Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO077_CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT IIRIIII IIII III IIIII IIIIIII IIIII III�I III III IIII moon r COMMISSIONERS * November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to 1 ance of any building permits 8. That di ption caused by construction work along roadways and by ovement of construction vehicles shall be minimized b roper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffi control and transportation of equipment and materials shal a conducted in accordance with state and local requiremen 9. That overhead utilities servi the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 10. That Coastal Commission approval sha a obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 11. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map ha of been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, u s an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. A. Traffic Study No. Continued Public Hearin Item No.4 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction TS77 of a 3,822± square foot(gross) retail building and a 4,200± square UP3424 foot(gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Approved AND B. Use Permit No. 3424 Continued Public Hearingl Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off-street -9- COMMISSIONERS • � November7, 1991 MINUTES 0 o�p�, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX parking spaces and to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive-through lane; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs (menu signs) which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT. Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed Condition No. 14, Exhibit "A", stating That only two wall identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 6 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign, and two drive-through menu signs..., and he indicated that the subject signs were requested by the applicant. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Frank Duncan, 4350 Von Karman Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Koll Center Newport. He requested that the foregoing Condition No. 14 be denied on the basis that the Koll Center Planned Community Standards require a maximum 4 foot high monument sign, and the establishments located in Koll Center Newport adhere to the 4 foot height requirement. Mr. Duncan stated that if Condition No. 14 would be approved that it would set a precedent in Koll Center Newport. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the Taco Bell Restaurant, located in Koll Center, has a menu sign that exceeds the 4 foot height, and the applicant is also requesting -10- COMMISSIONERS • • November 7, 1991 MINUTES Off,d� �f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX menu signs higher than 4 feet. Mr. Laycock indicated that the requested ground sign could be reduced in height to 4 feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Duncan replied that Koll Center Newport has jurisdiction over the establishments; that the applicant was not contacted regarding the sign requirements; and establishments within Koll Center Newport contacted him regarding the requested signs. Mr. Hewicker stated that it was not the intent to place the City's requirements in front of the Koll Center Planned Community Standards,and Koll Center Newport's concerns would have been addressed in the staff report if the problem had been brought to staffs attention. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Duncan replied that the applicant owns the existing building, and the Koll Company controls the ground lease. He further replied that the Koll Company requests a 4 foot above grade maximum height ground sign, and lowering the height of the monument sign would not restrict visibility approaching from any direction. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding Taco Bell's menu sign, Mr. Duncan stated that he would not object if the applicant installed a 5 foot high menu sign. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross with respect to a 20 foot pylon sign, Mr. Laycock stated that the applicant originally requested a 20 foot high pylon sign and the Planned Community Standards allows a 20 foot pylon sign for a restaurant in lieu of any other signs wherein the applicant revised the request to a ground sign so as to allow the additional signs. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr.Duncan replied that he would agree if Condition No. 14, Use Permit No. 3424, would be revised to state one 4 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ound sign. Mr. Mike 10bride, 5515 River Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he expressed his concern with the size of the Jack-In-The-Box menu sign located near his home and he -11- COMMISSIONERS • • November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX requested that the applicant comply with the Koll Center Newport Planned Community sign requirements. Mr. Lorenzo Reyes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Reyes concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Reyes explained that fast food is considered an impulse purchase; that the peak business hours at the subject location would be during the mornings and afternoons; the traffic and population count in the area decreases considerably in the evening and on weekends and the proposed signage would attract first-time customers and pick up the impulse traffic; and a 4 foot high ground sign would be restrictive on the site. The requested additional signs are in keeping with the Carl's Jr. logo inasmuch as there are upper and lower case letters, and there is no mention of the type of service on the signage. Mr. Reyes stated that if the Planning Commission approved one 4 foot high ground sign that the measurement be taken from the top of the cabinet base as opposed to the tip of the star. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross with respect to the lease from The Koll Company, Mr. Reyes explained that the applicant is aware of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Standards, and the applicant has not agreed to abide by the Standards inasmuch as the lease has not been signed pending the results of the subject public hearing. Carl's Jr. is a leading advocate of pursuing alternate sign legislation inasmuch as signs are pertinent to fast food establishments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Reyes explained that the proposed signage is necessary inasmuch as it is directed to customers that are not within walking distance or work near the fast food restaurant. In response to a question posed by Mr.Reyes, Mr. Laycock replied that the 4 foot sign would be measured from the top of the slope. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Duncan reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he replied that The Koll Company would agree to limiting the height -12- COMMISSIONERS • • November7, 1991 MINUTES o, 10 c1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX of the mass part of the sign to 4 feet, and a 4 inch protrusion of the star. Mr. Reyes replied that the applicant would agree to the foregoing suggestion. Mr. Reyes further replied that the applicant intends to restripe the parking lot. Mr. Reyes and Commissioner Glover discussed access to the site, and the financial impact Koll Center Newport's requirements would have on the establishment if the requested signage would not be approved. Ms.Chang Ching-Ching appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Plaza de Cafe, and she requested that Plaza de Cafe also be granted a 6 foot high sign. She requested that the customers of Carl's Jr. not use the Plaza de Cafe's parking spaces. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 77, Use Permit No. 3424, and related Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", amending Condition No. 14 to state that the trademark star would be able to exceed the 4 foot height limit by 4 inches on the proposed ground sign. Commissioner Debay supported the motion. She encouraged the applicant to go about the process of changing the required signage in the Planned Community Standards inasmuch as the other Koll Center Newport establishments may support the applicant's request. Ayes * * * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT• Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there -13- COMMISSIONERS • November 7, 1991 MINUTES O� ,p 110 d9o�`P�� G qa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the, California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project's outdoor lighting system shall be designed to minimize light spillage on to the sites to the extent feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. 2. That prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road has been restriped as described in the traffic impact study prepared for the project (TPO-077). -14= COMMISSIONERS • • November 7, 1991 MINUTES ELI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findines: 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 after incorporating the mitigation measures as listed in the environmental document. 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 six of the seven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the seventh intersection indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 can be obtained with mitigation at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3424 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That'the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking (7 parking spaces) will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive-in and 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; and adequate parking -15- COMMISSIONERS November7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'ROLL CALL INDEX is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. 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. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive-in and take-out restaurant facility. 6. That the proposed modification to the Koll Center Newport sign provisions allow two 5 foot high 32 sq. ft. menu signs, one additional 5 square foot logo wall sign and one 6 foot high ground sign will not, 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 or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3424 will not, under the circumstances of this 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, elevations and sign plans, except as noted below. -16- COMMISSIONERS • November 7, 1991 MINUTES Odd 0 q� 0��� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That the intersection of the private drive and Campus Drive provide sight distance in conformance with City Standard No. 110-L. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That the on-site trash enclosure and Edison transformer be relocated in a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer so that vehicular and pedestrian sight distance is provided. 5. That the proposed monument sign at the corner of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive be positioned so that sight distance is maintained in accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110-L. 6. That sidewalk be constructed along the Von Karman Avenue frontage and connect to the sidewalk located on the westerly side of the access driveway located at the southerly property boundary. The sidewalk shall be six (6) feet wide meandering or eight (8) feet wide, constructed adjacent to the curb. That the existing curb access ramp constructed out into the access drive be reconstructed so that the ramp is positioned behind the curb. The design of the revised access ramp shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That.all work within the public right-of-way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That pedestrian access shall be provided from the Campus Drive entrance to the restaurant as approved by the Public Works Department. -17- £OMMISSIONERS • • November 7, 1991 MINUTES �� 1 It CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be mini*ni�ed by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Campus Drive or Von Karman Avenue rights-of-way. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. 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. 11. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 13. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 7 of the required parking spaces for the take-out restaurant shall be waived. 14. That only two wall identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 4 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign, (with a 4 inch portion of the trademark star to exceed the permitted 4 foot height) and two drive-through menu signs shall be permitted, in conjunction with the take-out restaurant. 15. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sq.ft. and shall not include the restaurant name. -18- COMMISSIONERS • • November 7, 1991 MINUTES Epp p0 G �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 19. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department. 20. That 102 off-street parking spaces (including the 10 spaces in the drive-up stacking lane) shall be provided. 21. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 22. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 23. 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. 24. 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, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. -19- COMMISSIONERS • • November7, 1991 MINUTES 16 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 25. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council 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. anance No. 117 (Public Hearin4 Item No.5 Reque to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on V1178 property 1 ted in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 t es the buildable area of the site. The proposed Cont'd to development prove the required amount of open space, but the 1/9/92 location of the open sp does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed stru re to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setba adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way as esta 'shed by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the req ' ed 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to end beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion f Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach an additional 6 inches on th rst floor and one foot on the second floor. -20- y s II Planning Commission Meeting November 7. 1991 Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Stuff No 77 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of ;a . 3,822± square foot(gross) retail building and a 4,200± square foot(gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No 3424 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in the Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; and to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive-through lane; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs (menu signs) which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach � r TO: Planning Commission - 2. Applications The subject applications involve a.request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take- out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking; a request to allow a portion of the required off-stredt parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive-through lane; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs (menu signs) which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. In accordance with the provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community,take-out restaurants are a permitted use in Retail and Service Commercial Site No. 1, subject to the approval of a use permit. 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, and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 26.81. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for 'Retail and Service Commercial' uses. The proposed take-out restaurant is a permitted use within this designation, subject to approval of a use permit in each case. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently developed with a full service restaurant and related parking lot which is shared by the subject property and the adjacent office building on the adjoining parcel southwesterly of the site. To the northeast, across Campus Drive, is the Koll Center Irvine Office Complex located in the City of Irvine; to the southeast, across Von Karman Avenue, is a multi-tenant office complex; and to the southwest, is a parking area for the neighboring office building. Background At its meeting of January 8, 1976, the Planning Commission approved Resubdivision No. 506, a request to create four parcels of land for commercial use. The subject property is one of the parcels of the approved parcel map. The resubdivision included, as a condition of approval, that a grant of easement for vehicular ingress, egress and parking for each of the parcels be recorded with the map. At its meeting of January 8, 1976, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1777, a request to establish a restaurant facility with on-sale alcoholic beverages on the subject I { TO: Planning Commission - 3. property. This facility is to be demolished in conjunction with this application and replaced by the proposed take-out restaurant facility and a retail building. At its meeting of October 24, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this matter to its meeting of November 7, 1991, pending the renoticing of the public hearing to include the waiver of a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in any significant effect on the environment. For the Planning Commission's information, staff has attached a copy of the environmental document. Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a take-out and drive-through restaurant facility on the subject property. Said facility will include a 4,200± square foot building (gross) which will contain approximately 142 seats in the customer service and seating area, and a banquet dining room which will be available for private meetings use in the mornings and evenings, generally during off-peak hours. No outdoor patio seating area is proposed. The applicant has indicated that there will be approximately 8 employees on duty during peak hours of operation. The applicant has further indicated that the hours of operation for the facility will be from 6:06 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Monday through Thursday, and from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday through Sunday (see attached letter from the applicant). 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 the indoor banquet room), unless modified or waived by the Planning Commission. Based on the proposed 4,061± square feet of floor area (excluding exterior walls) and 8 employees, 90 parking spaces are required for the proposed take-out restaurant (4,061 sq. ft. _ 50 = 81.22, or 82 spaces + 8 for employees = 90 spaces). Nineteen (19) parking spaces are required for the proposed 3,690± sq. ft. (excluding exterior walls) retail building, based upon one parking space for each•200 sq. ft. of floor area (3,690 sq. ft. + 200 = 18.45 or 19 spaces). The total number of parking spaces required for the proposed project is 109 parking spaces. Y TO: Planning Commission - 4. Proposed Off-Street Parking The applicant is 'proposing to provide 92 parking spaces in the surface parking lot and requesting credit for the 10 car stagking'in the drive"through lane as satisfying a,portion of the parking requirement for a total of 102 on-site parking spaces. The proposed credit for the automobiles in the stacking lane is consistent with similar requests approved by the Planning Commission for other take-out restaurants in the City. Said parking will include 98 standard size spaces (10 of which are located in the drive-up window stacking lane); and 4 handicapped spaces. Based on these figures, the applicant is requesting that the remainder of the required off-street parking (7 'spaces) be waived. Drive-In and Outdoor Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 0£the Newport Beach Municipal Code was adopted in 1967,by the City in order to give the'Planning Commission the opportunity, to review arty 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. The proposed development fully complies with the above development standards except as discussed in the following sections. Waiver of Required Off-Street Parking As indicated in the previous parking analysis, the applicant is requesting to waive 7 of the required off-street parking,spaces for the take-out restaurant. The applicant has based this request on the fact that the parking demand for the restaurant will be somewhat lower than normal inasmuch as a large amount of the customers will be walk-in customers from the surrounding offices in Koll Center Newport and Koll Center Irvine located across Campus Drive, and that the grant of easement for the ingress egress and parking, as stated in the background section of this staff report, essentially ,establishes a reciprocal ,parking arrangement with the neighboring properties. Staff concurs with the applicant that the proximity of neighboring office complexes may account in fewer patrons driving to the facility and that the on-site parking and the existing reciprocal parking arrangement will adequately accommodate the parking demand of the site. t I • , I I TO: Planning Commission - 5. Walls Surrounding the Take-out Restaurant Site Inasmuch as the proposed take-out restaurant is attempting to develop as an integrated part of the adjoining office building, staff is of the opinion that the construction of solid walls on the interior property lines of the take-out restaurant sight is inappropriate. Proposed Take-Out Restaurant Signs In accordance with the General Sign Requirements of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, two wall identification signs are permitted on the restaurant building. Said wall signs may not exceed an area equal to one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building. However, in no case may a sign exceed an area of 200 square feet. Based on the above requirements, the subject project would be permitted to have one 130± sq.ft. wall sign facing Campus Drive and one 62± sq.ft. wall sign facing Von Karman Avenue. As indicated on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing to install three wall mounted identification signs, one sign-containing 34± square feet on the east elevation (facing Campus Drive); one sign containing 42± square feet on the south elevation (facing Von Karman Avenue); and one 4± sq. ft. logo sign on the west elevation (facing the parking lot). Staff has no objections with the third wall sign,inasmuch as the small logo sign is located over the main entrance of the take-out restaurant facility, adjacent to the parking lot. The Koll Center Newport sign provisions also allow restaurants to have one 4 foot high ground sign not exceeding 200 sq. ft. in area. The attached plans indicate that a 20 foot high, double-faced (65± sq. ft. per face) pylon sign is proposed to be located at the corner of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue. The Koll Center Newport sign provisions allow one 20 foot high, 50 sq. ft. pole sign for restaurants, in lieu of all other identification signs. The applicant has therefore decided to convert the pylon sign to a ground sign with a height of 6 feet and a sign area of 50 sq. ft.per face. Two (2) 5 foot high, 32± sq. ft. menu boards are also proposed on the southerly side of the building which will be used in conjunction with the drive-through facility of the restaurant. Staff has no objections with the proposed ground signs. The attached site plan also includes a note which identifies three directional signs; the size of each sign is approximately 5 square feet and 3 feet 6 inches tall and are star shaped. In accordance with the sign provisions of the Koll Center Newport Planned Co- unity, directional signs not exceeding 6 sq. ft. are permitted in addition to other signs onthe site. Staff has no objections to the proposed directional signs provided they do not exc ed 6 sq. ft. and they do not include the restaurant name (staff does not object to the star shape of the signs). ,s TO: Planning Commission - 6. Traffic Study No. 77 r A Traffic Study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1992. Analyses were, therefore,completed for 1991,The City Traffic Engineer identified seven intersections which could be affected by the project at full,occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 19o' traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection,where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon,an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. As indicated in the attached Traffic Study, it was determined that for all but one of the seven, study intersections, the project related traffic is expected to be less than one percent of the project A.M. and P.M.peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volumes. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive did not pass the 19o' test during the A.M. or P.M.2-1/2 hour peak.period on the westbound approach;therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for the A.M. and the P.M. peak hour. Table 4 on page 14 of the attached Traffic Study summarizes the results of the ICU analysis. As noted, the intersection would have an unacceptable ICU value of 0.98. Since six of the seven identified intersections passed the 1% test and the seventh intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive requires that it be mitigated to obtain an acceptable level of service, this mitigation measure has been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A". The City traffic Engineer has indicated that the intersection can be mitigated by restriping of the intersection to provide for additional left turn traffic as indicated in the traffic study. 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 welf4re 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. However, should the Planning Commission wish to deny these applications, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. • • TO: Planning Commission - 7. PLANNING DEPARTMENT James D. Hewicker, Director By r Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Letter from the Applicant Describing the Project Traffic Study Negative Declaration Site Plan, Conceptual Planting Plan, Elevations and Sign Plan v — • � x n TO: Planning Commission - 8. WIMMIT 'W' FINDINGS,AND'CONDITMONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY'NO. 77 USE PERMIT NO. 3424 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document,making the following findings and requiring the following the mitigation measures: in in 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect,on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA,and is therefore approved, The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project., 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. , On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in,Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimi&Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5 c of Title 14, CCR. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The projects outdoor lighting stem shall be,designed to minmu e light spillage g g system im on to the sites to the extent feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. 2. That prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road has been restriped as described in the traffic impact study prepared for the project (TPO-077). r r • • TO: Planning Commission - 9. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: r 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 indicato that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary- modified; or 'primary' street after incorporating the mitigation measures as listed in the environmental document. 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 six of the seven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the seventh intersection indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 can be obtained with mitigation at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. C USE PERMIT NO. 3424 Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking (7 parking spaces)will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive- in and 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; and adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any ease- ments acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive-in and take- out restaurant facility. i • • P TO: Planning Commission - 10. 6. That the proposed modification to the Koll Center Newport sign provisions allow two 5 foot high 32 sq. ft. menu signs, one additional 5 square foot logo wall sign and one 6 foot high ground sign will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, niorals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code, 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3424 will not, under the circumstances of this 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, elevations and sign plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That the intersection of the private drive and Campus Drive provide sight distance in conformance with City Standard No, 110=L. Slopes,landscape,walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping r within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations,subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That the on-site trash enclosure and Edison transformer be relocated in a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer so that vehicular and .pedestrian sight distance is provided. 5. That the proposed monument sign at the comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive be positioned so that sight distance is maintained in accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110-L. 6. That sidewalk be constructed along the Von Karman Avenue frontage and connect to the sidewalk located on the westerly side of the access driveway located at the southerly property boundary. The sidewalk shall be six (6) feet wide meandering or eight (8) feet wide, constructed adjacent to the curb. That the existing curb access ramp constructed out into the access drive be reconstructed TO: Planning Commission - 11. so that the ramp is positioned behind the curb. The design of the revised access ramp shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That all work within the public right-of-way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. That pedestrian access shall be provided from the Campus Drive entrance to the restaurant as approved by the Public Works Department. f 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimised by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Campus Drive or Von Karman Avenue rights-of-way. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. 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. 11. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 13. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 7 of the required parking spaces for the take-out restaurant shall be waived. 14. That only two wail identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 6 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign, and two drive-through menu signs shall be permitted, in conjunction with the take-out restaurant. 15. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sq.ft. and shall not include the restaurant name. 16. 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. TO; Planning Commission:- 12: 17. 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. 18. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation g shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 19. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recre ation Department,the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department. 20. That 102 off-street parking spaces(including the 10 spaces in the drive-up stacking lane) shall be provided. 21. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 22. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 23. 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. 24. 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, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 25. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by, the Building Department. 26. 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. 27. Th is s use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months P xp o the from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090.A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. wP P 28. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council revocation of this use permit,upon a determination that the operation which is-the subject of this use permit, causes injury, of is detrimental to the health, ,safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. TO: Planning Commission - 13. EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 77, USE PERMIT NO. 3424 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the previously certified environmental document for a project which is denied. 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. 77 and Use Permit No. 3424. B. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 77 1. Take no action on the Traffic Study; and 2. Make the finding listed below: Finding: 1. That Traffic Studies are not needed for projects that are denied. C. USE PERMIT NO, 3424 1. Deny Use Permit No. 3424 with the findings listed below. i TO: Planning Commission - 14. n . Fin in 1. That the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant does not provide adequate on- site parking. 2. The approval of Use Permit No. 3424 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. 4/ ICINITY flAP CAMPUS OR o4D a —4 P-C P-C a „ m / Y BIRCH STREET „ 4 / is 1 �qn It aD 2 �G'P I p 11 L oy p p 1 ID Y as i a ~ P-C F P-C P-C 3 „ n a CIDQ/�l .uar n>e 5 �\ yu t P-C v,<e sss la I V PM 2 PaR 1 PLC It M A PLC TR CTTN0.1341 FC p al 1 y� 14.WLGx. 3 .q: p u pL AlY Ra ea Lev. a-IX• 2 DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH —CALIPORN'I R-a AgICCItUTAI R[cMIO1TYl R-a YULTIM1L RfDciNRAL R-1 lIXRL[ IA11RY RtlI0iM1AL C-I LILM CXWONU N& R-i gl„ii LOLXT„UL C-t L[IIS1 AL COMYERCIaL R-] R[LIIIm)XIVIR.L RYISYRpIctXML Y-1 IIIXlX11CIWllL caw11RM CUTRICT � uxo.uYr[o m.YD. USE PERMIT NO . 3 4- 24- TRAFFIC- .; STUDY A0. - 7 T V Property Development ®— 222 South Harbor Boulevard+PCX Box 4999 Anaheim, CA 92803 •(714)491.4300 October 1% 1991 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA,92658-8915 Referencer CKB# 191-84 Von Kaman & Campus Newport Beach, CA LETTBR .01- ERATION Carl's Ir is a quick service restaurant that offers 142 seats for Inside ,dining and drive thru service. The drive thru lane will accommodate stacking for 10 full size cars. The site provides 92 parking stalls on site*. Also, proposed as part of this development, is a 3,850 sq, ft, single story retail building. The retail building is planned to .be $hase 2 of this project with the building's construction to commence 6-12 months after the Carl's 7r opening, All site improvements will be completed with the Carl's Jr project or phase 1, with the retail building pad area sodded and the terrain generally level, * The restaurant operates,with a staff of 8 and store employees totaling 50. Operating hours are 6 am to 12 midnight, Monday thru Thursday and 7 am to 1 am, Friday thru Sunday. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. ftnto Regional Site Development Manager r � �� � I.AR:mar 'd9 LR158 %I A8 % f TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For CARL'S JUNIOR RESTAURANT AND RETAIL STORE IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEPTEMBER 1991 REVISED M � Mohle, Grover& Associates 1 I mag Mohie,Grover&Associates September 13, 1991 Mr. Rich Edmonston City Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Revised Traffic Impact Study; Carl's Jr. and Retail Store Dear Mr. Edmonton: Subsequent to our conversation on'September 10, 1991, please find enclosed two (2) copies of the revised traffic impact study for the subject project. The revised study incorporates the following major changes per our discussion: ■ 11cation of project site (all Figures). ■ i project existing project Reduction of estimated trip ends b o�ect due to e s e p � P YP and pass-by trips.(30%). ■ Revised trip distribution. ■ Two hour peak period volumes for ICU analysis purposes. ■ Mitigation,measures recommended only when ICU value changed. ■ Other related changes in report per revised study. The revised analysis with the reduction in trip ends due to existing project and pass-by Y P trips indicated that only one intersection, Jamboree Road and Campus Drive during the,A.M. period, did not satisfy the one percent analysis. The details of the analysis are well documented in the report, If you have any questions, please give me a call. We very much appreciate your cooperation in this matter.' Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, GROVER&-ASSOCIATES H. /VA-vct -k Aa Lw�i Dr. N.Murthy` Transportation Planner NM/hms Enclosures fin: newport.nm MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra, CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 l p 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For CARL'S JUNIOR RESTAURANT a...,n fir,:'. 'vk`9't41'F(rRR^"'•'"�F!*ch�l:-70.R'ta. � .• ... � .::�\+'.- _ . RETAIL STORE IN THE CITY.OF NEWPORT,BEACH Prepared For CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Essru NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 "RY MOy� F y REVISED *' Exp. 10692 31-92 mr clvo- qTF CF CPU TRAFFIC[No.�0890 OATS maq Mohie, Grover& Associates SEPTEMBER 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS a SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION i 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 3. STUDY INTERSECTIONS 1 4. COMMITTED PROJECTS 1 5. REGIONAL GROWTH FACTOR 5 6. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 6.1 Trip Generation 5 6.2 Trip Distribution 5 6,3 Trip Assignment 5 7. ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS 10 8. ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY 10 UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 9. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND.PARKING 15' 10. MITIGATION MEASURES 15 10.1 Jamboree Road and Campus Drive 15 il. SITE ACCESS 15 12. SUMMARY 15 i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Study Intersections 4 2A Trip Generation Rates and Existing Project Trip Ends 6 2B Trip Generation Rates and Project Trip Ends 7 3 Study Intersections One Percent 13 Analysis Summary 4 Study Intersections ICU AnalysisSummary 14 (1991) go. I LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE i Location Map 2 2 Site Plan 3 I 3 Trip Distribution- Project- 8 Inbound 4 Trip Distribution-Project- 9 Outbound 5 Peak Hour Inbound A.M./P.M 11 Traffic Volumes - Project 6 Peak Hour Outbound A.M./P.M. 12 Traffic Volumes - Project APPENDICES APPENDDC "A" Committed Projects List "13" Regional Growth Factor ^ "C" Trip Generation Rates "D" One percent Analysis and ICU Work Sheets r e Carl's Junior Restausand.Retail Store Traffic Impact Study h 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to,present the findings of a traffic impact study for the proposed construction of a Carl's Junior Restaurant and a Retail Store at the intersection of Campus Drive and Van Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The Carl's Junior Restaurant will contain 4,200 square feet and the Retail Store will contain 3,822 square feet. Currently, on site,there i exists a sit-down type restaurant of approximately 9,500 square feet. This existing facility will be replaced by the Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store. The location of the project site is as shown in Figure 1. The specific site plan,is as shown in Figure 2. The entrances to'the project site are through Campus Drive (right-in and right- out only) and Van Kaiman Avenue, as shown in Figure 2. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The major access roads to the development are Von Karman Avenue, Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street, as shown• i in Figure 1. The area surrounding the development is served by a well de- veloped road network. Due to the various land uses such as commercial, offices, restaurants, etc. in.the vicinity of the development, traffic on all the major access roads ranges between moderate and large volumes. Also,most of the intersections are signalized and have exclusive left-turn pockets. The study analyzed seven intersections as recommended by the City of Newport Beach staff. 3. STUDY INTERSECTIONS The City-recommended seven study intersections are shown in Figure 1 and • .I are listed in Table 1. The intersections are analyzed for both the A.M. and the . P.M. peak hours according to the City guidelines. The study intersections are analyzed for the following conditions: 1. Existing volumes 2. Existing plus growth factor pius.committed.project volumes 3. Cumulative traffic volumes (i.e. including project traffic) The Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) values are determined based on criteria of analysis recommended by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance and Methodology. 4. COMMITTED PROJECTS The City Traffic Engineer provided a•list of committed projects in the vicinity of the study intersections. Also, provided were the anticipated cumulative traffic volumes from all committed projects. The committed projects are those projects already approved by the City which could be in various stages of development or completion. The list of committed projects is given in Appen- dix "A". 1 . aa. Carl's Junior Restaurant a0etail Store Traffic Impact Study i y I I • Mip{EZS C4V i SrrE s 73 �� Q ! �y 1K`ANE t� ��Gr N BRiy. � s l I sr IRVINE NEWPORT ! BEACH i CREED UP CHANNEL I SpN � = STUDY NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTIONS maq LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 NP-LOC-2 23 - -� -- -- 3AIU0 SbW -- c , e S j 'W A3H 8-X3-it 3dLL 1 � s s -1 — ------------------- 1 , W - 4 0 - 0 1 > 1 -------..-------------------- ------------ �. 1 Ll a/�aar NOT TO SCALE R - mGq SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 NPAOC=2 Cari's Junior RestauOand Retail Store . Traffic Impact Study TABLE 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS' I 1. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard i 2. Jamboree Road/Birch Street 3. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 4. MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street j 5. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive ( 6. Bristol Street/Campus Drive I 7. Bristol Street north/Campus Drive * As recommended by the City of Newport Beach I r- i 4y. Carl's Junior Restaurant Retail Store � Traffic Impact Study 5. REGIONAL GROWTH FACTOR The City provided the annual growth factor rate along all major access roads to the project. These growth rates varied, depending on the area of the City under consideration in the study. The City lupplied growth rate chart is given in Appendix "B". The largest growth factor is 5% on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. 6. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This study analyzes the traffic for the Year 1991 and includes all necessary steps as recommended by the City. The following sections deal with trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment. 6.1 Trin Generation The trip generation rates were obtained from.two sources: 1. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Handbook, 5th Edition, 1991 for'fast food for the Carl's Junior Restaurant 2. The City-supplied trip generation rates for the retain store and existing restaurant(given in Appendix "C") The project generates anestimated 2,836 trip ends per day. The Carl's Junior Restaurant generates 2,665 trip ends per day and the retail store generates 171 trip ends per day. The existing restaurant generates 917 trip ends per day. Tables.2A and 2B show the trip generation rates and trip ends for existing and proposed development. The final trip ends generated by the proposed development was esti- mated by subtracting the existing project(restaurant, sit-down)and 30% pass-by trips as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. These calculations are shown in Table 2A. The final trip ends shown in Table 2A are used in the ICU Analysis. 6.2 Trio Distribution The trip distribution of the project generated traffic was done in consul- tation with the City Traffic Engineer. Taken into consideration were the existing turning movement volumes and anticipated routes by employees and customers to the project. Also taken into consideration were the existing network and land uses. The,trip distribution to the project site is as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows the in- bound and Figure 4 shows the outbound trip distribution of project generated traffic. It should be noted that the access on Campus Drive is "right-in" and "right-out" only. 6.3 Traffic Assignment Trip assignment involves determining the estimated number of trip ends that will use the road network based on trip generation and trip distribution. The project generated traffic assignment during the A.M. 5 d� n TABLE 2A: TRIP GENERATION RATES AND EXISTING PROJECT TRIP ENDS y C e. w p TRIP GENERATION RATES e A.M P.M PEAK HR. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. PEAK HR., PEAK 2-1/2 HR. yy e LAND USE UNITS(S.F) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT • o REASTAURANT,SIT-DOWN 1000 .8 .01 2 .025 5.4 2.3 13.5 5.75 ° LAND USE EXISTING TRIP ENDS ON REASTAURANT,SIT-DOWN 9500 7.6 .095 19 .238 51.3 21.9 128. 54.6 * TRIP GNERATION RATES: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t� a v y • a V TABLE 2B: TRIP GENERATION RATES AND PROJECT TRIP ENDS TRIP GENERATION RATES A.M P.M PEAK HR. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. PEAK HR. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. a 8. LAND USE UNITS(S.F) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 0 FAST FOOD REAS.* 1000 28.3 27.2 70.9 68.1 28.9 27.8 72.3 69.5 RETAIL(GENERAL)** 1000 .6 .5 1.5 1.25 1.9 2 4.75 5 PROJECT TRIP ENDS 0 LAND USE TRIP ENDS y s FAST FOOD REAS.* 4200 119 114 297 285 121 116 302 290 " RETAIL(GENERAL)** 3822 2 1 5 2 7 7 17 17 TOTAL 121 115 302 287 128 123 319 307 EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS(TABLE 2A) 8 1 20 2.5 51 22 128. 55 113 114 282 284 77 101 191 252 PASS BY TRIPS (30$) 33 34 84 -85 23 30 57 75 FINAL PROJECT TRIP ENDS 80 80 198 199 54 71 134 177 * ITE TRIP GNERATION HAND BOOKr 5TH EDITION, 1991: FAST FOOD RESTAURANT: CARL'S JUNIOR **TRIP GNERATION RATES: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (APPENDIX "B") o ul a r Carl's Junior Restaurant a Retail Store Traffic Impact Study 25% 20% 25% ` mz PROJECT 517E ® 40% 20 e 11 S .. SRm �10% 73 110% 10%% F4 lox MANE < sT 10% i sT � 10z IRVINE NEWPORT 170% BEACH CREEK 0R.CHANNEL / I70X LEGEND = INBOUND = STUDY INTERSECTIONS NOT TO SCALE maq TRIP DISTRIBUTION - PROJECT FIGURE 3 INBOUND NP-LOC-2 Carl!s Junior.Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study i 4OX PROJECT' SITE 2s x 20X �n o lox 15X �� 73 CF id 15X Ox .. 25x� y $ 10X 4i� pj 10%flox sr �10% IRVINE NEWPORT 1 _ BEACH CREEK CHANN"""��_ � 1 OR. GO 9� lox LEGEND — = OUTBOUND = STUDY N0T'T40'SCALE INTERSECTIONS MackTRIP DISTRIBUTION - PROJECT FIGURE 4 OUTBOUND NP—LOC-2 9 �0 Carl's Junior Restaurad Retail Store . Traffic Impact'Study . c , and the P.M. peak hours is shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows the inbound project traffic assignment during the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours. Figure 6 shows the outbound project traffic assignment during the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours. The cumulative trip ends are given in the ICU work sheets in Appendix "D". i 7. ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS In conducting one percent analysis per the City of Newport Beach guidelines, one percent of the 2 1/2 hour A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes are utilized to determine if the project's corresponding 2 1/2 hour peak hour traffic volume exceeds or is less than the above volume for all approaches at the study intersections. In case the project volume "DOES NOT EXCEED" the one percent of the existing plus regional growth factor plus committed project volume, no ICU i analysis is conducted for that particular peak hour for the intersection. On the other hand, if the project traffic volume "fails" the one percent test, that is the project volume exceeds one percent of the existing volume plus regional 1 growth factor volume plus committed project volume, an ICU analysis is performed. Table 3 shows the summary of one percent analysis. 8. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS As seen from Table 3, only one intersection needs ICU analysis per the City guidelines. The intersection is jamboree Road and Campus Drive. The ICU analysis requires that the ICU values at the study intersections be i-• determined for existing conditions, 1991 base conditions using existing vol- umes plus regional growth factor plus committed project volumes and for cumulative volumes that include project volume. The results of such an analy- sis is given in Table 4. The ICU value exceeds 0.9 with existing plus regional growth factor volume plus committed project volume at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive during A.M. peak period. The ICU values are shown in Table 4 for the study inter- sections. The addition of"project traffic" volume does alter the ICU values, during the A.M. period from 0.96 to 0.98 at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 10 � � Carl's Junior Restauraft Retail Store Traffic Impact Study t 25X 20% 20/14 8/6 PR STE / 4 r 16/12 � 8/6 1 20/14 / e �f 1 jy 12/8 _. 31TE d 73 12/13 '8/6 12/8 • yam• y $ 8/8 0/6 N igviNE Qa,• pw 8/6 I s� ! \6/6 IRVINE NEWPORT 18/6 BEACH CREEK CHANNEL • OR• S� 8/8 LEGEND XX/YY - A.M./PA VPH. = STUDY NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTIONS PEAK HOUR INBOUND A.M./P.M. FIGURE 5 maq TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PROJECT NP-LOC-2 Carl's Junior Restaurant Retail Store 0 Traffic impact Study � I 30/26 1 PROJECT® 19 7 SIZE 15/13 12 � 12/1� <9qy 0R 12/12 19/17 srrE 73 �eT m 12/10 1 I, �. ens l yt• c 6/7 c e/7 8/7 ' IRVIN \8/7 8/7 r IRVINE NEWPORT t BEACH CREE'R CHANNEL DR. 5PN 8/7 I8/7 I LEGEND {� XX/YY = A.M./P.M. VPH. = STUDY INTERSECTIONS NOT TO SCALE mGq PEAK HOUR OUTBOUND A.M./P.M. FIGURE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PROJECT NP-LOC-2 12 �3 Carl's Jdnioe Restauratand Retail Store . Traffic Impact Study TABLE 3 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1 Does Project Traffic Generate LessThan 1% Study Intersections of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume ' A.M. P.M. 1. Jamboree Road/ Yes Yes MacArthur Boulevard 2.. Jamboree Road/ Yes Yes Birch Street* 3. Jamboree Road/ No No ' Campus Drive 4. MacArthur Boulevard/ Yes Yes Birch Street*' 5. MacArthur Boulevard/ Yes Yes Campus Drive * 6. Bristol Street/ Yes Yes Campus Drive * 7. Bristol Street north/ Yes Yes Campus Drive r r * Intersections satisfy one percent analysis. 13 � � TABLE 4 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1991 EXISTING EX.+R.GR+CdMMITED CUMULATIVE. STUDY INTERSECTIONS A.M P.M A.M P.M A.M P.M H Y C 0. n 1.JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD * .51 .48 N 2.JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST. * .47 .55 3 .JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR. ** .62 .69 .96 .74 .98 .74 a 4.MACARTHUR BLVD/BIRCH ST. * .64 .59 y 5.MACARTHUR BLVD/BIRCH ST. * .62 • .69 t G. t;RISTOL• ST/CAMPUS DR.* .75 .69 7.BRISTOL ST.NORTH/CAMPUS DR.* •1.11 .83 .P - * INTERSECTIONS SATISFYING ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS ** INTERSECTION NOT SATISFYING ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS ONLY DURING A.M PEAK PERIOD EX. t EXISTING, R.GR: REGIONAL GROWTH FACTOR, COMMITTEW COMMITTED PROJECTS' CUMMULATIVE - CUMUULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUME(EXISITING + R.GR + COMMITED + PROJECT) 40 _ o b 'a 4� $ aai°r 1�•'staurant and Retaii Store • Traffic Impact Study 9• ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING On-site circulation and parking is as shown in the Site Plan in Figure 2. The major access (driveways) to the project are through Von Karman Boulevard and Campus Drive. The access on Campus Drive is a restricted access with "right-turn in and right-turn out" only. The ten storage spaces provided for the drive-through,area of the restaurant are anticipated to be adequate. Hence, no significant problems are expected to occur due to the project traffic on-site. Adequate parking has been provided Per the City guidelines. 10' MITIGATION MEASURES Because the ICU values changes from 0.96 to 0.98, mitigation measures are I required at the following intersection: I• Jamboree Road and Campus Drive (A.M. peak hour) ' 10.1 jamboree load n� mo Driv Currently, the westbound left-turn traffic has only one lane I (1,6001ane 3'Lco capacity), the westbound through traffic has two lanes (37.1QgqVe' capacity). One of the through lanes can be re-striped to share the left- urn, such that the lane capacity for the left-turn is increased by 800 and the lane capacity of through is reduced by 800. That is, the new lane capacity for westbound left is 2,400 and for westbound through is cumulative 2,400. The new ICU value with traffic is 0.89. The calcu- lations of the ICU value with new lane capacity are given in Appendix 11. SITE ACCESS i As mentioned in the above section, the site access is through Von Karman Boulevard and Campus Drive. It is recommended that the proper pavement markings and traffic control devices be provided at both driveways. A sepa- rate left and right-turn lane are recommended at the Von Karman Boulevard access. The Campus Drive access isxight-in and right-out only. 12. SUMMARY • The project generates approximately 2,836 trip ends per day, with Carl's Junior'Restaurant generating 2,665 trip ends and the Retail Store generating 171 trip ends per day. Reducing the project generated trip ends due to existing land use at the site, mated 1,917 trip ends per day. the project generates an esti- • A total of seven intersections were analyzed for LOS. • The one percent analysis indicated that Jamboree Road/Campus Drive needs an ICU analysis per the one percent test. 15 Carl's Junior Restaurald Retail Store . Traffic Impact Study r t ' ■ Jamboree Road/Campus Drive (A.M.) exceed the ICU value of 0.9 with existing volume plus growth factor volume plus committed project volume. The addition of the project alters the ICU values from 0.96 to 0.98. ■ Mitigation measures are recommendefl for the intersection of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive. ■ The project traffic does not have any significant impact on the study intersections. I , i I 16 f I l APPENDIX "A" Committed Projects List �4 I g. TRAFFI�HASING ORCINANCE• • RE.PORT ON APPROVED PROJECT VOLUMES PROJ—NER .ALL PROJECTS ON FILCO APPROVED VOLUME IS WEIGH , 001 HUSHES AIRCRAFT 41 1C0X OCCUPANCY UCZ SUNSETTED ___ OOJX OCCUPANCY 003 FAR :LEST SAVINGS AND LOAN 100% OCCUPANCY OC4 SUPERSEDED 1 000% OCCUPANCY 005 AERONUTRONIC FORD._ 1002 OCCUPANCY 000 BACK SAY OFFICE 100X OCCUPANCY 007 SOYLE ENGINEERING 100% OCCUPANCY 008 CAL. CANADLAN BANK_.. 100%. OCCUPANCY - + 009 CIVIC PLAZA 0891 OCCUPANCY 010 CORPORATE PLAZA 0302 OCCUPANCY 011 KOLL. C.F_NT.ER.. Ncd?ORT- 10OX. OCCUPANCY" 012 MACARTHUR COURT 1007. OCCUPANCY 013 SUPERSEDED 0009 OCCUPANCY 014. SUPERSED.ED_. —• 0002 OCC-UPANCY­. 015 ORCHARD OFFICE 1002 OCCUPANCY 016 PACIFIC MUTUAL PLAZA 1002 OCCUPANCY 017 3701. EIRCH__0FFIC= 1002.. 0CCUPANCY ." 018 NEWPORT PLACE 056Z OCCUPANCY 019 SUNSETTED ^ - 000% OCCUPANCY = 020 _BANK OF NF-WPORT 100X OCCUPANCY 021 SAYSIDE SQUARE 100% OCCUPANCY 4022 SEA ISLAND 100X OCCUPANCY 023 BAYWOOD APARTMENTS_ 100X OCCUPANCY 024 HARBOR POINT HOMES 100% OCCUFANCY 025 ROGER' S GARDENS 100X OCCUPANCY .026 SEAVIEW LU.TMERAN-P-LAZA 10.OX_ O.CCUP_ANC1L"_- 027 RUDY BARON 1003 OCCUPANCY 028 QUAIL BUSINESS CENTER 100% OCCUPANCY 029 441 NEWPORT_ 9LV-), - 100% OCCUPANCY- (^' 030 MARTHA'S VINEYARD 10OX OCCUPANCY 031 VALDEZ 000% OCCUPANCY 032 COAST..3USINESS CET=-P 100X. OCCUPANCY 033 KOLL CENTER NPT N0. 1 TPP JOOX OCCUPANCY . 034 SEX PROJECTS 340 TO 343 JOOX OCCUPANCY 035 BOSS_ MOLLARD __._ _.. 100X- OCCUPANCY 036 SUNSETTED 0002 OCCUPANCY 039 HUGHES AIRCRAFT #2 100% OCCUPANCY 040 SUPERSEDED 100X• OCCUPANCY 041 FLAGSHIP HCSPITAL 100Z OCCUPANCY G42 BIG CANYON 10 029; OCCUPANCY 043 FUN ZONE — 100%- OCCUPANCY 044 MARRIOTT HCTEL 1002 OCCUPANCY 045 ST. ANDREWS CHURCH 100X OCCUPANCY 046 YMCA —• 000% O'dC'UPANCY 047 ALLRED CONDOS 1001 OCCUPANCY 048 MORGAN DEVELOPMENT 1002 OCCUPANCY 049 FOUR SEASONS HOTEL 100X OCCUPANCY 05u UNIV ATM CLUB .TPP 4 EMKAY 100X OCCUPANCY 051 3LOCK 400 MEDICAL 100% OCCUPANCY 053 SEE PROJECTS i3_- TO 533 000X OCCUPANCY �y. rFAWC u GINANC= 1 i M ?E*ORT , AP .;3VED': P.UJECT V )LUM.E I '?54 AMEND ,NO' 1 MC'ARTHUR COURT 0521 OCCUPANCY 056 AMENDMENT N0 2 _FORD AER.0 100% OCCUPANCY 057 CARV:R GRANVILLE OFFICE 10GR OCCUPANCY 358 CORONA DEL MAR HONES 100% OCCUPANCY -359 SIG CANYON VILLA AP'TS . 0002 OCCUPANCY j 060 1400 DOVE STREET 0002 OCCUPANCY C61 1100 4UAIL STREET ooOX OCCUPANCY 062 SUPERSEDED 0001 OCCUPANCY 063 KOLL CENTER TPP 4MEND . 4A OOOX OCCUPANCY 064 SUNSETTED 0002 OCCUPANCY 065 ROSAN' S DEV'ELOeMENT 090X .00C.UPANC.Y. 066 BLOCK 500 NPT CTR PROJ 1002 OCCUPANCY 068 N�PORT AQUATICS CENTER 045X OCCUPANCY O5 2600 E COAST 'H)!Y 1O0X OC.C.UPANCY_. 0 0 JASMINE PARK 1002 OCCUPANCY' 071 SUNSETTED 0002' OCCUPANCY 072 NEWPORTER INN EXPANSION 10OX. OCCUPA.NCIL_ 073 SUNSETTED 000% OCCUPANCY 074 SUNSETTED 0002 OCC-UPANCY 075 FASHION IS RENAISSANCE 1,002 0CCUPA'NC.X-- 076 SUNSETTED OOGX OCCUPANCY 077 COM SENIOR PROJECT 100X OCCUPANCY 078 POINT DEL .MAR _. 10O X OCCUPANCY_. 079 PACIFIC CLUB 100X OCCUPANCY 080 SUNSETTED 0002 OCCUPANCY 081 NEMPORT SEACREST APT loot OCCUPXNC.)L 083 3800 CAMPUS, DR(M-STORAGE) OOOX OCCUPANCY Oc"4 HOAG CANCER CENTER 0002 OCCUPANCY 085 EDMARDS NEWPOR,I=CENTER 000X OCCUPAN=. . 066 SEASIDE APTS (MESA II) 1COX OCCUPANCY J87 VICTORIA STATION (OFFICE) 1002 OCCUPANCY 088 3760 CAMPUS DR(M-STJRAGE) 0001 OCCUPANCY- . 089 NEWPORT IMPORTS. 10GX OCCUPANCY 090 SUPERSEDED 000% OCCUPANCY 092 :MARINERS' MILE_MARINF. CTR TO0"A OCCUPANCY... 093 15TH STREET APARTMENTS 100% OCCUPANCY 094 SEASIDE APARTMENTS III 100% OCCUPANCY 095 NPT 6AY RETZREPtENT I.4N 000X O.CCULAN.CY ._ 096 NE'WPORT CLASSIC INN 0002 OCCUPANCY 097 MARINERS CHURCH• EXPA.NSSON 000% OCCUPANCY 096 MCLACHLAN-NEWPORT PL 0002 OC CUPANCY ._ 099 1501 SUPERIOR TiEDICAL 0002 OCCUPANCY 100 FASHION ISLAND 02 000% OCCUPANCY 101 NE'WPORTER RESORT EXPAND . 000' OCCUPANCY _ 102 SUNSETTED 009X OCCUPANCY 103 NEMPORT LIDO ME0 CENTER OOOX OCCUPANCY 104 VILLA POINT 000x OCCUPANCY 1.05 SHOKRIAN OOOX OCCUPANCY 100 15TH ST AFTS 0002 OCCUPANCY 107 ROCKWE;L EXFAN,S,ION 000% OCCUPANCY 108 ANDREw RESTAURANT 000% OCCUPANCY t 109 4AL:OA / 'AASHINGTON 000% OCCUPANCY 1113 NEWPORT IMPORTS,.RE3T. OGaZ OCCUPANCY y� r TRAFF ?HASINb URVINAN- r • 1 ?ZPORT O WP ROVED PROJECT VOLUMES 111 25TH ST MARINA PROJECT OOOX OCCUPANCY 112 AMBROSIA RESTAU?ANT uCOX OCCUPANCY 113 CALTY/TOYOTA EXPANSION OOOX OCCUPANCY 114 OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANZELS 0002 OCCUPANCY 115 ZONTA CLUB RESIDEN-TIAL 000% OCCUPANCY pppX OCCUPANCY 116 22TH STREET ISLAND 000% OCCUPANCY 117 VILLA POINT II 000% OCCUPANCY 118 TACO BELL CFAST OO'D) OOOX OCCUPANCY 119 FASHION ISLAND TRANSFER 120 PACIFIC BELL SITE 000% OCCUPANCY 340 AMENDMENT- .NO.. 1 F-O:RD- AFRO- 1OOx- OCCUPANCY -- 341 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO 000% OCCUPANCY 342 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO OOOX OCCUPANCY 343 AMENDMENT NO., 1 EO.RD AERO 000Z. 00CUPANCY--. 530 AMENDMENT NO 1 NORTH FORD 1.00% OCCUPANCY % OCCUPANCY 531 AMENDMENT NO 1 NORTH FORD 100X. OCCUPANCY-• 532 AMENDMENT NO 1 NO1MH FORD 533 AMENDMENT NO 1 NORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY 910 NE'WPORT DUNES OOOX OCCUPANCY 920 . .BAYVLE)i_ C00%- OCCUP.ANGY -- 930 ' CITY OF IRVINE OEV,« 000% OCCUPANCY i i i i I APPENDIX 111311 Regional Growth Factor `�y J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATE r COAST HIGHWAY East city limit to MacArthur Boµlevard 22% MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 2% Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 2% Newport Boulevard to west city limit 4% i IRVINE AVENUE All 2.5% 1 JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 3% San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison 2% Bison to Bristol 1% Bristol to Campus 1% MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 6% j San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit 3$ I� Ili NEWPORT BOIILEVARD Coast Highway to north city limit 1% Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. • �/3• 1 , � 1 APPENDIX TO Trip Generation Rates CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 PEAR HOUR GENERATION RATES r AM PM DAILY IN OUT IN OUT RESIDENTIAL (per D.U. ) Single Family .2 .7 .7 .4 11.0 Attached medium density .2 . 6 .6 .4 8.6 Apartments .2 .4 .4 .3 6.5 OFFICE (per 1000 sq. ft. ) General 1.9 .3 .6 1.7 13.0 Medical .6 .2 1.9 2.4 -- RETAIL (per 1000 sq. ft'. ) i General .6 .5 1.9 2.0 45.0 i I HOTEL (per room) .6 .3 .5 .3 10.5 I RESTAURANT (per 1000 sq. ft.) Quality (sit-down) .8 .1 5.4 2.3 96.5 High turnover 7.8 7.8 8.8 7.5 '205.0 WP:FORMAT.SDY RME:bb ' 8-15-91 yy ' II ;j- 4r or :M11 APPENDIX "D One Percent Analysis and ICU Work Sheets y� I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 19 91 AM r Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 100 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 21S Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume ,{_ Volume Volume Northbound 3873 3 I ' 6 4-9 r 4-4 T `I" 16 Southbound 1717 u? �• 5 2 a q 6 II Eastbound li 832 D O � � 3•�' ( �1 6 Westbound 2184 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C:U.) Analysis is required. l . l I 1 �•� '� i"� �- 1 '� DATE: PROJECT: FORM I j 1% Traffic Volume Analysis I•lltersection JAMBOREE, RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 91) PM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2)2 Hour Peak 235 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 i INorthbound 1974 3- - Southbound ' 3046 31 Eastbound 2618 v �✓ t Westbound 1791 0 d I a 13 d 4-9 a 0 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t I I 2 6 w nrl"k I l A �JV � p I �h`:4 DATE: PROJECT: FORM I %�� 11% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE, RD/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ •M Peak 2§ Hour Approved Volume Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2n Hour GroWth Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2)s,Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Voldme Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2810 South bound 4045 14, p 9.0 2r 6 d orj p i I Eastbound 760 0 0 Westbound 311 319 _ 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2) Hour Traffic Volume I Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Q' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • i �G v n , V a, �. Q��• S1 vV e DATE: 2 Ste' PROJECT: FORM I � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH sT (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average wini;ttt7apring 19 9 PM Peak 2's Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected l% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour VGrowth olume Peak 2h Volume Hour Peak 2;j Hour PeaVolumeVolumeour ' PeaVolumeour Volume Northbound 2585 �'� 6 1� 1 ¢312 �3 Southbound 3431 34 Eastbound 1420 10 © D Westbound 54 Q Q 5-4 S Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. l . •V p( 'rt 1 T's DATE• — PROJECT: FORM I ��1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis I Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage enter prong ' 9 _ �.M Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume// Volume Vol Lae Northbound 2529 ' I I• S }g 2 b 33 '-� Southbound 3760 Eastbound 608 p 3 1 Hestbound 1361 0 ) o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. l I 3 I • i ' r rn7 O DATE: IoZ 6 PROJECT: FORM I /_ JA430SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM 1 I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGiONALICOMMITTEDI 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 ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I volume I V.plume Iw/o Project) I Ratio 1 I I I I I 1 I I Volume I I • I II------------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------I I MI. 1 1600 1 1 99 1 -0 06 • t D__I 8 1 10 0.11j '•$ -----------------'--------I----------- - ---i � -- _------- 4 --------------- HT I✓ 1106 I l �8 IAW d I--------? 6400 ------------------) 0.19 -- .- ----- ------ -- - - - --I MR I I 84 I g I a S 1 11-4- I Q I I i______________________________________________________________________ ____________________I SL 1 32001 1 281 1 0.09I 1 Q 1a�7jl 1 0 1 1 _ ________ _______ ! 1 I ST 1 I 1454 1 Q I SR ISO --------) 4800 __________________) 0.34 • 4 _pr lI I I------------------------------------------ I EL I I i ------- -------------------- I I 1 I ET 1 1 17 1 1 I S 1 1 I 121 I ...........................................................................................1 1 ER I N.S. I 1 8 1 1 1 1 -� 12ir I I I i................................................................................ ......... I WL 1 1600 1,2*CrD 1 256 1 0.16 • I 13 I �S�-•�' ZI I----------------------------------------------------------------------- o ------- a.j6 1 I WT 1 3200 260 I o.Da �� I--------------------------------------------I---------( 1-------------------------------i WR 1 1600 1 1 146 1 0.09 1 1 V 1144 1 51 1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________I (EXISTING 1 0.62 1 1 1_________________________________________________ .._.____- / nL7 I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 6 .9 6 1 ` r_f/ I I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------p--�-I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I me I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1_1 Project + 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 then 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic t.C.U, with project improvements will be less than T.C.U. without project _________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORMAT JA430SAM / ' 7 y a� 1 1% Traffic ,Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE sL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 9 9 PM I Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1� of Protected Project Approach Existing Regional Projects Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak2l Hume our Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 3627 14. 6 gZ� Southbound 4193 1/. Eastbound 1814 C d 0 0 Westbound 1578 D � (0 Z.— y' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 9 ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 \ rl �, ^ '1 �� !,• S?r�, e DATE: 2 S�d�' ✓I PROJECT: FORM I �J' JA4305PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD $ CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I EXISTING(PROPOSED(EXISTING(EXISTING IREGIONAL I COMMITTED( PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI lMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volune I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I -----I I NL 1 1600 1.. .. • 1 52 1 0.03 • •0 1 9 1 GO UDc 1 ',6 I0.041 ✓ I------------------------------------------------------- ------------ --- ---------------- I NT 1 1 1206 1 12 1 +° 5— 1;oil I I I .----- I------------- -- -- - ------------------- 1---NR�-) 6400 i______..i_ ) 0.25 ___ _ _ I I ------------- -.--' I 4 t3 b 520 I SL 1 3200 1 1 us 1 0.08 1 3 1 0 1141 1 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------I I ST I 1 1 1574 1 I r 1 4 C'L 1 lsgm I I I II---'--. 4800 ....._....'------. 0.40 •--------------------- -- 0AJ-------- - - l SR 1 362 g EL I 1 1 328 1 1 I d�j I 14 o.ill I QQ��I '-) 4800 ------------------) 0.17 '------------------------- ----------- Jill ET ✓ • i ET I 1 1 508 I I 1 ¢I 1 S`�9_ 1 $ I 1 I--------------•------------------------------------------ - _--- --------- ----I ER I N.S. 1 1 104 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------- •- -------I I A 1 1600 1 1 125 1 0.08 1 1 32 11 gr I- 10 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------q-------- --------------I WT 1 3200 1 1 299 1 0.09 * 1 1 9 I g0 '� Q•(' I 10 1 V- 1 1 I----------------------------------------------------------------- -------_._-----I WR 1 16001 1 2081 0.131 1 p 1,t,S/ 1 :7— 1 1 ----------------------------i [EXISTING 1 0.69 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 --O _}4I--------------- (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O-T4 1 ✓ ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------_--- Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 1_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 imy rovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORMAT I JA4305PM y•3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage glvnter7SPring 19 91 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected P,ofect Regional Peak Ze Hs Peak 24 Hour Peak 2 Nour Approach Existing Growth peak 2h Hour Peak Volume Hour Volume Volume Direction Peak volume Hour, Volume Volume Yolume Volume � Northbound 3906 3 �-o Southbound 3261 Z a 6 1 I o �31 Eastbound 830 Q Q 0 ,1 � O Westbound 57 p 0 3 100 Project Traffic is estimated s Volume e imatto be less than 1% of Projected P ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection' Capacity 'Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 .I r 1 1 �d" , ' ^ � �. pt I��� � 3�fi � DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST I (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter."Spring 19 PM X11: vedApproach Existingects Projected 10, of Projected ProjectDirection Peak 2 Hourh Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2hHourPeavo�kaeourVolumelumeVolume i[�yy,,,Northbound 1973 � D� � I' Southbound 1917 1 3/ Sh 3 g $ r2 3 `q 2— D� Eastbound 1277 0 3 [ 0 Westbound 1660 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected $1 Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. . l I �r . • ''.2/�•a ' 17i DATE: , l ' ^i" f y� [ �G� � •� t~ . . i PROJECT: FORM I �j� I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR' BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes basedOP'Average Winter F, Mt, 9 9 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved projected 1� of Projected Project I� III 1 l Approach Existing Regional' projects peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Haur II Girection Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2$,Hour yolume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume o i Northbound l 1978 /• 2 3 a Southbound 2689 • I � q 3oa� 3 Q t Eastbound 2910 Westbound 0 983 3 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak• 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. f�yGG / GATE I Z ''�lt" ^ I PROJECT: FORM i /_ � i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTIMR BL/CAMPUS DR j (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage inter prIng 19 9 PM i ---------------- Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Existing Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak Z)s Hour Peak Volume Hour ! Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume j O Northbound 2918 Southbound 3270 4-7 AI S' Eastbound 3 t9-544 aJ 4 2512 0 67-1 L O Westbound 2777 aT Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ! Peak 2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. �. r Cow I t ^ J -V V Q. , • 1 DATE PROJECT: FORM I '� r � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based 9. _ AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2's Hour Peak 2�, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume 6 ' Volume Voloume Ii I Northbound 4833 0 AA .! Southbound 1203 p U 1-� � 2 1 Eastbound 6614 0 O Q ' � Westbound -0. O c Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)i Hour Traffic Volume 1 a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. f ' 1 DATE: PROJECT: FORM I j 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 1991 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Hour Peak 2k Hour Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2'S Hour Peak 23S Hour Peak 2�S Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I ' J Northbound 3280 0 © .354 ' 3 J Southbound 3264 p 44,r L4-0 } Eastbound 6657 '4z O r O Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume 1 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. l I n r' DATE: PROJECT: FORM I yGf 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 19 91) AM I ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1',of Projected Project l Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2), Hour 'Peak 7h Hour Peak' Hour � Peak 2Volume heour F Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5806 southbound 1357 Eastbound —0— Q ` 0 ' Westbound 2766 Project Traffic is estimated to' be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (� Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C:U.) Analysis is required. t OAT El PROJECT: FORM I y C s 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 91 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1% of Projected Project j Direction Peak Z;i Hour Growth Peak ZLI Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3759 0 3 8"3 3 3 I Southbound 4552 p S"S 4 9L 0 T g I I Eastbound _07 0 0 Westbound 6817 0 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I ; 1 K DATE:�C/ PROJECT: FORM I - CITY OIt' NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boutevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659.1768 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: OtHceofPlanningandRese & City ofNewport Beach ❑ 1400TeathStrett,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 NewpodBeach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange © PublicServic sMvWoa Date received for filing at OPR: P.O.Box838 Santa Ana,CA 92702 The review period will close on: November 1, '1991 jdame of Project: roll Center Carl's Jr.•Restaurant Use-Permit No. 3424, Traffic Study # 77 FrOjed LocWat on2:. 4880 campus-Drive, Newpott Beach , California Project Descriptron Demol3:tion•'of aa'•exi.sting 5estaurant 'and construction of a drive�tl>xu•iind take'out,re§tauiant Frith.indoor seating, a.. L z .retail building:and 0n, site-.3inproveaient; Mding: Pursuant to the provisions of City*Council Policy K 3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement.the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed,project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures: See attached Initial study. Initial Study Prepared By- and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA Signature: / Tittle:Principal Planner Date-,October 2, 1991 is is („o r i 0 1, Name of Prop onent . Cari •P. O..Sox 4999 2, Address and phone Number of Proponent eim CA.92805 3 1 " 'October 1, •1991 3. Date Checklist Submitted City 'of New JO Beach Checklist 5, Name of Proposal, if applicable Use Permit Na: 34241 TraFfic Study No. 77 4. Agency Requiring �. Eavironleatallmpacts (Explanations of all "yes" and `maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) yes Mavbe No 1. Earth. . will the proposal result in: 8, Unstable earth conditions or in changes in X : . 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 x of any unique geologic or physical features? e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of — X Soils, either on or off the site? "— . Changes in deposition or erosion of beach f 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? or p, �perty to geologic g, Exposure of People rtes, landslides, X hazards such rasear fair. or similar hazards? _ mudslides, g - 1 - �i% es Maybe ILo 2. Air. Will the proposal":osult a, Substantial air emissions ".deterioration : : :3. • of ambient air quality? X b, The creation of objectionable odors? ^ — . r c. Alt eration of air movement, moisture, or or an change in climate, t aratura, Y �g �P 7C either locally or regionally? .. 3, pater. 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'ia absorption ratess drainage patterns k'or-the•rate°and:amount of;z surface runoff? -- c. Alterations to the course or flow of X flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ..a. . Discharge into surface waters, or 'in any., :a:'- alteration of surface water quality, includizig but'not limited to temperature„ ., :. Y 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 x ..aquifer by cuts or excavations? ` _ :N h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available.tor public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal �( waves? — - 2 - Yes Maybe 112 4. Plant Life: Will the ,�proposal--result-in:.,•••• F a. Change in the diversity. of species,• or num-:.. • bar of any species of plants (including trees, X shrubs,• graso: crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X 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? .— X 5, Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change is the .diversity of speciesr or num- bers of. any species of:•animals m(birds j .land- "- animals including reptiles, fish and-shell- X fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, x 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? _ , r• _ d. 'Deterioration to existing fish or•-wildlife „ X _ ... habitat? -. — 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of -people to severe noise levels? _ X 7. Light and Glare. will,-the proposal produce new. X light or glare? . S. Land Use.. Will the—proposal—result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned X land use of an area? - 3 - �y Yes maybe TZo 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 upset conditions? _ X b. Possible interference with-an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ X 11. Population.;- iin the proposal alter :the.location,- , distribution, density, or -growth rate of the human �r population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing y or create a demand for additional housing? _ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ...•a. Generation of substantial additional. X vehicular movement? „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, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ x 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 - V -- es Ma_he No a. Fire protection? b: Police protection? -- " c. Schools? d, Parks or other recreational facilities? _ L e. Maintenance of public facilities;- including X roads? f. other governmental services? — 15. Energy. Will the proposal=.result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? . -_ X i •b. - Substantial ,increase4-in demand.upon existing sources or energy, or require the development X 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 .•. - -- C. Water? —' d. Sewer or septic tanks?, — X e. Storm water drainage? — —Y f. Solid waste and disposal? — L 17. . Human Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health heazard (excluding mental health)? b, ' Exposure of people to potential health y hazards? — 1` 5 - es a be Ij_o 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 X to public view? �-- —� 19. Recreation. Gill the proposal••result in an. impact upon the quality or quantity of existing X recreatiorial 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 historic building, •structure, ,Oz 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. Mandatory Findings of Significance. _ a. Does the project have the potential to ilegiade the quality of the•environmeut, substantially reduce the habitat of aafish or wildlife species, cause a fish or.'*kldli£e popaation ". 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 ot„ eliminate " - important examples of the•major ,periods of X California history or prehistory? ,, ., - - 6 - Yes MUbe No, b. Does the project have 'the poteritial'to achieve- ' :•-:L: short-term, to the -disadvantage of°long-term, - -* i environmental goals? ' (A short-fain 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 •• a. 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 Yelatidely;small: but where the effect of the total` of those •impactg' on: the environment is significant.) -- — d. Does. the project have'environmentai''effectg which will cause sub'sthntUT adverse jeffects '�i" on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ X 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.WIII.-BE ED PREPARED: I find that although the proposed project -could have-a 'signif- icant effect on the environment; there aill•'"noE'be"=a significant effect in this case because the mitigation"measures described on an attached sheet have been added to thw-projectr= " A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON wILL'BE PAIILALE/• t-•-:• � l'...:�J-A-I� I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For TN6 CITY OF NEWibgl' J50AC-4 7 - 4' D us Drive and Von This project is located at the southwest corner o£ P b an Karman Avenue of Koll Center Newport. The site is occupiedY operating full service restaurant called RPs The Rib Joint approximately 9,500 The tag facility will be demolished and replaced by square feet building a proposed development that involves construction of a new CarPa d a�tail tbru and take-out Hood facility'with 142 indoor seating capacity budding that contains 3,8M square feet. The proposed project cconsists of two phases.The first phase of the project is the construction of the restaurant and the second phase of tileg. project will be completion of the retail building. E,wonmental Analysis Checklist Explanations Analysis L EarthSed A substantial portion of the site will be altered to accommodate the propo on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with �pacao Will result in little soil disruption or overcovering and may require or soil displacement Considering the scope of the project the effect of the construction activities is insignificant 2.Air During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by Air Quality Management District and odor effects, shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project Therefore, the effect is insignificant 3.Water of ound or surface water. The project does not affect the quality or quantity ground- 4.Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the Caty and none of the unique,rare or endangered species of an of Plants are present in the vicinity project S.Animal Life There wi71 be no effect of this project on either land animal or marine life. 6. Noise the construction EJdsting noise levels are anticipated to be increased during period. Construction time may be short due to the small scope of the project The proposed site is surrounded predominantly by general office buildings and }. some retail commercial uses• Residential development and other noise . 1 • is sensitive land uses are not located adjacent to the proposed project. Noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project 7. Light and Glare act adjacent properties, Although exterior lighting for the project could.impact is designed to Mitigation Measurb No. 1 shall ensure that anti lighting d signavoid any confine and direct rays to the property to significant affect. 8. Land Use The site is designated Retail and ServiceThe Cte��Usethe General will n be and the Zoning is Planned Community. altered and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan requirements. 9. Natural Resources Natural resources will not be affected by this P ro ject 10.Risk of Upset There is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset 11.Population elation is not anticipated. Any increase or decrease of the area's pop a Housing The housing availability and demand will not change as a result of this project 13.Transportation/Circulation ro ect indicating A traffic impact study has been conducted for subject a result of the 1 that additional vehicular movement will be generated proposed development The Existing restaurant generates 917 trip ends per day. The proposed project generates an estimated 2,836 trip ends per day. _f The restaurant portion of the project generates 2,665 trip ends per day and the retail store generates 171 trip ends per day.The intersection Of Cam o s r Drive at Jamboree Road will be impacted due to additional trip g Mitigation Measure No. 2 shall ensure that such traffic increase affects be reduced to an insignificant level. The eaasti ag on-site parldng facilities will be affected as a result of the proposed development and use. Drive-thru and take out restaurants are required to provide one parldng space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area contained within a building. The restaurant portion of the proposed 2 project contains a Building with'4,188 sgfL of gross area which require 84 parking spaces (4,188 sq-ft- /50 = 83.76 or 84 parking spaces). In addition, ace r employee per shift based on peak employment shift one parking space per fL and one shall be provided. The retail building of the site contains 3, 'herefore the parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area is required. retail building requires 20 parking spaces( 3,822 / 2W sgft = 19.11 or 20 parking spaces). Total parking requirement for the restaurant and retard building is 104 spaces plus the employee parking requirement for the restaurant use: The proposed development plan indicates a total of 102 pares spaces. With the restaurant drive-thru area, that counts.for 10 parking spaces,the project meets the parking requirement. Presently the site accommodates for 100 automobile parking spaces.' This project will not have any adverse affect on transportation or circulation. 14.Public Services New public or governmental services will not be needed as a result of this project. 15.'Energy Energy sources are not affected by this project. 16.Utilities Fast food restaurants typically generate more waste water and grease runoff than a frill service restaurant• However, compliance with Plumbing and Building Code requirements regarding grease interceptors will insure that potential effects shall be reduced to a level of insiguificance- 17.Human Health The project has no adverse affect on human health. 18.Aesthetics By compliance with the provisions contained in the Planned Community landscaping and the aWs Zoning Code regext arding the project's design,signs, and other aesthetic features of the site the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19.Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not beimpacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The project does not have any effect on the cultural resources of the area. 3 } �Y • wnGATION MEASURE No. 1 system shall be designed to minimize light The projects outdoor lighting sys spillage on to the adjacent sites to the extend feasible.shall preparethe elecrical of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. No. 2 the applicant shall Prior to the issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy, demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Campus Drive and jamboree Road has been r�per) described in the traffiic impact study prepared for the project 4 WI1GATIOI4ONITORING AND REPORTIDOPROGRAM ? Carl's Jr. Restaurant ;,• L OVERVIEW Negative Declaration No.UP 3424 'Phis mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of.ibis project will be carried out Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures,implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. IL MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Ntigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1)through project design,which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances,policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/.or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,-the Ode will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the,approved project design., Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through Compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards,or conditions of approval: Upon project approval,a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be-placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Magation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed,the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report,request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies ME the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. fi\_\avzaAcir\M M-COVER. • �l `V. ATTACHMBNrI MrnGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Carl's Junior Restaurant(UP 3424) Mitigmlon Measure Implementing Action Method o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Planning department plan 1. The project's outdoor lighting system building permit checker shall be designed to minimize light • spillage on the adjacent sites to the extend feasible. Prior to the issuance ' of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. 2. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Condition of Approval Field inspection Prior to issuance of a Traffle Department Use and Occupancy, the applicant Certificate of Use or shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Occupancy Engineer that the intersection of Campus Dr. and Jamboree Rd. has been restriped as described in th traffic impact study prepared for the , project(m4n). F:\...\aziz-a\Car1'sJr\MM TABLE 1 J OF PIJBL[C HE&W-Mll_ • , �,�- , rt Beach will.hol'd'a public /oticce is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newpong on the application of Sim us Inc,for""ae re�7it No 3424 and'1 � 'c Study No. 77 on property located at 4�$_T-- the prmsed wi w +. .v++hm the fail t� oronosal alto includes a re^uest to avnrove aTraffic Study 0 of $22+ r foot fEroSsl re P "� .1di and A 4 188 sq e- �t ferocl drive-in and take, t restaurant , NOTICE IS IEIEREBYFURTH=GIMthat aNegative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the su is the bject development will not result in a•significant effect on thee we t present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application- The City of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies encourages members of the Negative Declaration and supportingdocuments are available for public review and inspection t the Planning Degartment, a.ty of Newport Beach, 330o Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, a - California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing wiill be held'on the Mth day of October 1991. at the hour of 7�2 pin. Councilin�th Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, Califoinia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon..if you challenge this project in court,You may be limited to raising only those issues ce or m you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in infhisarmationcall written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant, 4. C'j f 2. •y' • October 24 1991• coe , MINUT E S COMMISSIONERS � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX sae a morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. A. Traffic Studv No. 77 Public Hearin Item No.3 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction TS No. 77 of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross)drive-in and take-out restaurant; and the acceptance of UP3424 an environmental document. Cont�d to 11/7/91 AND B. Use Permit No. 3424 Public Hearin Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in the Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the required off- street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided thin the proposed drive-through lane within the facility; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport lanned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs (menu signs)which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in Koll Center Newport. ONE: P-C PLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that inasmuch as staff determined that the proposed project requires a waiver of -14- COMMISSIONERS . . October 24, 1991MI N UT ES .o d d 0�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX a portion of the required off-street parking spaces due to a miscalculation of the parking requirement for the proposed uses, it will require renotification of the surrounding property owners. He stated that the applicant has agreed to continue the subject application to the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 1991. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Traffic Study No. 77 Ayes * * * * and Use Permit No. 3424 to the November 7, 1991, Planning Absent * * Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. x x x C issioner Debay suggested that the Planning Commission open the blic hearing for Item No. 5, regarding real estate signs,prior Moved PH to the ublic hearing for Item No. 4, regarding the Hoag Hospital for item 5 Emergen Room, based on the number of speakers wishing to PHl for or to Motion * testify on It No. 4. Motion was made and voted on to open the Item 4 Ayes * * * * * * public hearin for Item No. 5 before Item No. 4. MOTION Absent CARRIED. x x x Amendment No. 727 Pu 'c Hearing) Item xo.s Request to amend Title 20 oft Newport Beach Municipal Code A727 so as to allow real estate signs to xceed four feet in height so as (Res.126e) to be reasonably visible from the st et. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newpor each Commissioner Debay referred to the first pa raph in the staff report wherein it is stated that the subject ame went concerns vehicle mounted real estate signs. Robin Flory, sistant City Attorney, explained that the subject amendment a resses the height of real estate signs in the front yard if a sign is t visible from the street. Ms. Flory suggested that vehicle mou \be deleted from the first paragraph. In response to a question by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Flory explained that the ZCode currently allows signs on vehicles only when there is alternative. -15- Planning Commission I#ting October 24, 1991_ Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: " Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Stuff No 77 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No 3424 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in the Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive- through lane within the facility; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs (menu signs)which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach Request for Continuance It has been determined that the proposed project requires a waiver of a portion of the required off-street parking spaces due to a miscalculation of the parking requirement for the TO: Plating Commission - 2. • proposed take-out restaurant and the retail building. This will result in changes to the original public notice Which will also require reposting the property and renotification of the surrounding property owners. The applicant has agreed to continue these applications to the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 19911 rather than make changes to the projeb't. PLANNING DBPAR'IMENT JAMES 1), 149WICIKER, Director B - Jmd S.blircia Senior Planner }AY.G\UP\RE9ATAkE0U'K\iJP3424.BLP Planning Commission J&ting October 24. 1991 Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No 77 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit,the construction of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No 3424 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in the Retail and Service Site No. 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive- through lane within the facility;a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ,ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in height; a third wall identification logo; and two additional ground signs(menu signs)which contain 32± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506), located at 4880 Campus Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, in Koll Center Newport. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach Request for Continuance It has been determined that the proposed project requires a waiver of a portion of the required off-street parking spaces due to a miscalculation of the parking requirement for the Commission - 2. TO: PlaIng proposed take-out restaurant and the retail building. This will result inchanges to the original public notice which will also require reposting the property and renotification of the surrounding property owners, The applicant has agreed to continue these applications to the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 1991, rather than make changes to the project, PLANNINO DEPAPUMENT JAMES D, HEWICKER; Director B 41!_viler S. rcia Senior Planner JAf-G\UP\Rhn\TAKEoMbPMN.DLP I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PP L`'-� (s "�(-`�' y 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768FILE �f� Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 �1 py 1O NOT RMU,10VE NEGATIVE DECLARATION DO NOT REMOVE To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach El1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange i FTPublic Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Eereview period will close on: November 1, 1991 Name of Project: Koll Center Carl's Jr. Restaurant Use Permit No. 3424, Traffic Study # 77 ProjeCtLOCation: 4880 Campus Drive, Newport Beach , California Project Description: Demolition of an existing restaurant and construction of a drive—thru and take out restaurant with indoor seating, a retail building and on site improvement. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City'Council Policy K3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant,effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures: See attached Initial Study. Initial Study Prepared By: City of Newport Beach and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, CA Signature. Title.Principal Planner Date:october 2, 1991 f' s ENVIgONMgRAL CMCI=ST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent . Carl Ka P. O. .Box 4999 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Anaheim CA 92805 1- 351 October 1, 1991 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of. Newport Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if appl icable Use Permit-No. 3424, Traffic Study No. 77 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 X geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or _ — overcovering of the soil? C. Change in' topography or ground surface _ y relief features? L d. The destruction, covering modification of any uniqugeologicor physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of X Soils, either on or off the site? f. sands, orncha changes in deposition siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a X river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or p�erty to geologic hazards such as earthquuOkes, landslidear s, mudslides, X mudslides, ground failur,A, or - 1 - Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? - X b. The creation of objectionable odors? 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 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, .1 dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — L` f. Alteration of the direction or rate of X flow of ground water? — — 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? — i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal X waves? — 2 - Yes Mavba No 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, v shrubs grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? B P b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X 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? _ X S. Animal 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- X fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X rare or endangered species of animals? _ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- x tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife X habitat? — — 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new X light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned X land use of an area? - - 3 - • Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X 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 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 v or create a demand for additional housing? — 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? — ,, b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X demand for new parking? — C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- x 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?- x f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, v 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 (gybe No a. Fire protection? — b. Police protection? — C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? — f. other governmental services? — 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development X 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? — -X d. Sewer or septic tanks? — e. Storm water drainage? - Xt f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human 'Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health heazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health Y hazards? — L - 5 - Yes HAybe 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 X to public view? — 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 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. 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 - v � Yes Mavbe No 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 X 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 X the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects x 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. EJ 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, P-4V/-� A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ^ ' I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q oeroam 4., 99,1 Qv. M "lawu, Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For TffS CITY of NEWOaT ,BeACFF - 7 - r Project Description This project is located at the southwest corner of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue of Koll Center Newport. The site is occupied by an operating-full service restaurant called RJ's The Rib Joint approximately 9,500 square feet building. The existing facility will be demolished and replaced by a proposed development that involves construction of a new Carl's Jr. drive- thru and take-out food facility with 142 indoor seating capacity and a retail building that contains 3,822 square feet. The proposed project consists of two phases. The first phase of the project is the construction of the restaurant and the second phase of the project will be completion of the retail building. Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations Analysis 1. Earth A substantial portion of the site will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with this project will result in little soil disruption or overcovering and may require compaction or soil displacement. Considering the scope of the project the effect of the construction activities is insignificant. 2. Air During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimised as a result of site watering required by Air Quality Management District and odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Therefore, the effect is insignificant. 3. Water The project does not affect the quality or quantity of ground or surface water. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and none of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants are present in the vicinity of the project. 5. Animal Life There will be no effect of this project on either land animal or marine life. 6. Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period. Construction time may be short due to the small scope of the project. The proposed site is surrounded predominantly by general office buildings and some retail commercial uses. Residential development and other noise 1 0 sensitive land uses are not located adjacent to the proposed project. Noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project. 7. Eight and Glare Although exterior lighting for the project could impact adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure No. 1 shall ensure that such lighting is designed to confine and direct rays to the property to the extent feasible and avoid any significant effect. 8. Land Use The site is designated Retail and Service Commercial in the General Plan and the Zoning is Planned Community. The site's Land Use category will not be altered and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan requirements. 9. Natural Resources Natural resources will not be affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset There is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset. 11. Population Any increase or decrease of the area's population is not anticipated. 12. Housing The housing availability and demand will not change as a result of this project. 13. Transportation/Circulation A traffic impact study has been conducted for the subject project indicating that additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. The Existing restaurant generates 917 trip ends per day. The proposed project generates an estimated 2,836 trip ends per day. The restaurant portion of the project generates 2,665 trip ends per day and the retail store generates 171 trip ends per day. The intersection of Campus Drive at Jamboree Road will be impacted due to additional trip generation. Mitigation Measure No. 2 shall ensure that such traffic increase affects be reduced to an insignificant level. The existing on-site parking facilities will be affected as a result of the proposed development and use. Drive-thru and take-out restaurants are required to provide one parking space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area contained within a building. The restaurant portion of the proposed 2 project contains a building with 4,188 sq.ft. of gross area which require 84 parking spaces ( 4,188 sq.ft. / 50 = 83.76 or 84 parking spaces ). In addition, one parking space per employee per shift based on peak employment shift shall be provided. The retail building of the site contains 3,822 sq.ft. and one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area is required.Therefore the retail building requires 20 parking spaces( 3,822 / 200 sq.ft = 19.11 or 20 parking spaces). Total parking requirement for the restaurant and retail building is 104 spaces plus the employee parking requirement for the restaurant use. The proposed development plan indicates a total of 102 parking spaces. With the restaurant drive-thru area, that counts for 10 parking spaces, the project meets the parking requirement. Presently the site accommodates for 100 automobile parking spaces. This project will not have any adverse affect on transportation or circulation. 14. Public Services New public or governmental services will not be needed as a result of this project. 15. Energy Energy sources are not affected by this project. 16. Utilities Fast food restaurants typically generate more waste water and grease runoff than a full service restaurant. However, compliance with Plumbing and Building Code requirements regarding grease interceptors will insure that potential effects shall be reduced to a level of insignificance. 17. Human Health The project has no adverse affect on human health. 18. Aesthetics By compliance with the provisions contained in the Planned Community Text and the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19. Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not be impacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The project does not have any effect on the cultural resources of the area. 3 MITIGATION MEASURE No. 1 The projeces outdoor lighting system shall be designed to minimise light spillage on to the adjacent sites to the extend feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. No. 2 Prior to the issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy,the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road has been restriped as described in the traffic impact study prepared for the project ( TPO-077 ). 4 MITIGATI*MONITORING AND REPORTIO PROGRAM Carl's Jr. Restaurant Negative Declaration No. UP 3424 I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. F.\...\aziz-a\eir\MM-COVER ATTACHMENT 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Carrs Junior Restaurant(UP 3424) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method o f Tinting of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. The projeces outdoor lighting system Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Planning department plan shalt be designed to minimize tight building permit checker spillage on the adjacent sites to the extend feasible. Prior to the issuance • of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Condition of Approval Field inspection Prior to issuance of a Traffic Department Use and Occupancy, the applicant Certificate of Use or shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Occupancy Engineer that the intersection of Campus Dr. and Jamboree Rd.has been restriped as described in th traffic impact study prepared for the project(TPO-M). F.\...\aziza\CmrsJr\MM TABLE • 1 AKOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Carl Karcher Ent. Inc. for Use Permit No. 3424 and Traffic Study No. Z on property located at 4880 Campus Drive. Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a_proposed retail commercial building on property located in the"Retail and Service"area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive-through lane within the facility The 12rMosal also includes a request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 3 822± square foot ,gross) retail building and a 4.188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of October 1991, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. BNVIRONMENm n7FORNMON FORK q 3 97 Date Filed General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor, Col•/ kg�he� 2. Address of project: mh r Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concern- ing this project: CK-E-Za' 4: ":A &W-90 a gw499f &gh&A 1rA9t8o5 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: 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: C.41 A C;-1 N4i W 0 14L- i/ o f1 4 Permit Ciy4 i � 8each_� fear/fh �izt�p 6. Existing zoning district: p C 7. Proposed u e of site (Project for which this form is filed) : Resfa�i7tnf t'y/drivc irN Ser vice 4' jai/ sfi'i/ ) by7/ I M ,4me 15/// /_eQUes24ecd �o WaeVC fM)07C m�ti' �t�io� 8)4L�rr�bB�e� Casry�n� Project Description 8. Site size. t' z69K Z/b1 I. 3'74ert:$ 9. Square footage. 60,p 1 S�, 10. Number of floors of construction. 0/7C ' 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 92 12. Attach plans. Resbanf 2/92 Resf4u.rcn74s/92 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated project. Reh?il Alvondblu-4A 4197 D 7�S 8/fZ 15. Anticipated incremental development. $Re above VCA /C 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, A range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. - 1 - I -,.ey y. ...�..i...�T"' ,•-�a�aTy7Wy'.�;""'"`.w,,:ln�{^.�`°�y?rfv+'�'.'"'•.."y,.""r'S1Yny�y!t+w^.+msJr.^.4:-mnu`'�rn.Y;_�'^rn.�,.."-'�i�. ...3 `Mt � i .'�'�^i ,)"�t i:i.'':}. .t•..•`^�py• 'r,,.1�JM�, '..t,:'.'��. �-.,;e'i_.kt�., 2'. fi_y,e"f:Y+';' :2y ��� ' 17. 'If commercial, .indicate--• theo%type, ;whether - neighborhood, city or regionally oriented;'.square footage of sales area, and loading facili- ties:•77i,is'•`�eig�j.hbo� Po041 c--ien�f /ccf hAS 41MO.17 h' urnr�f ,�3822s•f. Carlrrlercla/ /�pSC 3FbGC.7�/e riOf4u � servr 4rrq a GB7rfi' The /epsabe�rC i�� n ndel nninm� rwce Qua•&4 ff rs of -�P«+k hours. 18. IF °ingustrfa1", ind Cate type, es�mated employment per-,shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per .shift' estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from:the project. W.A.. i f 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state .-this'. and indicate clearly whey the application is required. 7b A114DW 40riv�- 7hru Ser'rrte 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, _ ✓ or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential ✓ areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of ✓ project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste.or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or ✓ quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in ✓ the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. _ 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as f toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, -•water, sewage, etc.)". 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 2 - ..�_ ��_ - .ter. Vr` �i• ,1 Ai S r. rr Jr .`+` , Environmental Setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, iicluding'- information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any,' cultural,-., historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc tares on 'ihe site, pnd•..the use of the structures. Attach photographs of ttie site: Snapshots or polaroid photoi'will be accepted. • 34-." Describe the 'surrounding- properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural historicalr or scenic aspect's. 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. " 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 informa- tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1.09 9-30- /2 .62-9/ Date ture For CQ// I C. C\PLT\EIRFORM 3 3. Su¢j'eaf si/e i6 occupies by a si! douJn i"csfau�-exn� 4PPr4WMaAa/y Z//'x z89' h7 sizes. La74 os .6chcra//y .�la the s�'/6 hits *he r'e:SA9M "/ sfnrcfr/� a as .,�6e of fhe lb/ ca✓e-e4e W#h 4-e7°h4179c C40-- t"le Paver/end u//M • /a/��/Sc4p�� a/aa� oorfl�s/ ¢ Sou�F?i�-.Sf ,l'� ��' St�r-rovr�c{i� iaro�eri�ies cr/'C eo��<sreict/ o{f"ce • s�7^ifCi{rtres (gnu/�i s-for-y� cui�h associ��e� �arkenJc and /ana'sc�oi�. 411 fl-1910er7tj .cs y 3 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F I L E D 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 O C T U 2 1991 Newport Beach,CA 926594768 GARY L.GRANVILLE,Counly Clerk NEGATIVE DECLARATION sy"""'— '—oEvurr To: From: Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,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: November 1, 1991 Name of Project: Koll Center Carl's Jr. Restaurant Use Permit No. 3424, Traffic Study # 77 Project Location: 4880 Campus Drive, Newport Beach , California Project Description: Demolition of an existing restaurant and construction of a drive--thru and take out restaurant with indoor seating, a retail building and on ,site improvement. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City'Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures: See attached Initial Study. Initial Study Prepared By: City of Newport Beach and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, CA Signature: 7"itle.Principal Planner ,Dafe•October 2, 1991 ENMONNENTAL INFORNATION FORK Date Filed General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Eh24.Ji2c.�Ro.�mc4999 0 92B0 5 2. Address of project: 4,640 VOQ r Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 4 S- 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concern- ing this project: CKE Xnc 6IMy,4 &Wes l_9"ff Aw4d:lMoC4 �/•�CJ5 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: 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. C.41.)O C;-/ wlE&J /AS=614B PWrn;Id Ci ofN��or`� Se�ch� ��z �✓�� �`/ °f 6. Existing zoning district: C 7. Pr posed u e of site (Project for which this form is filed) : /QC57lQUI7l✓I� drive' �ircf Slice 4 /V-M%/ ALI;O- bti;/d Project Description 8. Site size. t ,Z$�/JC .ZIOV /• 37QctL-s 9. Square footage. 6o,Oj�5s. • 10. Number of floors of construction. 04C ll. Amount of off-street parking provided. qZ 12. Attach plans. an/��{�^ Resaurrcnf 13. Proposed scheduling. 6 Resta/I, 14. Associated project. Re;W.1 AlVandh&VA 4192 6JPMZng 8�4Z 15. Anticipated incremental development. Sete ahovc BC{sedu•/C 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 'r'Q - 1 - 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facili- ties. 7, aeigghberh°od crh!"Av ,q�q� has 41 4.1 Rc-*Vrdr# A#$8Z2a.f /comme�ria/ /moose sFbte.775e /�s/4u" >Jf services a'z+a cs c8arlC fie /c»»sab&ice 18. IF p�naustral �n�n3YScate tie o�smated mpymet° 'per ,shift, and loading facilities. J`/.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. / .A- 20. If the project involves a , variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly whey the application is required. 7b 4116W Drive 77jru Serric6 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, ✓ or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential _ ✓ areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of _ ✓ project. 24. Significant amounts' of solid waste or litter. _ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ ✓ 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or _ quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. existing noise or vibration levels in ✓ 27. Substantial changein _ g the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. _ 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as f toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in .demand for municipal services (police, _ ✓ fire, water, sewage, etc.) : 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ✓ 2 - 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. c 34." Describe the 'surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural historical 'or scenic aspeot's. 1 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. 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 informa- tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date ture C\PLT\EIRFORM 3 3. su�4,0/ si-le i6 occupies by t7 si24 down res1'4arnre1 aPPrgowmafc/y z// *A z89' in size. L074 �& jehcra//y ?he siVc lots =the Actsr'4UMAW sfiirdu/ef a ad 166e �maiirder of fhe /of aDveyed with favcm�n� W 'it /a�dsca e�� a/an9 �or�h s/ 4 sou1h�sf P/tM � 4' S�t.-rovhdi Pr6pe,-Mes are co.»�r ercia/ v�ic� S�rNc�ure� (emu/�i sfnr�� wl par/un'? and 411 IPrmfOef GCS Ally dev e/o eQl 3 - SNpIRoHKERTAL CHECKLIST FORK I. Background L Loranza 1. Name of Proponent Carl Karcher Prif Inc •: Rtll1% Re �S 2. Address and Phone Numiber of Pro onent p0. i AM-1 ei n, G9 9z8007:) (714) 49/- 434V 3. Date Checklist Submitted 9 -- " /U - /- q1 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Ann/41 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable H. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets,) Yes Maybe two 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in f 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? —S. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ - 1 - I ' CARL'S JR. RESTAIIIANT I Site Development Department 222 S.Harbor Blvd.,Suite t 300 P.O.Box ,�G' Date: 6_2 5—g Job No. /// __ Anaheim,California 92803 Attention (714)491-4322 Fax*(714)491-4301 Re: Pr-o asp ear' dr TO Tic` G �fLtd �Glyc'S� /�/e�yt�&rf ige�hh,t G9 ' �65B' GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached []Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shopdrawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Permit Pkg. ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Cc f92 IV69 By PLANIM '-ITY ®ly COPY TO 1 1 I ! It 1 104, 4 SIGNED: It enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once CKE:07.84:214 r�EW PO�'T e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 CgUFORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 9, 1991 Lorenzo Reyes Carl's Jr. Restaurant Site Development Dept. 222 S. Harbor Blvd., Suite 300 P.O. Box 4999 Anaheim, CA 92803 Subject: Traffic Engineering Analysis, Carl's Jr. Restaurant Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue Dear Mr. Reyes: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Mohle, Grover and Associates, for traffic engineering services required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis for the proposed project at the intersection of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, and estimated budget required for the preparation. The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks required are considered appropriate and warranted. It is, therefore, requested that your company submit a check to cover the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 5,500 City Fees (10%) 550 Total Request: $ 6,050 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 B _ y Patricia Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments F\JM\PLT\CARLS-JPTPO 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach AUG 08 '91 14:25 P.2 MoWe,Grover&Associates August 8, 1991 Ms. Patricia Lee Temple Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Ite: Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Development at the Intersection of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue Dear Patty, We are pleased to respond to your request for proposal for a traffic impact study for the above referenced development. We met with Mr. Rich Edmonston to discuss the scope of study and identify the key intersections for level of service analysis. As we understand, it Is determined that the following seven (7) intersections in the City of Newport Beach need to be analyzed per the City guidelines during both a.m. and p.m, peak periods. The intersections recommended are: 1) Jamboree Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard 2) Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street 3) Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive 4) MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street 5) MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive 6) Campus Drive and Bristol Street 7) Campus Drive and Bristol Street North We will obtain the list of approved projects that would have cumulative impact on the study intersections, as well as the required estimates to be used, in the study. We have successfully completed traffic impact studies for the City previously and are familiar with the analytical details that are required to be provided for the traffic impact study. PRO.IECT MANAGEMENT The entire study will be conducted under the direction of the undersigned. MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Sol E. Imperial Hwy.,Suite A,La Habra,CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 AUG 08 '91 14:25 P.3 Ms. Patricia Lee Temple Traffic Impact Study Proposal August 8, 1991 Page 2 PROJECT SCHEDT TCE We are prepared to commence the work immediately as soon as we have the authori- zation to proceed. The study could be completed within a four week period from the day of notification to proceed. )PROTECT FEE We propose a fee of$5,500 for the entire project. The traffic analysis will include one percent test and I.C.U. value per City guidelines. In case the intersections should require any kind of mitigation measures as a result of the analysis due to the proposed development or major work need to be performed regarding on-site circulation, parking and alto access, we would renegotiate our fee to provide these additional services if required. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request once again and look forward to completing the project to the City's satisfaction. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, GROVVER&ASSOCIATES A t R. Henry Mohle, P.E. President RHMJh fin: temple.rhm RECEIVED uY ■ ■ ■aq PLAN OFING NEWPORTT MENT mBEACH Mohle,Grover&Associates AUG 121991 7 8191101110211120141516 August 8, 1991 Ms. Patricia Lee Temple Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Development at the Intersection of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue Dear Patty, We are pleased to respond to your request for proposal for a traffic impact study for the above referenced development. We met with Mr. Rich Edmonston to discuss the scope of study and identify the key intersections for level of service analysis. As we understand, it is determined that the following seven (7) intersections in the City of Newport Beach need to be analyzed per the City guidelines during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The intersections recommended are: 1) Jamboree Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard 2) Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street 3) Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive 4) MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street 5) MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive 6) Campus Drive and Bristol Street 7) Campus Drive and Bristol Street North We will obtain the list of approved projects that would have cumulative impact on the study intersections, as well as the required estimates to be used, in the study. We have successfully completed traffic impact studies for the City previously and are familiar with the analytical details that are required to be provided for the traffic impact study. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The entire study will be conducted under the direction of the undersigned. MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra, CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 Ms. Patricia Lee Temple Traffic Impact Study Proposal August 8, 1991 Page 2 PROTECT SCHEDULE We are prepared to commence the work immediately as soon as we have the authori- zation to proceed. The study could be completed within a four week period from the day of notification to proceed. PROTECT FEE We propose a fee of$5,500 for the entire project. The traffic analysis will include one percent test and I.C.U. value per City guidelines. In case the intersections should require any kind of mitigation measures as a result of the analysis due to the proposed development or major work need to be performed regarding on-site circulation, parking and site access, we would renegotiate our fee to provide these additional services if required. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request once again and look forward to completing the project to the City's satisfaction. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, GROVER & ASSOCIATES A4�z R. Henry Mohle, P.E. President RHM:jh fln: temple.rhm 0' • . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: October 2. 1991 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER _FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION _POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY GRADING APPLICATION OF: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc. FOR: Traffic Study No. 77 DESCRIPTION: Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant. LOCATION: 4880 Campus Drive REPORT REQUESTED BY: October 14, 1991 COMMISSION REVIEW: October 24, 1991 COMMENTS: ;r///JJ-r ALL��y./6 A�0 ?1L.2 Signature: Date: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: October 2. 1991 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER _FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. —BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION _POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY _GRADING i APPLICATION OF: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc. FOR: Traffic Study No. 77 DESCRIPTION: Request- to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 3,822± square foot(gross)retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant. LOCATION: 4880 Campus Drive REPORT REQUESTED BY: October 14, 1991 COMMISSION REVIEW: October 24, 1991 COMMENTS: �IhS -fY� i� SDI °n W �S ie�ed ��yyeew�[[�w�i�. woo a any ti� 4i�r e. Y-a .��no�XX b2. t� o_e.✓ � Tp0 signature: Date: 7c$ 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: October 2, 1991 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER _FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION _POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY _GRADING APPLICATION OF: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc. FOR: Traffic Study No. 77 DESCRIPTION: Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4,188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant. LOCATION: 4880 Campus Drive REPORT REQUESTED BY: October 14, 1991 COMMISSION REVIEW: October 24, 1991 COMMENTS: Signature: Date: I �', ��e �'� . ..: ._... .. ,. - _...a .� .:u,,,s�•�-+.e�-!nan,a�Tiw,w.�- -�YCs't S e o Milk. � - REVISED - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Carl Karcher Ent. Inc. for Use Permit No. 3424 and Traffic Study No. 77 on property located at 4880 Campus Drive. Request to permit the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a proposed retail commercial building on property located in the 'Retail and Service"area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community The proposal also includes:, a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking: a request to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces for the take-out restaurant to be provided within the proposed drive-through lane within the facility: a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community so as to allow one ground identification sign which exceeds 4 feet in heiaht: a third wall identification logo: and two additional eround signs (menu signs) which contain 316± square feet each and also exceed 4 feet in height: and the approval of a Traffic Stuff so as to permit the construction of a 3.822± square foot (gross) retail building and a 4188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restaurant. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 7th day of November 1991. at the hour of 7.30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 210.78' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — M — — — — — — — lV — - - 19 EXIST. PARKING PARCEL AREA: 1 EXIST. ACCESS —�—► 59,996 SQ. FT. ^N EXIST. DRIVE — —�—> D/T SIGN m II II I 9 i 0 I � II I I 10® l i i RETAIL 1 3,822 S4. FT. O M I I I in =a > � co 00 U — I 70) U � I NEW PARKING I I � 0 •E I cTj El II I I I > i co d � v TRASH I 1 I ENCLOSURE - I I — -sheet title I I RO3 Q � DO NOT ENTER a 0• U SIGN Al I LLJ ij . 1 oo Li TRANSFORMER-- N O LLJ 0) 2 ' I I 4'-8" 4r_6 r U 00 2 li a 15' 26' 26' 12' 41'-6" 11' 30' D OW NEW PARKING I 1 a LLJ a I `EMI ¢ I m N Q mom F-• tY a^o w W a Y � z __. PICK-UP WINDOW U � Z z < > BIKE RACK W CASH WINDOW � leteet y 21 D/T SIGN I 1 6 w 00 FLAG POLE 0 5 O JraWn by---, ACCESS g ( R d1te6/ / N 1n ti� F.,r c afe C lzzz 4 date / bldg. dept. o Rp�s bid set - - — — — — — — N job number 145.65' — _ L = 02.06' 191- 84 . et number !J V 0 N K A R M A N A V E . JUL 1 1 1991 COOK DRAFTING SUPPLY 129116 , 1 210.78' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M - - - - - - - - - N 1A .� 19 � i-+ CC EXIST. PARKING PARCEL AREA: I EXIST. ACCESS T—> 159,996 SQ. FT• N EXIST. DRIVE D/T SIGN p L i 8 II 9 I • r ` ° a ® ® ® ® II II I I II II RETAIL I Z o M I .2 o 5.000 SQ. FT. J a:If a 04 C'7 I II fir NEW PARKING qt f� �! I U X E I W 4 Q.V II II ❑ - a) o d TRASH II ,• L � � ENCLOSURE I i C0 cz d c0 I I I I heet title DO NOT ENTER a R`:>' (� I SIGN �' _J I oG RO2S. 1 I ro _ ccI TRANSFORMER `a I I I " '• � N ♦ u7•r _ N. L1J 2' I I I f U I 15 26"' 15 2 I I 2 15. 26.4'- 8° 12' 41 . 6 4-6 11 30 N . . . u . O I I I �! • _ 5 v J II z NEW PARKING _ I 75 6 II 6 I I I M ® `� I r� (� 78 PARKING PICK-UP WINDOW SPACES I W V-� I BIKE RACK w CASH WINDOW I 21 D/T SIGN I N� �iv1,V' ��• e� A- � W 611111111108 a Y FLAG POLE 5 ❑ �O ❑ ~ EXIST. ACCESS 4 145.65' • R = 65' — — — — L = 102,06 drawn �iG• d 4 91 ♦ }l V 0 N K A R M A N A V E . scale date bldg. dept. bid set job number •sheet number yy,3 r CGOK DpAFTIKG SUPPLY 1.3791 ' ro c O 1 O 4 ® ® � 4 yq'1l, v b z C - C'7 cq co - ' QCCw 0) �r U Y O� t— ro ro • - -- -- - GCV•�'1� U X d' - — CO — - - - --- - i o C \ '� � lN - -- - - -- - - -- - — --- -- -- - - = Y � - Iwl ---�.� - — mow — -- - la_ I ro a co' heet title GPIs .1 •� • • ��' =7 f I ♦ d '� i4 • K{ w - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - --- — - - - - - - - - �I ( --- . ! .a [drawn by 6 dat 9fl, scale date bldg. dept. bid set job number sheet number COOK DRAFTING SUPPLY f/9J9{ .0 N c O. ------ 0 a ® ® ® z O EEO C/' CO � J�a > N Cr) Y W 0) T "t U U X E .. N O � d 1' t= .0 T • 1• Vo L O Cz: 7 TP�L C cz a c0 -sheet title----., 41I4L } � ►� II tl t .. �D QJ W IN W W it VCR -�MA9 - - �j 'a �' drawn '�y � ditto scale date bldg. dept. bid set job number J i11 j '; �_,,,a __ sheet number- ... . COOK DRAFTING SUPPLY 143394 i i. l • 1 .11 I4 � • O -_" -- \ -. ._ - . . \ 1. !' L VN7� IP . Cz ------ HFM77 � � J :ffiv) CO _ • •• • • • - ••. •• • ___ 1 U C �._.. _ 22 o .� old � I-= =- �N =_�� --- -- - - - --- - - - - - - --- ��. o c k ---- . heet-titl iL 1� I J I J--F I I I I I I I -I .I It t rda w4n by -- - scale date bldg. dept• bid set ' job number „ 19 � , g sheet-.number h I ti CODK DHAFTIND SUPPLY tINYs � '