Boulevard at most intersections. Parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. Twenty eighth Street is an east-west local Street which borders the site on the north-. The street has an approximate width of 64 feet and it provides two travel lanes in each direction. The intersections of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard, as well as the intersection of 28th Street and Balboa Boulevard, are controlled by stop signs on 28th Street. No parking restrictions are posted. Twenty sixth Street is a local east-west roadway and borders the site on the south. The street has an approximate width of 27 feet and provides one travel lane in each direction. The intersection of 26th Street and Newport Boulevard and the intersection of 26th Street and Balboa Boulevard are controlled by stop signs on 26th Street. Parking is allowed on both sides of 26th Street. D AREA DEVELOPMENT Land uses in the vicinity of the site are predominantly residential and commercial in nature. JUSTIN F.FARMER 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. �+q TRIP GENERATION FORECAST Daily and peak hour traffic generation for projects such as that being proposed are normally expressed in terms of trip ends per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicular journey either to or from the site, or it may be a journey totally within the site. The latter is referred to as an internal trip. Each trip will have two trip ends; one at the origin and one at the destination of the trip. ~� Trip making characteristics for a variety of land use types have been collected from a number of field studies at actual projects, both in Southern California and elsewhere in the United States. The results of these studies have been reported upon by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) , SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) , CALTRANS (California Department of Transportation) , Arizona Department of Transportation and various published and unpublished private studies. The proposed McDonald's fast-food restaurant, however, will be a unique fast-food restaurant which will be located within walking • distance of the beach area and close to nearby commercial centers and offices. As a result there will be numerous walk-in '? customers to this restaurant. Therefore, in order to determine the trip generation associated with the proposed McDonald's Restaurant, a trip generation survey was conducted at a similar fast-food restaurant in Newport Beach. Carl's Jr. restaurant located at 3101 Newport Boulevard which is the only fast-food restaurant in the immediate area with similar characteristics to the proposed McDonald's restaurant was chosen for this purpose. Trip generation and parking surveys were conducted at the Carl's Jr. Restaurant at 3101 Newport Boulevard during a weekday and a Saturday between 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM. This restaurant has a gross floor area of approximately 2,675 square feet. Because the J subject restaurant is located in a large shopping center, it is not easy to identify all Carl's Jr. customers (vehicles) entering or leaving the site. Therefore, The study consisted of manually counting all walking customers entering or leaving the Carl's Jr. Restaurant and the number of customers inside the restaurant at the end of each hour. The survey also consisted, of counting the number of customers exiting the restaurant and using their •J vehicles. The party size for incoming and outgoing vehicles were also determined for each hour. Based on the above data, the number of vehicles entering and leaving the Carl's Jr. Restaurant were determined. Table 1, Page 6, shows how the number of inbound and outbound vehicles associated with the Carl's Jr. Restaurant on Saturday were derived form the collected data. y Table 2, Page 7, shows the number of inbound and outbound vehicles calculated for Saturday and Tuesday. JUSTIN F. FARMER 5 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. TABLE 1 DATA ASSOCIATED WITH CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT IN NEWPORT BEACH SATURDAY 9/1/90 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)* (6) (7) (5/6) (4/7) INBOUND OUTBOUND CARL'S JR. CARL'S JR. PERSONS PERSONS PERSONS PERSONS PERSONS PARTY PARTY VEHICLES VEHICLES Inside at walked walked using car using car SIZE SIZE .� the end of TIRE PERIOD HOUR IN OUT OUT IN IH OUT IN OUT 6:30 - 7:00 AN 4 6 5 12 14 1.03 1.08 14 11 7:00 - 8:00 AM 18 17 16 23 36 1.24 1.13 29 20 8:00 - 9:00 AM 30 25 24 22 33 1.09 1.06 30 21 9:00 - 10:00 AN 42 37 35 29 39 1.25 1.28 31 23 7 10:00 - 11:00 AN 64 54 51 45 64 1.78 1.25 36 36 11:00 - 12:00 NOON 82 80 75 56 69 1.28 1.04 54 54 12:00 - 1:00 PH 83 113 120 106 114 2.28 1.96 50 54 1:00 - 2:00 PH 80 141 139 102 97 3.54 3.52 26 29 2:00 - 3:00 PH 58 133 139 72 56 1.81 1.89 31 38 3:00 - 4:00 PH 24 168 179 69 46 1.48 1.82 31 38 4:00 - 5:00 PH 29 104 100 51 52 1.63 1.55 32 33 5:00 - 6:00 PH 43 56 58 58 74 2.18 1.87 34 31 6:00 - 6:30 PH 41 26 24 33 29 1.93 2.20 15 15 * 1 next period -1 this period + 3 + 4 - 2 Although a minor percentage of walk-in customers could be shoppers, from the shopping center, who were parked in the parking lot and walked to Carl's Jr. Restaurant, the majority of walk-in customers were beach crowds or persons working in the immediate area, adjacent to the shopping center. .J .g! JC JUSTIN F.FARMER 6 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 1 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION '1 CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT TUESDAY 8/28/90 SATURDAY 9./1/90 VEHICLES VEHICLES VEHICLES VEHICLES Time Period In Out In Out •� 6:30 - 7:00 AM 12 12 14 11 7:00 - 8:00 AM 24 24 29 20 8:00 - 9:00 AM 24 24 30 21 9:00 - 10:00 AM 24 24 31 23 10:00 - 11:00 AM 24 24 36 36 11:00 - 12:00 AM 33 31 54 54 12:00 - 1:00 PM 40 36 50 54 1:00 - 2:00 PM 40 41 26 29 2:00 - 3:00 PM 38 35 31 38 3:00 - 4:00 PM 26 31 31 38 4:00 - 5:00 PM 24 21 32 33 5:00 - 6:00 PM 24 23 34 31 6:00 - 6:30 PM 12 11 15 15 Trip generation for the surveyed Carl's Jr. Restaurant in Newport Beach during the morning and afternoon peak 2-1/2 hours is as summarized on Table 3, below. TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION EXISTING CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT NEWPORT BEACH WEEKDAY VOL RATE/KSF* AM 2-1/2 Hour Peak Enter 60 22.43 6:30 _ 9:00 AM Exit 60 22.43 PM 2-1/2 Hour Peak Enter 60 22.43 I :) 4 :00 _ 6:30 PM Exit 55 20.56 * KFS = 1000 SQ FT JUSTIN F. FARMER 7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 5Z more Since McDonald's Restaurants are generally m popular than r Carl's Jr. Restaurants, a 150% surge factor was applied to the above rates to calculate trip generation rates for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. In order to determine if the 150% surge factor utilized is adequate, trip generation and parking accumulation surveys were conducted at McDonald's Restaurant located at 700 West Pacific Coast Highway and at Carl's Jr. Restaurant located at 3101 Newport Boulevard between 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Wednesday January 9 , 1991. The study consisted of counting the number of people entering and leaving these restaurants as well as the parking accumulation at the end of each 15 minute period. The results of these surveys indicated that at McDonald's Restaurant during the peak lunch period (11:45 AM - 12:45 PM) 79 persons entered and 80 persons left the restaurant. The restaurant has a building area of approximately 3,210 square feet. Therefore, 24.61 and 24.92 persons per 1,600 square feet of building area enter and leave the McDonald's Restaurant during the peak lunch hour. On the other hand, at the Carl's Jr. Restaurant during the peak lunch period (12:15 PM - 1:15 PM) 73 persons entered and 72 persons left the restaurant. The restaurant has a building area of approximately 2,675 square feet. Therefore, 27.29 and 26.92 persons per 1,000 square feet of building area enter and leave Carl's Jr. Restaurant during the peak lunch period. It can be concluded that the number of customers entering and leaving these two restaurants, during the entire day and during the peak lunch period, are very similar and if we consider the fact that Carl's Jr. Restaurant has a smaller building area, it can be concluded that Carl's Jr. Restaurant does a little more business than McDonald's Restaurant as compared to area. However, in order to represent the "worst case" condition, it was assumed that McDonald's Restaurant will be busier than Carl's Jr. Restaurant, and a 150% surge factor will be applied. In the trip generation and parking surveys, trips and parked cars associated with employees (usually 2 to 3 cars for managers) were not considered, however, the 150% surge factor used to calculate McDonald's trip rates and parking accumulations, will more than compensate for this. o53 JUSTIN F. FARMER 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. Table 4, below, shows forecasted trip rates and volumes for the McDonald's Restaurant for the morning and afternoon peak 2-1/2 hours using the 150% surge factor. The proposed McDonald's Restaurant will have a gross floor area of approximately 3 ,489 square feet. TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT NEWPORT BEACH WEEKDAY VOL RATE/KFS AM 2-1/2 Hour Peak Enter 117 33.65 6:30 _ 9:00 AM Exit 117 33.65 PM 2-1/2 Hour Peak Enter 117 33.65 4:00 6:30 PM Exit 108 30.84 * KFS = 1000 SF TRIP DISTRIBUTION A forecast of the distributional pattern of traffic associated with the -proposed McDonald's fast-food restaurant has been prepared in large part on the spatial location of residential and commercial areas in the region. Traffic was assigned to the local roadway system based upon the characteristics of the area's street network and observation of peak hour traffic movements. Figure 3 , Page 10, schematically illustrates the distribution of the project trips for the morning and afternoon peak periods. .J � r JUSTIN P. FA RMER 9 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 4 -4� PACIF/ a. 1 N o C COAS/' NlryWAY � m 0 0� co o N- 01! 32nd STREET 3 i � 30th STREET Oo oa 7 -65 j 60% n �s9 28th STREET so�9 m n i LEGEND t✓ AM PK - PM PK 0 IN OUT �`s� 26th STREET a- ��• w AM PK 117 117 Z PM PK 117 108 O 7) 60 m I i 309 yy J09, •7 FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 3 PEAK 2 1 /2 HOURS '}]� TTICTTN' F FARMER 10 TR4NSPORTATIONI'.NGINEF.RS. INC. I TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A. Cumulative Proiect The city of Newport Beach's traffic engineering staff has completed a list of cumulative projects which may impact this portion of the city's street network. The list includes 129 ;.� projects, of which approximately 50% are not occupied, 44% are fully occupied, and 6% are partially occupied. B. Regional Growth The city of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department has also prepared a list of specific regional annual growth rates which are associated with the study area. Growth rates associated with Newport Boulevard is 1% per year. The growth rate associated with Coast Highway east and west of Newport Boulevard are 1% and 2.5% per year respectively. C. Intersections to be Analyzed Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department has indicated that the primary impact from project traffic might be on the following site vicinity intersections: 1) Newport Boulevard & 32nd Street ,..? 2) Newport Boulevard & Via Lido 3) Coast Highway & Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue D. "One Percent Test" The methodology presented below for the 1% traffic volume analysis is the one utilized by the city of Newport Beach: Viz, - Volumes used are the 2-1/2 peak hour traffic volumes - Volumes were extrapolated to the year 1993, i.e. 3 year - A regional annual growth rate was used - Traffic volumes associated with cumulative projects were added to the extrapolated volumes and 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volumes were determined. - If project traffic exceeded 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume, intersection analyses were conducted for the impacted intersections. JUSTIN F. FARMER 11 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 56 The 1% test conducted at the three study intersections indicated that the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido meet the 1% test during both AM and PM peak periods while the intersection of Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue does not meet the 1% test during either peak period. Therefore, level of service analyses were conducted at the subject two intersections using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure. City data forms entitled 111% Traffic Volume Analysis" for the three intersections are included in the Appendix attached hereto. Also enclosed are the ICU calculation forms. Results of that ICU analyses are listed on Table 5, 'below: ,7 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF V/C & LOS AM PEAK PM PEAK CONDITION V/C RATIO LOS V/C RATIO LOS Newport Blvd. & 32nd Street Existing 0.46 A 0.59 A 1993+Cumulatives 0.48 A 0.60 A 1993+Cumulatives 0.50 A 0.63 B +Project J Newport Blvd. & Via Lido Existing 0.51 A 0.51 A 1993+Cumulatives 0.53 A 0.55 A 1993+Cumulatives 0.55 A 0.57 A +Project Table 5 suggests that the project will have only a nominal impact upon either intersection. The levels of service will continue to remain at excellent conditions after addition of cumulative projects and proposed project. JUSTIN F. FARMER 12 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. � � 1 PARKING ANALYSIS In order to determine the adequacy of parking supply at the Newport Peninsula Center after the conversion of approximately 3,489 square feet of office space into a fast food restaurant (McDonald's) , actual parking surveys were conducted at the Newport Peninsula .Center and at a fast food restaurant with characteristics similar to the proposed Newport Beach McDonald's restaurant. Carl's Jr. Restaurant located at 3101 Newport Boulevard which is the only fast-food restaurant in the immediate area with similar characteristics to the proposed McDonald's Restaurant (high walk-in ratio from the Beach and nearby offices) was utilized for parking survey purposes. This restaurant has a gross floor area of approximately 2,675 square feet. Parking accumulation surveys were conducted at the Carl's Jr. Restaurant and at the Newport Peninsula Center during a weekday and Saturday between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Because the subject Carl's Jr. Restaurant is located in the shopping center and since some shoppers utilize the retail stores and Carl's Jr. during the same trip, it was difficult to determine the parking demand associated with the Carl's Jr. Restaurant directly from field observation. Therefore, parking accumulation at the subject restaurant was calculated based on Table 2, Page 71 from which the gain or loss in parking accumulation between any two consecutive hours was calculated (gain or loss = vehicles out - vehicles in) . Based on the number of customers inside the restaurant and the percentage of customers who have used their vehicles, the parking accumulations at 10:00 AM were calculated. Then, using Table 2, the parking accumulations for the remaining hours on weekday and Saturday were calculated. Tables 6, on Page 14 shows the estimated hourly parking accumulation for the Carl's Jr. Restaurant during a weekday and a Saturday. Table 7 , Pages 15 shows the hourly parking accumulation associated with- the Newport Peninsula Center during a weekday and a Saturday. Since McDonald's Restaurant are more popular than Carl's Jr. Restaurants, a 150% surge factor was applied to the Carl's Jr. parking accumulation rates to calculate the parking accumulations for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. Table 6 shows these upgraded parking accumulation rates. Data presented on Table 6 were utilized to project the hourly parking accumulation for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant during a .weekday and a Saturday. Hourly parking, accumulation j associated with the vacant spaces were estimated based on data provided by the city of Newport Beach Planning Department. Tables 8 and 9 ' on Pages 16 and 17 illustrate hourly parking demand at the proposed Newport Peninsula Center on a weekday and a Saturday after the opening 'of the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. i JO JUSTIN F.FARMER 13 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. TABLE 6 PARKING ACCUMULATION CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT Parking 1.5 x Parking Parking Accumulation Accumulation Time Accumulation Ratio Ratio Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday -� 10:00 AM 6 10 2. 24 3.74 3.36 5.61 11:00 AM 6 18 2.24 6.73 3 .36 10.10 12:00 Noon 8 18 2.99 6.73 4.89 10.10 1:00 PM 12 18 4 .49 6.73 . 6.74 10. 10 2:00 PM 11 14 4.11 5.23 6.17 7 .85 3 :00 PM 8 11 2.99 4.11 4.49 6.17 4:00 PM 3 4 1.12 1.50 1.68 2.25 5:00 PM 6 5 2.24 1.87 3 . 36 2.81 6:00 PM 7 8 2.62 2.99 3.93 4.49 JUSTIN F. FARMER 14 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 59 ,l TABLE 7 PARKING ACCUMULATION NEWPORT PENINSULA CENTER 93 SPACES AVAILABLE Time Parking Accumulation Weekday Saturday 10:00 AM 28 21 11:00 AM 35 23 12:00 No 30 31 1:00 PM 36 32 2:00 PM 35 33 3 :00 PM 40 24 4:00 PM 40 28 5:00 PM 32 22 7 6:00 PM 32 16 '3 .J i a l�o JUSTIN F. FARMER 15 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. TABLE 8 NEWPORT PENINSULA CENTER PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR Weekday Tenant 10 AM 11 AM 12 N 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM McDonalds 12 12 16 24 22 16 6 12 14 Existing 28 35 30 36 35 40 40 32 32 Uses Vacant 16 16 12 12 16 16 16 16 8 Spaces Total 56 63 58 72 73 72 62 60 54 93 PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE J JUSTIN F. FARMER 16 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. l • • I II TABLE 9 NEWPORT PENINSULA CENTER PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR Saturday Tenant 10 AM it AM 12 N 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM McDonalds 20 35 35 35 27 22 8 10 16 Existing 21 23 31 32 33 24 28 22 16 Uses — Total 41 58 66 67 60 46 36 32 32 7 , 93 PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE JUSTIN F.FARMER 17 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. Tables 8 and 9 show that a peak parking accumulation of 73 parking spaces will occur at the Newport Peninsula Center during a weekday while a peak parking accumulation of 67 parking spaces will occur at the subject site on a Saturday. There are a total of 93 parking spaces available at the referenced site. Consider- ing a weekday scenario which represents the worst case condition, there will be 20 surplus parking spaces, or 27% more than what is required. Therefore, with the provision of approximately 3 ,489 square feet of fast food use at the Newport Peninsula Center, the mixed-use center will continue to meet the peak parking demand during a weekday and a Saturday. SITE ACCESS Access to the site will be from a driveway on Newport Boulevard and a driveway on Balboa Boulevard. Field surveys at the site indicated that there are adequate gap lengths in vehicular flow on Newport Boulevard (northbound and southbound traffic flows are separated at this section of the roadway) and Balboa Boulevard, such that turning vehicles could easily complete their moves within the provided gap lengths. CROSSWALK AVAILABILITY Field surveys -indicated that crosswalks exist on Balboa Boulevard at 23rd Street, 26th Street, 28th Street, 30th Street, and 31st Street. Therefore, the proposed McDonald s Restaurant customers arriving from the beach side of Balboa Boulevard will have no difficulties crossing Balboa Boulevard. JUSTIN F. FARMER 18 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. SUMMARY i 0 A proposal has been made to provide a McDonald"s restaurant with a gross floor area of approximately 3 ,489 square feet at the Newport Peninsula Center located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach. o Because the proposed McDonald's restaurant will be a unique fast-food restaurant and will be within walking distance from the beach and nearby commercial centers and offices, a trip generation survey had to be conducted at a fast-food restaurant with similar characteristics to the proposed McDonald's restaurant. •� o Carl's Jr. restaurant located at 3101 Newport Boulevard which is the only fast-food restaurant in the immediate area with similar characteristics to the proposed McDonald's restaurant was chosen for trip generation surveys. o Based on the trip generation survey conducted at subject Carl's Jr. Restaurant, a weekday trip generation forecast was prepared for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant, and is summarized below. TRIP GENERATION FORECAST McDONALD'EEDESTAURANT WEEKDAY TIME NO. OF TRIPS Morning 2-1/2 Hour Peak Enter 117 Exit 117 Evening 2-1/2 Hour Peak Enter 117 Exit 108 0 The city of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and information obtained from the city regarding the existing volumes, cumulative projects and growth factors were utilized in capacity analyses. J o The following intersections were required by the Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department to be analyzed. 1 . Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street 2 . Newport Boulevard and Via Lido 3 . Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard / Superior Avenue JUSTIN F. FARMER 19 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. i o The 1% test conducted at the three study intersections indicated that the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido meet the 1% test i.e. , exceed 1%, during both AM and PM peak periods while the intersection of Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue does not meet the 1% test during both, of the peak periods. Capacity analyses were conducted at the subject two intersections using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure during AM and PM peak periods. o Capacity analyses indicated that the project will have nominal impact upon the analyzed intersections. Levels of service will continue to 'remain at excellent conditions after addition of cumulative projects and proposed McDonald's resturant. 0 In order to determine adequacy of the parking supply at the Newport Peninsula Center, after the conversion of a approximately 3,489 square feet of office space into a fast-food restaurant, actual parking surveys were conducted at the referenced center and at a fast-food restaurant with characteristics similar to the proposed Newport Beach McDonald's restaurant. o Carl's Jr. Restaurant located at 3101 Newport Boulevard was utilized for parking survey purposes. However, since McDonald's Restaurants are more popular than Carl's Jr. Restaurants, a 150% surge factor was applied to the Carl's Jr. parking accumulation rates to calculate the parking accumulation for the proposed McDonald's restaurant. o The hourly parking accumulation associated with the vacant spaces were estimated based upon the data provided by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. o Based on the surveys taken, it is projected that after provision of McDonald's Restaurant at the referenced site, a J peak parking accumulation of 73 parking spaces will occur during a weekday and a parking accumulation of 67 parking spaces will occur on a Saturday. There will be a total of 93 parking spaces provided at the subject site. Therefore, during a worst case scenario, there will be 20 parking spaces or 27% more than what is required. Hence, with the provision of 3 ,489 square feet of fast-food use at the Newport Peninsula Center, the subject center will continue to meet the peak parking demand during a weekday and a Saturday. / JUSTIN F. FARMER 20 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. /1 y • • ' o Field surveys at the site indicated that there are adequate gap lengths in vehicular flow on Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, such that turning vehicles (entering or leaving the site) could easily complete their moves, within the provided gap lengths. Respectfully Submitted, 7ustin F. F , SPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , F. Farmer, P.E. , President Q�pFESS/py JFF:dr Q�� F. Fq0, 4� XQ GO -92 m w Ex7. .3.3L_ a x 9TF OF CA\y,)l JUSTIN F. FARMER 21 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. ��• APPENDIX � ' • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL 32ND ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage In er pring 9 U AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects, Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2215 66 2321 70 Southbound 1616 48 26 .1690 17 70 Eastbound 835 0 0 835 8 i 0 Westbound 262 0. 0 262 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to 'be less tha6 •1%•of Projected=:=1--' Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected X Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r;t DATE. 10/8/90 6 PROJECT: McDonald ' s- NE131DAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD 8 32NO STREET 1310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE'DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGI6NALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume 1,• V/C I. I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iu/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I . I Volume I i • I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL I . 16001 • 1 191 0.0113%=11 0 1 0.01 1 0 10:01'1 I----------------•-------------------------- ----------- I NT 1 l 954 13%=29I 21 1 * I 70 1 I -_-NR I 1 16 1 3$� 1 0 I ---) 3200 ------------------) 0.30 *- , ',* * 1 - 0 i0:3iF 0 I SL 1 1600 1 1 36 1 0.02 ' 3%1 1 0 1 0.02* 1 ..0 1=10-.0� I -----------------I---------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------I sT- 13%=161 13 1 i -70 :. . I-------- 3200 i_____---I_____93> 0.19 -------------_---------j:_�_-___.. - -0- 2-3 1 SR 13%=3-1 0 1 10 1 I �--------ET i 3200 i--------'--- 355-) 0.11 - -------------T------- ••--1 0 i1-•---•------0:1i I I. 0 1 0 I 1 1 1 i :. I ER I N.S. 1 ' I 34 I l 0 1 0 i' 10 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------I I uL 1 1 32 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I--------) ------------------) -----------------------------------------------I ........ -NT--_) 3200 I I 29 ) 0.03 ' 0 I 0 1 0:03*_i-_-0 _-10:03 1 -------------- ------ - - -- - I WR I I 48 1 0 1 0 1 I 1 1 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -•----------I 1EXISTING 1 0.46 1 0 0 i ____ _ ____ ____ __--_. _ _____ __-_ _. _ IV� 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED•IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -I 0.48 : 1 I___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U: 1 0.5.01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------••------------------_-- Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 I_l Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. without project ---------------------------------------------------o_--------------•-------------••------ Description of system improvement: 10/8/90 PROJECT McDonald ' S FORM II bq c7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/32ND ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 90)PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected ion of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2§ Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 215 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1898 57 89 2044 20 65 '-� Southbound 2 98 99 3457 35 70 Eastbound690 0 0 620 6 0 Westbound 433 0 0 433 4 0 ID Project Traffic- is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 7 J DATE: 10/8/90 !D •"� PROJECT: McDonald ''s IT rn.+a RE131OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 'INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD $ 32ND STREET 1310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PH ______________________________________________________________ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED[EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I I lCapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume IN/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I----------------------------•---------------------••---------------------------•-----------I I NL l 1600 I 1 49 i 0.03 * 3%=1 1 0 1 0.03* 1 0 10.03 1 1------------------------------------------- ------= ----------- 1 HT 1 1 739 13%=221 45 1 1 65 " I I--------) 3200 __________________) 0.24 ---------------------- MR 1 1 14 1 A=0 1 Q 1 �: 2s 1 0 -0:28 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL 1 1600 1 1 64 1 0.04 1 3%=2 1 0 1 0.04 1 0 10.041 I--------------------------I------- ------------------------------ -------------------------I sT. • ' 3%=32J 13 I' 1 70_1 *. 1 I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.43 *-------------------- * -0-:47u I SR 1 1 297 !.3%=91 0 1 0:45 ' QI EL I I * I I--------) 3200 )-----------------) 0.07 *--�---------�----•0�0.7--------�-!8-:fT3-I I ET 1 46 Q 1 Q I I 1 I I_______________ -______-____________________________o_________I I ER I H.S. 1 1 33 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 I_______________________________________________________________•___________ _______-_ I WL I I 37 t o I Q I I Q I I 1 I WT 3200 1 1 95 0.06 * 0 1 0 1 0.06 1 0 10.06 1 1--------) ------------------) ---------------- I WR 1 1 59 1 Q 1 Q 1 1 Q 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I [EXISTING 1 0.59 1 0 0 1 1--------•---------------------------------------------------------•--------- 1 (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.61 1 1 1---------------••-------••-•-------___-------------•-------••--•---------•----------•-•----l (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10-03 ' -•--------------------------•--- IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: 10/8/90 PROJECT McDonald ' S FORM 11 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 9 90)AM Peak 21 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1n of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2�. Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i volume ' I Northbound 2958 89 50 3097 31 70 Southbound 2575 77• . 26 2678 • 27 ' i 70 Eastbound 0 0 0 Westbound 1028 0 0 1028 10 0 Projedt Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected;El : ' : . Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected R Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. . Intersection Capacity Utilization I (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. :a DATE: 10/8/90 PROJECT: McDonald ' s NE1415AH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS .� INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 -EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM I - IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOHMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacity1Capacity1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iu/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume ___________________________________________________________________________ ___-___--_----_I I NL I I I I I I I i I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I NT I 320o I I 1251 i 0.39'*3�=381 26 1 0.41* 1 70 10.43�"1 I__________________________________________________________________________________ I I MR I H.S. I I I I _ - I I - , . I I I I - - -------------------- ISL. I 3200 I I 354 I 0_11 *3%=111 0 1 I - 0.11* 1 0 10. 11--------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- I , 1ST. I I I 0.25 13%-241 • - 10.2 I 7 b.29 1 --- ---- --- -- -- - --SR 19,1 i---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - i EL I I--------------------------I--------I--------I--------I---------I._.. - i ET. • I I I % I I . I I ,': . I , , •i . . . • I I--- --------------- ------------------------------------ ;- -- - ER i I I . . I I I •. ,-- --- 1•----------I - i ' ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I uL . I taoo I 1 19 I 0.01 * 0 I o 1 0.01* 1 0 - 13 .01*1 =:J I ------------------------------------------ -----------------------------I ( WT I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ------------------------------------------1------0 I 0----I.0'_14 i 0 b. 14 I (EXISTING 1 0.51 1 1 1____________________________________________________________________________ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.5 3 I I I________________________________________________________________________________ b.55 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. __________________________________ ________. I� Projected + project traffic T.C.U. Wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic T.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. Without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: II � 10 8 90 PROJECT — MCDOI131CI ' S FORM 11 b� I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Vol-u-me-s-Eased on Average winter/spring 9 90 PM Peak 2+1 Hour •Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2)1-Hour Peak 211 Hour' Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2648 79 89 2816 28 65 ,•`� Southbound 505 185 "'105 F 4745 70 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 1261 0 1261 13 � 5' • Project Traffic is estimated to-be 'less�';than 1% of.Projected ; Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to.be greater than 1% of Projected Q Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. •Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. rJ :J DATE: 10/8/90 PROJECT: McDonald ' s 6L FORM I t� Y NE1415PM • • ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 I � EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990�M ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXiSTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotuoe I V/C I ' I ICapacitylCapecityl Volume I•Ratio I VOtune I Volume IW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I , ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I HL I I I I I I . I I I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________I I NT 1 3200 1 1 1070 l 0.33 *3%=321 45 1 0. 36* 1 65 1 0.38* I-------•-----------------------------•-----------------------------•-----------------------I I NR I N.S. 1 1 42 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 I I______________________________ ______________________ _-_-________ I St. 1 3200 I 1 487 1 0.15 *3�-151 0 i 0. 16* 1 0 1 0: 1'61 I---------------------------------------------------------' ,0 1 1 ST 1 3200I 1 1444I 0.47.13%=431 52 1 0. 50 1 70 10.5. i................ . .•- -- -------------•- �j -------- -- i sR I I 1 46 i 1 I I_____________________________________________________________ ________-_____1 I EL 1___________________________________________________________________________________________I . IET I i--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ER I••--------;•----•---------•••-•-----------------•---••---••-----------•------•-----_-------1 I WL 1 1600 I 1 50 1 0.03 * 0 I 0 1 0.03 *1 0 10'.03*I ,.� I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I WT I I I I I I I I I I I-••--••--•••---••-----•---•----••-------------•-- I WR 1 3200 1 I 43D 1 0.13 1 0 1 0 10. 13 1 0 10. 131 I---•----•-------•-•---•-•------------•-----•I------•----•---•••--•-••••---••--••------••---I (EXISTING 10.51 1 1••••-•••--•------•-----------•---•---•-----•--•-----------•---------•---••-- l (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 5 5, I I i...........................................................................................i 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ' .....................................................................................CL.�7.,1 181 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Hill be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wilt be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement Witt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will y be less than I.C.U. Without project ............................................•--.._......----.._....----•----....----•---- Description of system improvement: i� 10/8/90 PROJECT MCDolldld 18 FORM 11 —75; �3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage Winter/Spring 9 90 AM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1;, of Projected' Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 235 Hour Peak 2h Hour .-Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1717 •0 7 1724 ` 17 E 12 South bound 1231 0 24 1255 13 i 0 Eastbound 383 ' 585, _ -:6079 i 12 Westbound 1795 1 54 239� 2088 i Q Project Traffic is estimated to be•less than 1% of projected ..' Peak 21.- Hour Traffic' Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El :Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. .:a I J • 10 8 90 DATE. � � M]tp PROJECT: Mc Donald' s I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19 90 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved • Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour ' Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1788 0 8 1796 18 ( 11_ :y Southbound 2811 0 130 2921 29 0 Eastbound 3638 273 438 ' 4349 43 190 Westbound 3448 103 561 4112' 41 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater.than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 10/8/90 PROJECT: McDonald Is 34 FORM I RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1991 rITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEB 2 11991 pM AM 234516 'YA91101U112111 1 1 TO: SANDRA GENIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED McDONALDS RESTAURANT AT 2727 NEWPORT BLVD. TRAFFIC The report prepared for this proposed restaurant by the City's consultant has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed with the writer. The unique aspects of fast food restaurants and the proposed location invite differences of opinion between Traffic Engineers. This memo has been prepared to alert staff and decision makers that there are a number of important unknowns regarding a McDonald's at this location. Tabulated information on fast food facilities displays a very wide range of traffic activity with a range of 250% or more for outlets of similar size. For this reason it was decided to have the consultant conduct localized traffic and parking studies to determine rates to be used in this study. Even using the Carl's Jr. near City Hall and the McDonald"s on Coast Highway there are potentially significant assumptions which must be made in order to project traffic and parking of the proposed restaurant. The consultant concludes that there is no traffic impact as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The signalized intersections in the area are projected to operate at very favorable levels of service with or without the project. This would still be the conclusion even if the project were to generate twice as much traffic as anticipated. PARKING The same conclusion cannot be made regarding the adequacy of the onsite parking that is available. The consultant compared the proposed site with both the Carl's Jr. due to its similar location on the peninsula and also compared that Carl's Jr. to the existing McDonald's on Coast Highway to examine the possible difference between the drawing power of the two chains. He also studied a McDonald's and a Carl's Jr. in another Orange County City which were located in the same shopping center in order to have a comparison where locational differences were eliminated. The latter study was conducted outside the scope of this project analysis. 1 OF 3 1g PROPOSED McDONALD'S cont'd The consultant's conclusion after comparing these various restaurants was that there was virtually no difference in traffic generation and hence parking demand between a Carl's Jr. and a McDonalds. Even with this conclusion, the parking and traffic factors for the proposed McDonald's were assumed to be 50% greater than from the Carl's Jr. in order to provide a margin of comfort. My review of the information provided leads me to conclude that the parking demand for the proposed McDonald's could be slightly greater than can be accommodated on site. This conclusion was reached after understanding that the data for the McDonald's on Coast Highway did not consider the any of the traffic using the drive -thru. There is no way to be sure how much of the traffic using the drive-thru would come to the restaurant if there were none. However, if instead of the consultants assumption, one assumes that all of the drive-thru customers will still patronize the restaurant, and further assumes that the accumulated parking demand grows proportionately, then 97 spaces would be required at lunch time and only 93 are available. Given that the "worst case" assumption results in a shortage of only four spaces, it can be anticipated that the onsite parking is probably adequate. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY The report concludes that pedestrians from the beach side of Balboa Boulevard will have no difficulties crossing the street due to the presence of three marked crosswalks within 550 feet of the site. The City has conducted a detailed analysis of pedestrian safety along Balboa Blvd within that past year in response to numerous complaints by residents regarding safety and the problems of trying to cross this busy arterial street. While improvements were made to existing crosswalks, there will continue to be pedestrian accidents due to the numbers of people and cars competing for use of the street. It must be recognized that a McDonald's at this location will result in a substantial number of pedestrians crossing this street during peak summer traffic conditions. The pedestrian study identified that the majority of pedestrian accidents on Balboa Blvd. happen during hours of darkness. While there is less beach use after dark in this area, there will still be increased pedestrian crossings in this area if a facility such as McDonald's is located in this center. The Carl's Jr. on the peninsula has very heavy pedestrian traffic from the beach, most of which takes advantage of the traffic signal at 32nd Street. The nearest signal to the proposed restaurant is at 23rd Street and most people will not go three blocks out of their way to cross the street. 2 of 3 PROPOSED MCDONALD'S cont'd CONCLUSIONS * There is considerable uncertainty in predicting the traffic and parking impacts of a major fast food restaurant in this location. * The impact of traffic on signalized intersections in the area will be minimal in any case. * The existing onsite parking should reasonably be able to handle the demand. There is clearly a possibility that at peak times on peak summer days, there may be insufficient parking. * Significant numbers of pedestrians will be required to cross Balboa Blvd in order to reach the site. The City Council has recently completed an extensive study of pedestrian safety along Balboa Blvd in response to citizen complaints. if-ch�ar Edmonston Traffic Engineer WP\MCDONLDS.MEM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: USE PERMIT NO. 3401 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 71 The proposed location of the MacDonalds restaurant on 26th Street between Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard is isolated from private parking facilities. The restaurant will face 26th Street, the City's public parking lot and the McFadden Plaza area. It is anticipated that the restaurant will draw a significant part of its customers from the beach and the McFadden Plaza area. When Carl's Jr. at 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard was surveyed last September, 960 walk-in customers were counted between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. The proposed MacDonalds restaurant is 30% larger in size and located in an area that is closer to the beach and other tourist attractions in the MacFadden Plaza area. It is assumed that the MacDonalds restaurants will draw more customers than Carl's Jr. , the walk-in customers could be 1.5 to 2 times that of the Carl's Jr. on 3101 Newport Boulevard. This equates to 1440 to 1920 walk-in customers in a 12 hour period. There are 2 problems with substantial pedestrian traffic to a restaurant at this location. The first is the number of pedestrians crossing Balboa Boulevard in a location that carries 19,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of 26th Street and Balboa Boulevard is not planned to be signalized and would not meet vehicular signal warrants. This is not a good location for a high concentration of pedestrians to cross Balboa Boulevard. The second problem is that the sidewalk along 26th Street is only 4 feet wide. This is not wide enough to safely carry the projected large volume of pedestrian traffic. If this project is to be approved, the sidewalk needs to be widened by 4 to 6 feet. This can be accomplished by moving 26th Street 4 to 6 feet to the east into the City's public parking lot. This would reduce the size of a landscaped area but would not affect the public parking. The shifting of the roadway would require removal and reconstruction of curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street and is estimated to cost 30, 000 to 40,000 dollars. 81 1 ' 1 • • Page 2 If the Planning Commission approves this project, the following 2 conditions should help to improve the safety of pedestrians coming to and from the restaurant. 1. That the sidewalk along the 26th Street frontage be widened to 10 feet by moving 26th Street 6 feet easterly and reconstructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. 2 . That a pedestrian traffic signal be installed at 26th Street and Balboa Boulevard if pedestrian or vehicular warrants are met within 5 years of the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the restaurant; and that a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $120, 000 be deposited with the City to guarantee the construction of the signal. Don Webb City Engineer DW:so 0� • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT r't-ANN'ING DEPARTMENT CITE OF NEWPORT BEACH March 1 , 1991 AM MAR 11991PIR 7j 819110111112111213141516 TO: Planning Department FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Plan Review Request for 2727 Newport Blvd (McDonald's Restaurant) As requested by your department, we are making the following comments regarding the proposed takeout food restaurant. The Balboa Peninsula area generates the most calls for police service as compared to other portion of the community. One recent survey analyzed police activities from 1-1-90 through 10-1-90. The Newport Pier area, between 20th and 36th Streets, generated 6,001 calls to the police. During the same time period, West Newport was second with 3,196 calls (between 36th and 54th Streets and including PCH). During the late evening hours, between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., police activities dramatically increase. Thirty percent of the arrests occurring then were made in the Newport Pier area. The area between 32nd Street and the wedge accounts for over one third of the late night calls for service, while generating almost half of the arrests and 57% of citations issued. We believe that certain businesses will likely result in increased police activities on the peninsula. Other fast food chains have restaurants in the area. We have had chronic and recurrent problems at two locations.in particular with restaurant customers who congregate and loiter in the parking lot. The Jack-in the-Box and Balboa and PCH actually became a destination point for "cruisers" who came from all over the southland. When fights and disturbances began to continually disrupt the restaurant portion of the business, management closed the dining area in the late evening and remained open for takeout only. Crowds would use the drive through and park in the lot to eat. The size and nature of the groups began to disrupt the other business operations in the center. The police would receive calls from the restaurant regarding disturbances, from other businesses who complained their customers were unable to park in the lot, and from adjacent residents who complained of noise and traffic congestion problems for the crowds. In some instances, six or seven police officers were dispatched to the location to clear groups of unwanted guests from the lot. To compound the situation for police, we are already busy that time of night and to respond officers to these problems inhibits our ability to deliver service to the rest of the community. • • Planning Department Plan Review Request for 2727 Newport Blvd (McDonald's Restaurant) March 1 , 1991 Page 2 We have had similar problems with the loitering crowds, related vehicular congestion and disturbance complaints from the parking lot at 32nd Street and Newport Blvd. where the Carl's Jr. restaurant is located. The best solution to both locations has been for the landlord and business interests to regulate access to their parking lots. They are certainly in the best position to regulate who is a "customer" and who might be an unwanted guest. In the case of the Jack-in-the- Box, portions of the parking lot were barricaded by the landlord who hired security guards to monitor access to the lot. That process has been utilized successfully there for the last couple of years. Similar efforts at 32nd Street have not provided the same results. Unless the landlord and tenants are willing to provide and maintain effective monitoring of access and the activities of their customers, the disturbances will continue as they have in the Carl's Jr. lot. Adding to the problem is the cruising phenomenon and the related law enforcement activities. When the congestion occurs, which is a regular event on weekend nights, the cruisers seem to look for other locations to congregate, like the fast food parking lots. To have had 21i disturbance ce a of the calls rnt e ult ng in a policed response to the the e Car of l's this year we parking lot. It is our opinion that the proposed restaurant will contribute to the types of problems described above. We are especially concerned with any late night operations on weekends and holiday periods such as Easter Week and July 4th. Daytime may attract large groups of skateboarders as has been the case at the Carl's Jr. lot. Arb Campbell Chief of Police 8�- III CENTRALOWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AS AIATfON c/o Thomas E. Hyans ; President 217 Nineteenth Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 ( 714 ) 673-0333 February 27 , 1991 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Subject: Public Hearing, March 7 , 1991 , Use Permit #3401 , Traffic Study No. 71 Newport Peninsula Center Associates 2727 Newport Boulevard Honorable Chairman and Commissioners , Please be advised that this Association of residents or owners of property situated on the Peninsula between Main and 21st Sts, is unequivocally opposed to applicant's proposed use of subject property. We ask that no portion of off-street parking be waived, and that the related traffic study be subjected to extraordinary scrutiny consistent with the experience gained by similar uses at PCH and Balboa Blvd. , at Newport Blvd. and 32nd St. , and at 19th Street and Balboa Blvd. We ask further that any considerations for conditional use by the MacDonald franchisee include cessation of operations at 10 p.m. , off-site litter control, prohibition of loitering on site or in the adjacent city parking lot, parking lot controls, withdrawal of the use permit for-- reasons of noise impacting on adjacent residents, or for traffic impacting on the worsening cruising problems, and that no use permit shall be granted for longer than one year. Applicant's architect, Mr. Jerry King, attended the April 11 , 1990 meeting of our Board of Directors to solicit our comments on the applicant's preliminary concepts for development of the entire parcel . At that time, the Board gave generally favorable comments except where take-out food service was concerned. We have not had an opportunity to review a staff report, or any other documents as yet. When the package is available, we will give it our immediate attention. We sincerely hope that the experience of recent years with similar establishments will be recounted therein by the Police, the Traffic, as well as the Planning Departments . Planning Commissiole • February 27 , 1991 There is too much history of the adverse impact of such establishments on our neighborhoods . That is not to say that these businesses are in themselves undesireable, but that, on the Peninsula, in the proposed setting of mixed residential and commercial use , their continuing introduction has proven to be a focus for noise, litter, congestion, and rowdyism. The nearly completed McFadden Square development deserves a chance to improve the heretofore deteriorating conditions and quality of life in central Newport. Our experience with uses similar to that proposed here has been invariably negative . We encourage you to deny this application. Very truly yours , Thomas E. Hyans , President cc: Chief Arb Campbell, NBPD Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. , Traffic Engineer James Hewicker, Planning Director RECEIVEu BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEBAM 27 1991 PIA 7t8t9t�►►ll►�►�t2t3t4►5►6 ' FETING DATE�T AGENDA ITEM APPLICATION--&.? ^U U qU U,. • .' U�� . _ �•. �'RQPoskv � . �i WELLS FARGO Mr 1 _ ~ O—,9UT i a I^/ CITY -:, Subway JACK' S SURFBOARDS GAfiHG Aimk RESTAURANT C _, '__� �� /:•.. /yam is C.IS�LYS:g �\/l S.H.-C. ENTERPRISES, INC. dba NEWPORT PENINSULA CENTER ASSOCIATES 2727 Newport Blvd. P. -O. Box 7833 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 759-3232 F-I e WELLS FARGO BANK n r y i Q 0 0 .s I h I �,. JACK' S SURFBOARDS v�p O b21 61b i© i ao LLJIIYJYInuY 1 +_ ` e COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT s h R � e 1, 127 1, 141 sq. ft. sq. ft. Ei 1,232 sq. ft vy3 ' e5 N. x e c j�C .j Wo Oil --- CDWuuuty � • O O _- V'�L rimuldu � io CAA7T YkKijHAx w . M f/ r ,RF�•w DU6 flCltyuiM12CvcH FOW PAP Ny ••-, TOAST/T yy i.TlFR PREP AO& LWfv NQn MAT c6m ALAI A6AI C�ATJ(IR S��•'t ytFA • I � (I I .Q FT.A t}j/{EAi•tl SC1fT KSINow JACSS (IISLh / CRLKS JNOMJpE5 pp,IIpFFL�/ 94ADIORIW II LCAS�CNAL rl I4x%Gm o I�r i I Mg, Ws!YYA I F4RyJCC ARIA I I I I I �- -------------- PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN SCALC I,t•.,•.p • �D I I IC n � ORY rVpp�FyN� 4YIN01130 SQ.FT r fy 6YQA YCT£N ILVrJf MAGN H.M. TOTAL GO.FT REMOTE BTCRAGE 427 . 60.FT, SECOND - FLOOR REMOTE TE 'STORAGE. c E All yl : rep,v R�y - RR x, �• bib A ` � ��.. �onald�s ► I l ry i/� a Yam« iy '"'.a��a'�' �"1� .:J_rn�u f'Y M[`•1CL>�il�wM•r IV �'- • Wt\ ' + 1 I D . . � �iyR¢.vatc•�ifiivw• r . _ - 1 - �•r i.vcs v' so-„� C rY CC/�y^l '�. '� �fa6lTC•'JIN�J 7AT'/ 'v f`R■ �? .,� 1 gv" 1 �.• ,< �' ICtit YY.sa •a c^r Nc►u > ,�...••.:^^."..'�anf .�' �r �..,.r, .L'.' .,�Y. i tiRhWY'f.4lti NYir - �•;.•�•++'_ ua• - r- 1O -"v4r'x' on + rJRN1CS' Ir�P S//, N [ s[rl1�.r N�lain �wt� 'atm. y r Jr r L IY _ MOMe �1 �. +1 wl Ilium t 1 flint t r•w ytY '� .,�. N••c ( -:.+2+ /-� Sler {._ i t^iS < f .� > ,'�a + '% G�nS C hAhs 0`e'�'�Ii -_— - iAr f -..vt Y i. f'• •Ry' -Warr R • :+:Y. µ 1�, "T.» - �t F _.-�.-. -. Ao •%rr i'%••.. ,i .�+�'[�/+n tit: 'yam +.t �� .1�t�...t'°: '914VI'. . �'Y.` 1.�� td'! � 1 R"'♦ N %i'N"" fl 1" A!�'t lfTT'..r �2-219- nl # ?/ • TRAFFIC xST,UDDIES APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: ' l/pp/..??11/!/.✓IO/�,1,(_�j��l`n/L/� dX/p�;, �J /.o��%iL J ' [mil PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT R�E/MAINING BALANCE c bz3, D� by�,DD 6 6, f3D, DO 119�y G 9�0 00 ��WPOR> ----- RECE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IPT �O pm NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No, 59617 i C) i �<irOPN i � DATE t RECEIVED FROM i i FOR:- ACCOUNT NO AMOUNT a 9 i DEPARTMENT t BT .Tip,........+ .. .. ..r.-..r.�.s.�......�..�..w.�..�......�..�...�..�..«.� - ---.«r------ ' 3L bD . 7p y- dl) 6 y • vv CITY CF �E�wP°Rr . DEMAND FOR o` e NEWPORT PAYMENT BEACH UCq��p0.�PT Demand of: ,Tustin F. Farmer Date: October 19 , 1990 Transportation Engineers Address: 2 o 7 s _ B r a n R 1 ,r a . Brea, CA 92621 In the amount of: $6 ,9 30 .0 0 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount M ` - - Invoice #1429 ; Lump Sum Contract • Total $6 , 930 .00 Approved For Payment: fi3s _ epartment Head Audited and Approved: Finance Director i JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC its: • ARTMENT �207 S. BREA BLVD. OF NEWfORT BEACH BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 (714) 671-0226 OCT 19 1990 FM(714) 255-9932 '71819110,U I12111213141516 INVOICE ! City of Newport Beach October 16, 1990 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92658 Re: McDonald's Restaurant Invoice #1429 2727 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca Our File #F850 Billing Period: August 30, 1990 through September 161 1990 FOR THE FOLLOWING SERVICES: Prepared a parking and traffic study for the proposed McDonald' s Restaurant to be provided at the . Newport Peninsula Center. Conducted parking analysis and performed capacity analysis at three key intersections near the site. Lump Sum Contract $6,930_00 .i��gr�t. 1�a [ t^�t-� tgr-�tT $6,930.00 Total AmoWI-O '1'• O 1 ED FOR PAYN'1EN 1 By :� lannin Director PLEASE MA BLE TO: JUSTIN F. FARMER$, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. T- � DATE you. ACCOUNT NO. i AMOUNT Justin F. Farmer, President AHROVED JFF:sf NET 30 DAYS SEW PORT CITY OF NE'WPORT BEACH v � z P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 qGl FO RN PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 23, 1990 Stephen J. Cloobeck, President Commercial Center Development P.O. Box 7833 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: TPO/Parking Study Dear Mr. Cloobeck: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc. to conduct a traffic and parking study for two sites on Newport Boulevard. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required and estimated budget required for the preparation of the studies. The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks f required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, it is requested that you remit the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 6,930 City Fees (10%) 693 Total Request: $ 7,623 Please make the check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By . Patricia I.. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachment F\m1\ua nocs\cLoonec[cTPo 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Pon OMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT Land Development NOW Asset Management September 26, 1990 Ms. Temple City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 Re: TPO/Parking Study Dear Ms. Temple Enclosed is our check for payment in full for the parking study done on Newport Blvd. , 26th to 28th street. Please accept our apology in this late payment which was due to an oversite in our office. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Thank You, COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT Steph J. Cloobeck Presi nt Agent for Newport Peninsula Center Associates SJC cer PLANNING €iEPARVIENT / CITY OF NEWPORT BEA09 Enclosure AM OCT 11990 p113 718,9110,11,12111213141516 Member of International council of P.O. Box 7833, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 759-3232 FAX (714) 673-3481 Shopping Centers SEW PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 C'9C!FO AN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 23, 1990 Stephen J. Cloobeck, President Commercial Center Development P.O. Box 7833 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: TPO/Parking Study Dear Mr. Cloobeck: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc. to conduct a traffic and parking'study for two sites on Newport Boulevard. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required and estimated budget required for the preparation of the studies. The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, it is requested that you remit the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 6,930 City Fees (109o') 693 Total Request: $ 7,623 Please make the check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By a_. Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachment F\JM\EIR-DOCS\CLOOBECK.IPO 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach JUSTIN R FARMER • • TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC 207 S. BREA BLVD. BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 (714) 671-0226 FAX: (714) 255-9932 August 21, 1990 Ms. Patricia Temple RECEIVED BY Principal Planner PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Newport beach CITY OFNEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92659 AUG 2 31990 AM PM RE : Proposal for TPO/PKG Study 7t819110111112111213141M Newport Blvd, 26th to 28th Streets. A Dear Ms. Temple, First let me thank you for considering us as a Traffic engineering consultant for this very interesting project. I have spoken with Bill Ward, with Rich Edmonston and have looked at the site. Rich and I have discussed several possible methods of forecasting trip generation and parking demands. I have also discussed methodology in-house and the scope of services proposed herein reflects the best thinking of all concerned. We therefore offer the following proposal. SCOPE OF SERVICES We will visit the site and inventory those segments of the street environment that will impact, or be impacted by the project. Specific attention will be directed toward walk-in versus drive-in customers. We will also pay close attention to the current lot configuration, its driveways, its access, and its parking. A weekday and a Saturday parking utilization survey will be conducted on the site during the time period 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This survey will quantify current parking demands and the availability of on-site parking. It will also result in a determination of the availability of parking spaces for the proposed McDonalds restaurant during the various times of the day. A survey will also be made of the amount and arrival modes of traffic generated by the Carl's Jr. restaurant on Newport Boulevad to the north. This restaurant will also be surveyed during a weekday and a Saturday. Data will be collected regarding arrivals via auto and by pedestrians. Data from that survey will then be equated to the proposed McDonalds. It should be noted that under a condition of relatively free competition, a Carls Jr. will not generate nearly the amount of traffic as does a McDonalds. However, where there is virtually no other fast food restaurant nearby, it is reasonable to expect a Carl's Jr. , to generate traffic approximately equal to a McDonalds. We therefore believe that the use of Carl's to obtain trip generation and parking data is entirely valid. Results of the parking and trip generation studies will be expressed in terms of a trip generation rates which will be used in the project trip forecasts which in turn will be used in the TPO analyses. DELIVERABLES Results of our analyses will be summarized in a suitably bound and illustrated report of a format commonly used in studies of this nature. FEE We propose a lump sum fee of $6930.00. That fee includes the parking and trip generation surveys at the two sites, one the subject site and the other at the nearby Carl's Jr. Restaurant. It also includes all labor, expenses, overhead and profit. Although the fee includes meeting with staff to be assured that their concerns are addressed, it does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be asked to attend such public hearings, our fee would be $440.00 for an evening meeting. The fee presumes that there will be no changes to the project and that we will not be asked to assess more than one project. Should we be so requested, we will separately invoice for only the actual amount of additional work effort required on our part. We customarily request a 50% retainer prior to start of work. However, in this case we suggest that we be reimbursed 33% of the fee upon notice to proceed, a second 33% upon submittal of a report draft, and the final 34% upon submittal of the final report. JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 0 If the preceding proposal is acceptable, you may so indicate by signing in the space below and returning one copy as our notice to proceed. We do not require a separate contract. We also ask that you initiate steps for payment of the first 33% payment. Again, let me thank you for considering us for this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience. Sincerely, JU N F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Lam/"`--`�- stin F. Farmer, P.E. , President JFF:dr THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED COMPANY DATE ADDRESS SIGNATURE TITLE TELEPHONE # FAX # JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. nn COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT Land Development Asset Management July 25, 1990 Ms. Pat Temple Principal Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Newport Peninsula Center Newport Beach, California Dear Pat, Enclosed please find the Environmental Information Form on the above mentioned property, which has been completed per your request. If you should have any questions in regards to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT, INC. Stephen J. Cloobeck President SJC/klz RECEIVED BY Enclosure PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JUL 2 5 1990 718191101HA1121314I 6 Member of International Council of P.O. Box 7833, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 759-3232 FAX (714) 673-3481 Shopping Centers Y RBVI MNKENTAL INFORMATION FORK it Date Filed July 24, 1990 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Newport Peninsula Center Association 2. Address of project: 2727 Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach, CA Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 047-100-03 and 047-100-04 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concern- ing this project: Stephen J Cloobeck, 2727 Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach California, 92663 (714) 759-3232 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Not available 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Variance, conditional use permit. 6. Existing zoning district: SP-6 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed) : Retail commercial restaurant. Project Description 8. Site size. 56,628 sq. ft. 9. Square footage. 23, 069 sq. ft. 10. Number of floors of construction. N/A 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. -0- 12. Attach plans. To be provided at a later date. 13. Proposed scheduling. Six (6) months. 14. Associated project. N/A. 15. Anticipated incremental development. None. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, NpWe of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. - 1 - �i 17. If commercial, indicate the type,, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facili- ties. 18. I£ industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly whey the application, is required. Parking. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, _ X or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential _ X areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in ,pattern, scale or character of general area of -_ X project. 24. Significant amounts" of solid waste or litter. _ X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or _ X quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in _ X the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. _ X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as _ X toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, _ X fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, _ X oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ X . 2 . Environmental Setting 33. Describe the �ro ect site as it exists before the project, including P information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. No change. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.) , intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.) . Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Commercial - offices and shops. 2-story - 0 lot line. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evalua- tion to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and informar tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 7/25/90 Date S F .g3 nave or C\PLT\EIRFORM ` 3 - SMIROMO AL QM=MIST FORK I. Background l 1. Name of Proponent 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5., Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ — e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? _ — f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - 1 - • Yes a be No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — — C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any, alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — — i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? — _ 2 . V^^ 4 aaa sub& HA 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction 'in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Ani»al Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? - 3 - • � I Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?_ _ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - Yes CAST& e`er a. Fire protection? — b. Police protection? — -- C. Schools? — — d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — — e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — — f. Other governmental services? — — 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — — 16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — — b. Communications systems? — — c. Water? — — d. Sewer or septic tanks? — — e. Storm Water drainage? — f. Solid waste and disposal? — — 17. Huuan Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? — — b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — — 5 i Yes Mavbe No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista*or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — — 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? — — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? — — 6 - 4 p Yes Mahe ♦ o b. Does the 'project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) -- c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts,) IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. C) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant affect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLI$T.FRM For - 7 -