No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS093 PLEASE SEE USE PERMIT File No. 3516 for Planning Commission and City Council staff reports, minutes, and correspondence. fob �am�ar�(t` I � Sharon L.Collins I Real Estate Representative Shareholder I McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Drive,Suite 800 I San Diego.CA 92122 Voice Mail:(6 9)552 8900,Box 270 %r FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 93, USE PERMIT NO. 3516 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 8, 1994 A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 2. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incor- porated into the proposed project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study,Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto and that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, it will not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 4. That no cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this project. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. That the findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease interceptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the City, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and 'Orange County Health Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light • �► spillage and,glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. B. TRAFFIC STUDY No. 93 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 'primay street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on one of the three study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the second and third intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3516 Findin¢s 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter walls around the parking areas will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed project includes perimeter landscaping which provides sufficient visual buffer of the on-site parking areas. 3. That adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding beach and residential areas or use the proposed drive-through facility. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the take-out restaurant facility. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3516 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. Said bathroom facilities shall be accessible to the handicapped. 3. That the development standard pertaining to parking lot walls shall be waived. 4. - That no pole identification sign shall be permitted on the site. However,a maximum of three wall identification signs, not exceeding 50 square feet each shall be permitted. One freestanding menu sign shall be permitted and shall not exceed 35 square feet. Special purpose directional signs shall not exceed 6 square feet each and shall not include the golden arches logo. One monument sign shall also be permitted as shown on the site plan. The sign shall be limited to an intermediate height of 4 feet and a maximum height of 5 feet at the peak of the sign. The lighting for the approved signs shall be low-intensity, and shall be turned off when the business closes. 5. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., sunday through Thursday and between•6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday. 6. That no outdoor loudspeaker or music system shall be permitted. 7. That the proposed parking lot lighting shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 20.72.090 of the Municipal Code, with the exception that the light standards may exceed a height of 10 feet if necessary. 8. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take-out restaurant facility is prohibited. 9. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building and the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. • • 10. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 11. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dba at the property lines. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 14. That a Parcel Map or Lot Line Adjustment as required by the Planning Department to combine the three parcels into one parcel shall be processed and recorded prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 15. 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. 16. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That the intersection of the private drives and Newport Boulevard be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. 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. That the proposed direction signs at the entrances be no higher than 24 inches above sidewalk grade or be relocated behind the sight distance plan line as shown in the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L. 18. That a ten (10) foot wide radius corner cutoff at the comer of Newport Boulevard (northbound) at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) at 28th Street be dedicated to the public. 19. That deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard(southbound)frontage and the 28th Street frontage. 'That curb,gutter and full width sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard (northbound) frontage and the unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb,gutter and sidewalk. That a curb access ramp be constructed at the comer of Newport Boulevard (southbound) and 28th Street per City Standard 181-L. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. • 0 21. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized 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. A traffic control plan .shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Newport Boulevard rights- of-way. 22. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 23. That the drive-thru facility shall be operated in such a manner that vehicles will not be allowed to block access driveways. This shall be monitored at all times by the applicants' representatives at the site. If back-ups occur, the incoming customers shall be directed to bypass the drive-up facility. If a traffic congestion problem occurs on Newport Boulevard related to the drive-up facility that is not immediately corrected,the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of this Use Permit. 24. That 28 parking spaces shall be provided on-site for the proposed restaurant in addition to the 8 vehicle stacking lane. 25. 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. Handicapped parking stalls shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide. 26. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 27. There are a total of eight parking meters on both sides of Newport Boulevard that will be impacted by the proposed project. All parking meter relocations shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall relocate/remove meters pursuant to a Public Works Encroachment Permit. 28. That the parking area shall be secured after closing hours every night by placing a chain across each of the access driveways. 29. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 30. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 31. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 32. That a trash removal program shall be developed by the applicant acceptable to the Planning Department. The program shall include provisions for cleaning the on-site parking area every 30 minutes for trash. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for regularly scheduled pick up in the area surrounding the restaurant bordered by West Ocean Front on the West, Lafayette Avenue on the East, 30th Street on the North, and 26th Street on the south. 33. That a manager shall periodically walk the on-site parking lot to insure that people do not loiter on the premises during all hours of operation. 34. That the applicant, at the sole discretion of the City, shall provide off-site parking for one or,all of its employees, at any time that the City so stipulates. 35. That the applicant shall fund a traffic signal at the intersection of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard(southbound)if it is warranted by a study, and that staff work out some type of reimbursement method with other developments as they occur. f.\wp51\bill-w\up\up3516FC.FIN f TY OF NEUORT BEACH • COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL Fs ti� August 8, 1994 INDEX addition of three theaters with a total of 897 seats to the Edward' Big Newport Cinemas; and e Acceptance of an Environm tal Document; and (b) Adopt Traffic Study N 94, a request to approve a tr fic study for the addition of th a theaters with a total of 897 eats to the Edwards' Big Newpo Cinemas; and (c) Approve Use rmit No. 1527 (Amended), sub at to the findings and conditi s of approval as recommende by the Planning Commissio , and I (a) Approv the off-site parking arra ement for the additional re red parking for the expanded t star complex, subject to the ndings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; and Motion x ) Approve Exception Permit No. 46, Ayes x x x x subject to the findings and Noes x conditions of approval as Abstained x x recommended by the Planning Commission. Council Member Hedges and Sansone resumed their seats at this time. 32. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing U/P 3516 regarding Appeal on the following: (88) A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 93 - Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed McDonald's take-out restaurant facility; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; and B. USE PERMIT NO. 3516 - Request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facility on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area (2807 Newport Boulevard). The proposal includes a building design with two exterior walk-up order windows, an enclosed ancillary eating area, and an outdoor eating area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow a ground identification sign and a ground mounted menu sign on the property, whereas the Sign Code allows only one. pole or ground sign per site; and the- use of the McDonald's logo on each of the six proposed directional signs. Report from Planning Department. Appeal application by Thomas E. Hyans, President on behalf of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, Balboa Peninsula Point Association, and Laith B. Ezzet. Volume 48 - Page 276 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL august a, 1994 INDEX Letters in favor from Arnold D. U/P 3516 Feuerstein and Allan Feinberg; and in opposition letters from Douglas M. Wood, Kent Stoddard, Ruth Hashell, Marion & John Salters, signed petitions from residents in the vicinity, and those collected by Dunes Marine Services. Letter from John & Betty Messmers addressing increased litter and environmental concerns. The City Clerk advised that after the printing of the agenda, five additional letters and a petition were received in opposition to the proposed McDonald's take-out restaurant. The Planning Director noted that this project was initially considered by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1994, went through a redesign and was subsequently approved by tha Planning Commission on June 23, 1994, subject to the Findings and Conditions located on Page 203 through 211 of the staff report. The vote was 4 ayes and 3 noes. This project is a drive-thru, walk-up, take-out, sit-down restaurant containing 1500 sq. ft. , on a .408 acre site located at 28th Street between the northbound and southbound lanes of Newport Boulevard. The issues raised at the public hearing centered on hours of operation, pole, ground and directional signs, litter control program, vehicular access and on-site and pedestrian circulation. The Planning Director also made mention that in 1991, the Planning Commission considered a request by McDonald's for a restaurant one block closer to the ocean and two blocks further out on the Peninsula. This project was substantially different from the project before the City Council at this time, and was subsequently denied by the Planning Commission on March 7, 1991. As to the intensity of the ,proposed use and other uses which could be constructed on the site, the Planning Director commented that the site contains 17,772 sq. ft. A restaurant on this site would be allowed a maximum of 5,331 sq. ft. The proposed use is. less than 1/3 of the permitted intensity. As to other retail or service commercial uses that might go on the site, the General Plan would allow a structure of 8,886 sq. ft. if a user can be found for the site. A building of this size would be over 5 times the size of the proposed building. The portion of the site which is vacant has been so for the past 25 years, and that portion of the site containing buildings has been used more recently by a florist and fishing supply store. Volume 48 - Page 277 (e'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH • s COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES August 8, 1994 INDEX ROLL CALL In response to questions raised by U/P 3516 Council Member Hedges regarding the Traffic Study for this project, Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer stated that the document focused on a typical weekday type operation, and the information that was gathered was done in conjunction with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance which showed that they did not anticipate any traffic problems during a typical weekday. He stated their concern is what might occur on Summer weekends because of increased traffic on the Peninsula; however, they could not do any traffic comparisons inasmuch as there is not another McDonald's at a similar location and the study began before Summer. He has reviewed the numbers in the Traffic Study and felt they were reasonable. In response to question raised by Council Member Debay, Mr. Edmonston stated that the new Super Cycle program for traffic signals on Newport Boulevard was jointly developed with CalTrans and was in operation every Saturday and Sunday during the Summer months; however, there have been some technical problems recently with software and the program will not be reactivated for approximately 60 days. The Super Cycle gives an additional 30 seconds of green light to traffic leaving the Peninsula over and above the basic signal time. Jerry King, representing McDonald's, walked the Council through the site by way of a slide presentation which showed: 1) proposed location, 2) other businesses in the area, 3) fast food restaurants in neighboring cities on Coast Highway, and 4) the original and revised plan. He stated that the McDonald's on Coast Highway across from the Balboa Bay Club is twice as large as that being proposed.p He also submitted three letters in suport of the project from Douglas Salisbury, property owner on the Peninsula, Louis Masotti, resident of Cannery Village, and Rush Hill, 115 22nd Street. In conclusion, Mr. King urged that the Council sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the request of McDonald's. Tom Hyans, President, Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association, addressed the Council in opposition to this project. He displayed an aerial photo of Cannery Village/McFadden Square and pointed out the residential areas in relation to the proposed McDonald's. He read a lengthy prepared statement citing a number of reasons for opposing the project, i.e. , additional traffic, pedestrian safety, litter problems; noise, employee parking, walk-in patrons, etc. He commented he did not feel McDonald's would be good for this area; that there are better uses for Volume 48 - Page 278 CITY OF NMORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ssk. ROLL CRLL August s. 1994 INDEX island properties of this type; and .that U/P 3516 the proposed project is "worse" than the project proposed by McDonald's three years ago. In conclusion, he urged the Council to overrule the decision of 'the Planning Commission and deny the request. The following persons also addressed the Council in opposition to McDonald's proposal, citing many of the same concerns as the above speaker: Douglas Boyd, 2101 E. Balboa Boulevard, representing Balboa Peninsula Point Association Ed Ruzak, 10061 Talbert, Fountain Valley, Traffic Consultant hired by group of residents in the subject area who spoke on safety and circulation elements that should have been addressed in the Traffic Study Laith Ezzet, 2700 Newport Boulevard Marlynne Stoddard, 2700 Newport Boulevard Bill Shaver, 127 Via Nice Bill Cook, 2600 Newport Boulvard Carol Clark, 203 28th Street Roger Etherington, 2700 Newport Boulevard Joe Catron, 215 28th Street Philip J. Perota, Health Activist Dale Coons, 122 28th Street George Eggerton, 112 27th Street Mary and Gary A. Deperine, 2700 Newport Boulvard Richard Luehrs, President, Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council and spoke in favor of the proposed McDonald's stating that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and meets or exceeds all traffic and parking requirements; the plan is of a unique and quality design so that it will be of benefit to the area by having superior landscaping and an attractive one-of a- kind building to help improve the aesthetics of a currently blighted area; the concerns of adequate pedestrian flow have been adequately addressed by the Planning staff; the project will bring needed revenue to the City; and this project is being proposed by someone we all know who has been a good corporate neighbor. Additional individuals as follows also spoke in support of the proposed request indicating the design of the structure fits the local area; McDonald's has committed itself to many details imposed by the Planning Commission; and McDonald's has an excellent reputation for serving the community: Roy Jackson, owner of property on 31st Street Carlo Mione, 42 Seton Road Joe Belden, Newport Beach resident Shirley Phillips, 1420 W. Ocean Front (displayed photographs of the subject property being used as a parking lot on weekends) Volume 48 - Page 279 (off OF NEUORT BEACH • i COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CFLL Fs oy� August 8, 1994 INDEX Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa U/P 3516 Russ Fluter, 25 W. Balboa Boulevard Jerry King addressed the Council again and noted the following: 1) one of the problems with the ordinal plan in 1991 was a gross lack of parking, and as a result, is the reason for the new site; 2) there will only be six employees working at the site at one time because of the size of the building, 3) the proposed site is in a commercial area and always has been designated as such; and 4) and health and environmental issues are being recognized by McDonald's and they lead the industry in terms of addressing this subject. Tom Hyans spoke in rebuttal and stated he felt that McDonald's will not bring more business to the area or more revenue to the City as thought by some people, and the reason to deny the project is traffic and the lack of a good internal circulation plan. Hearing no others addressing the Council, the public hearing was closed. In response to question raised by Mayor Turner regarding traffic accidents on the Peninsula, the Traffic Engineer commented that accident statistics up and down Balboa Boulevard show that there is no one concentrated location where accidents occur more frequently.If it is felt that a traffic signal is warranted for the intersection of 28th Street and Balboa or Newport Boulevard, the estimated cost would be between $85,000 and $90,000. Motion x Council Member Hedges indicated he still had valid questions regarding the Traffic Study for this project, and sufficient enough to make a motion to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny this request in accordance with the Findings for Denial as shown in Exhibit "B" of the staff report. Motion x Mayor Turner spoke against the above motion stating he walked this vicinity over the week-end and felt that something has to be done to "turn the area around", and in view of McDonald's excellent reputation which he felt would bring some stabilization to the area, he moved a substitute motion to sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the request (Traffic Study No. 93 and use Permit No. 3516) in accordance with the Findings for Approval as shown in Exhibit "A" of the staff report. Included in his motion, he added another condition that would require the applicant, at the sole discretion of the City, to provide off- site parking for one or all of its employees, at any time that the City so stipulates. Volume 48 - Page 280 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC� COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES A\9 ROLL CALL august 8, 1994 INDEX Council Member Cox spoke in support of U/P 3516 the substitute motion in view of the blighted area and indicated he felt the project will be an economic vital asset to the City. Council Member Debay noted that because of the four public hearings before the Planning Commission on this issue, this project has changed greatly to fit into this neighborhood; McDonald's has a reputation for winning awards for the cleanest restaurant site in town on Coast Highway; she has also walked the area and is concerned with pedestrian safety, and therefore, suggested Mayor Turner amend his motion to require McDonald's to install a traffic signal at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard if warranted. Mr. King stated that the applicant is willing to provide employee off-street parking if deemed necessary by the City. With regard to signalization, he suggested the Traffic Engineer take a look at this area with respect to the warrants as he felt it would be very expensive for the applicant to provide a traffic signal for a 1500 sq. ft. restaurant. He also suggested that possibly other future projects that will be forthcoming into the area could share in that cost. Discussion ensued wherein Mr. King addressed the Council again and stated that the applicant is willing to finance the traffic signal (based on warrants), if there could be some type of sliding scale of reimbursement based on total square footage of redevelopment that comes into the area. Mayor Pro Tom Watt spoke against the substitute motion because of increased pedestrian traffic on Balboa and Newport Boulevards, particularly on weekends.. She stated that she does agree that something has to be done to improve the blighted area, but feels that McDonald's will only add more congestion to this neighborhood. Council Member Hart stated she did not feel this was a bad project, and there are good aspects of it; however, no one knows an area better than the people that live there as evidenced by ,the public testimony and correspondence received; therefore, she will support the original motion. Council Member Hedges stated he is a proponent of revitalization on the Peninsula; however, the subject island property needs more .than a high- intensity restaurant on that site. He also felt that the City needs to take a comprehensive approach to solving the circulation problem in the area prior to approving any projects at this location, and urged the Council to support his motion denying the request. Volume 48 - Page 281 f TY OF NMORT BEACH 1p COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL August 8, 1994 INDEX Mayor Turner amended his substitute motion to include the requirement that McDonald's fund a traffic signal at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard if it is warranted by study, and that staff work out some type of reimbursement method with other developments as they occur. Ayes x x x x The substitute motion, as amended, was Noes x x x voted on and carried. Mayor Turner opened the public -hearing Marine regarding report from Revenue Manager, Charter Finance Department for a proposed Tax Ordinance to establish a MARINE CHARTER (40) TAX, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 3.32 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A MARINE CHARTER TAX. The ty Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was receiv from Catalina Passenger Service in o o tion to the proposed Ordinance. The City Manager reported that the subject pr posal has been given a great deal of th ght by the staff, and that a number of eetings over the past year have been he not only with the Budget Committee, b with the charter boat industry as 11. As a result, the original prop al has been changed significantly. Glen Everroad, Revenue Manager, addressed the Coun 1 and summarized the background connecte with this issue as enumerated in his report noting as follows: "In 1993, this Ha bor realized the fifth year of gro h in the number of charter p ssengers by accommodating over 0,000 charter guests brought to t wn by the 88 businesses providi g charter services in the City. "At the Budget C ittee's request, a comparison of he level of contribution made by t marine charter industry in other California harbors was cc ucted and is included with the s ff's report. This survey reveale that Newport Beach is the only he bor south of San Francisco of imposing a fee or tax on char r operations. The range of tax fees collected by the agencie surveyed is from $1 each time a passenger crosses the dock in Avalon to 14% of the gross revenues in the Port of Long Beach. Volume 48 - Page 282 * CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES s � August 8, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX "In each of the jurisdictions Marine surveyed, a portion of this 'rent' Charter payment is provided to the general Tax fund to support the public safety and infrastructure services provided by the city or county in which they operate. Like these jurisdictions, the proposed tax will be used to defray the costs of providing the general fund financed 'police, fire and infrastructure services that make Newport Harbor a more popular charter destination each year. "The Ordinance before the Council bases the tax on the ticket price paid by the passenger. There would be no tax on passengers paying a ticket price less than $26. Those paying between $26 and $50 would pay $.50 and those Ming more than $50 would pay 00. "In the sample charter comparison with other harbors surveyed, the proposed tax would be half the cost of the cheapest agency surveyed. "In response to a recommendation from local charter businesses and the -Chamber of Commerce to level the playing field and encourage the use of in-town vessels, a surcharge for each charter using an 'out-of-town' vessel is proosed. The surcharge proposed y tphe Chamber is included in the proposed Ordinance. Staff is also requestingCouncil's consideration of an exemption for passengers of the Harbor's Sportfishing operators. Committees reviewing the proposed tax presented their concerns for protecting the declining, number of sportfishing and whale watching operations. Committee members and portions of the industry have argued that sportfishing and whale watching represent a unique historical aspect of this harbor and should be protected. The proposed tax structure effectively exempts whale watching passengers by not imposing a tax on the first $25 of ticket prices. The ticket prices on 3/4 day and overnight sportfishing would still subject this portion of sportfishing to the tax. Staff recommends Council exempt all sportfishing passengers from the tax. "The Ordinance under consideration proposes to exempt any existing contracts through June 30, 1995. Staff also recommends adding an exemption, not included in the Ordinance before the Council, for Catalina Passenger Service passengers until the service has Volume 48 - Page 283 k • City Council Mong August 8. 1994 Item No. .2A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning'Department 691�_ SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study No. 93 Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed McDonald's take-out restaurant facility; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B._Use Permit No. 3516 Request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facility on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal includes a building design with two exterior walk-up order windows, an enclosed ancillary eating area, and an outdoor eating area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow a ground identification sign and a ground mounted menu sign on the property, whereas the Sign Code allows only one pole or ground sign per site; and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the six proposed directional signs, LOCATION: Lots 11 and 12, Block 227, Section A, and Record of Survey 76-46, located at 2807 Newport Boulevard, on the northerly side of 28th Street, between Newport Boulevard (northbound) and Newport Boulevard (southbound), in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: McDonald's Corporation, San Diego OWNER: Bedford Road, Inc., Irvine APPELLANTS: Central Newport Beach Community Association, Balboa Peninsula Point Association, and Laith B. Ezzet ------------------- TO: Mayor and City Council -2. Applications These applications involve a request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facility on property located in the "Retail.and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal includes a building design with two,exterior walk-up order windows, an enclosed ancillary eating area, and an outdoor eating area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow a ground identification sign and a ground mounted menu.sign on the property,whereas-the Sign.Code allows only one pole or ground sign per site; and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the six proposed directional signs. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 and traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15AO of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify, or overrule the Planning Commission's approval of Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516. Planning Commission Action At its meeting of June 23, 1994, the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes, 3 Noes) to approve Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516. The action of the Planning Commission was taken with the findings and the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated June 23, 1994. Background This item was originally considered by the Planning Commission at its meetings of April 7, 1994; however, because of questions raised.bythe Commission concerning the traffic study and their desire to have the consulting traffic engineer appear at the public hearing, the item was continued to May 19, 1994. As a result of changes made to the project by the applicant, this matter was again continued to June 9, 1994 and finally to June,23, 1994, at which time the project was approved by the Commission. On July 7, 1994, the City Clerk received'an appeal application relative to the subject applications. As a result of the discussion at the April 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant made various changes to the project which are set forth in the May 26, 1994 letter from the applicant. A copy of the letter is included in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated June 23, 1994. It should also be noted that the above description of the project,as well as the description in the Planning Commission staff report,indicates that the . • TO: Mayor and City Council -3. project includes an outdoor eating area; however, the applicant has deleted the outdoor eating area from the project due to insufficient parking. Revised Hours of Operation The applicant originally requested to be open from 6:00 am. to 2:00 a.m. every night of the week during the summer season and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday during the off season. In response to concerns from surrounding homeowners and residents, the applicant reduced the proposed hours of operation slightly. However,in conjunction with their approval of the subject project, the Planning Commission further reduced the hours of operation to those suggested by staff. The following table sets forth the original, revised and approved hours of operation for the facility. Summer Season Off Season Sun. - Thur. Fri. & Sat. Sun. - Thur. Fri. & Sat, Original 6:OOam-2:OOam 6:OOam-2:OOam 6:OOam-12:00 6:OOam-2:OOam midnight Revised 6:OOam-12:00 6:00am-1:OOam 6:OOam-11:OOpm 6:OOam-12:00 midnight midnight Approved 6:OOam-10:00pm 6:OOam-12:00 6:00am-10:00pm• 6:OOam-12:00 midnight midnight Proposed Identification Signs The or project included three,50 square foot wall identification signs and two,25 foot high pole identification signs. In response to concerns expressed by the nearby homeowners and residents, the applicant deleted the pole identification signs from the project and proposed a single ground identification sign at the northeasterly comer of Newport-Beach Boulevard (southbound) and 28th Street. The proposed ground sign contained 54t square feet and a maximum height of 8 feet. In conjunction with its approval of the project, the Planning Commission allowed the ground identification sign but limited the sign to a maximum height of 5 feet and an area of 25 square feet. The Planning Commission also did not allow the golden arches logo to be included on the on-site directional signs. Proposed Litter Control Area The applicant's proposal for litter control included on-site trash pick-up every 30 minutes TO: Mayor and City Council -4. and a daily off-site trash pick-up covering a one block radius around the restaurant site. It was the Planning Commission's opinion that such a program would not be sufficient, inasmuch as .the restaurant would be drawing customers from a greater distance, and therefore .create the potential for increased litter in a larger area. For this reason, the Planning Commission increased the off-site trash pick-up area to include the area bounded by West Ocean Front on the west, Lafayette Avenue on the east, 30th Street on the north, and 26th Street on the south. In addition, the applicant will be required to prepare a trash removal program which will be subject to the Planning Department's approval. Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation According to the vehicular circulation analysis prepared by the consulting traffic engineer, the on-site circulation and vehicular access to the site will operate adequately except that the design of the proposed drive-through lane could have situations when the four car queue behind the order window would be exceeded by one and sometimes two cars. However,the City Traffic Engineer stated at the Planning Commission meeting, that should the order window queue be exceeded during peak hours of operation, an employee could go further back into the queue to take orders and thereby increase the efficiency of the drive-through lane and eliminate any blockage of the driveway or encroachment into the public right-of- way. Based on this opportunity, the City Traffic Engineer indicated that there was a reasonably good chance that the queue problem could be solved if it occurred. A full analysis of the vehicular circulation is provided on Pages 24-30 in the attached traffic study. Pedestrian Circulation According the pedestrian circulation analysis prepared by the consulting traffic engineer,the non-summer and peak summer pedestrians traffic volumes for the proposed'project will not unduly interrupt vehicular traffic volumes on either West Balboa Boulevard or Newport Boulevard (southbound). This conclusion was based on an expected pedestrian volume during the non-summer, peak noon hour period of 12 persons and 38 persons during the peak summer season. It was further assumed that,these individuals would probably cross in groups of 2 to 3 persons which would result in 6 groups of pedestrians crossing West Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard-(southbound)during the non-summer season and 13 to 19 groups during the summer season. These pedestrian volumes were not considered to be a significant problem for the area. A full analysis of the pedestrian circulation is provided on Pages 33 and 34 in the attached traffic study. 28th Street Marina Disclosure Statement During the Planning Commission public hearing, there were letters and testimony given to the Commission, which indicated that the people who had purchased condominiums in the 28th Street Marina project had not been given adequate disclosure that a McDonalds • TO: Mayor and City Council -5. Restaurant would be constructed across the street from their residences. In response to this testimony,the applicant has provided for the City Council's consideration,excerpts from the sales agreements, (copy attached) which were used for the 28th Street Marina project. Although a McDonalds Restaurant is not specifically mentioned in the disclosure statements, there are statements which inform the purchaser of the potential for future development in the area and that the seller is not guaranteeing that such development will not affect the 28th Street Marina project. Respectively submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By "W. lliam Ward ` Senior Planner Attachment: Copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 23, 1994 with attachments Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated June 23, 1994 Additional letter of support Additional petition and letters of opposition 28th Street Marina Disclosure Statements Site Plan, Floor Plan, Blue line Elevations and Colored Elevations „ • �► Planning Commission Meeting _June 23. 1994 Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study No. 93 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed McDonald's take-out restaurant facility; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3516 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facility on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial” area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal includes a building design with two exterior walk-up order windows, an enclosed ancillary eating area, and an outdoor eating area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow a ground identification sign and a ground mounted menu sign on the property, whereas the Sign Code allows only one pole or ground sign per site; and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the six proposed directional signs. LOCATION: Lots 11 and 12, Block 227, Section A, and Record of Survey 76-46, located at 2807 Newport Boulevard, on the northerly side of 28th Street, between Newport Boulevard (northbound) and Newport Boulevard (southbound), in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: McDonald's Corporation, San Diego OWNER: Bedford Road, Inc., Irvine Application These applications involve a request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facility on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal includes a building � � \ a.• fit.. q TO: Planning Commission - 2. design with two exterior walk-up order windows, an enclosed ancillary eating area, and an outdoor eating area. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces; a modification to the Sign Code so,as to allow a ground identification sign and aground mountedmenu sign on the property,whereas the Sign Code allows only one pole or ground sign per site; and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the six proposed directional signs. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 and traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Background This item was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of April 7, 1994 so as to allow the City Traffic Engineer and the consulting traffic engineer to appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions related to the traffic analysis associated with the subject project. The item was again continued from the May 19, 1994 and June 9, 1994 Planning Commission meetings, so as to allow revisions to the ,traffic study that resulted from changes in the project made by the applicant. Staff has attached an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated April 7, 1994. Since the April 7, 1994 continuance, the applicant has made various changes to the project which are set forth in the attached letter from the applicant and discussed below. It should be noted that the above description of the project, as set forth in the revised public notice, indicates that the project includes an outdoor eating area; however, the applicant has deleted the outdoor eating area from the project due to insufficient parking. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is comprised of three existing lots, two of which are currently developed with commercial buildings and the third which is undeveloped and vacant. To the north is a commercial building; to the east across Newport Boulevard (northbound) is the El Ranchito Restaurant; to the south, across 28th Street is the Sail Inn Motel; and to the west, across Newport Boulevard (southbound) is a Municipal Parking Lot with residential uses beyond. - nvir i ifi n Environmental l o a S gn ca ce In accordance with the California Environmental Act CE A .the State CEQA Guidelines and CityCouncil Policy K 3, an Initial Stud has been prepared for the proposed project. cY Y P P Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's information. 0 TO: Planning Commission - 3. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' uses. The subject project is a permitted use within this designation. In addition, the Land Use Element of the General Plan specifics a land use intensity limit of 0.3 FAR for take-out restaurant uses on the subject property. Based on this requirement,the allowable Development Allocation for the site is 5,331± square feet (17,772± sq.ft. x 0.3 = 5,331± sq.ft.). As indicated on the attached plans, the proposed project includes a gross floor area of 1,500 square feet; therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Revised Hours of Operation As indicated in the attached letter from the applicant, they are proposing to reduce the hours of operation during the summer months from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday(previously 6:00 a.m.to 2:00 a.m.); and from 6:00 am. to 1:00 a.m.Friday and Saturday (previously 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.). During the off season the proposed hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday (previously 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight) and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday (previously 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.). The applicant also indicates in the letter that the proposed hours of operation are more limited than those of other restaurants in the surrounding area. Although this may be true, there are no other restaurants in the area that have outdoor order windows and a drive through facility as proposed by the applicant. Notwithstanding other concerns regarding the subject project,staff continues in its opinion that the closing time for the take- out restaurant should be 10:00 p.m.Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday. Staff has no objections to the proposed 6:00 a.m. opening. Drive Through Speaker Noise In response to concerns from nearby residents, the applicant has eliminated the intercom order system used in conjunction with the drive-through facility. All drive-through food orders will be made by direct, face to face communication so as to reduce the possibility of nighttime noise problems. Litter Control On Page 8 of the original Planning Commission staff report,staff discussed the issue of litter control in conjunction with restaurants and take-out restaurant uses on the Balboa Peninsula. In addition, a letter from the City Manager was included,which suggested that if the Planning Commission wished to require an annual fee for litter control, that the TO: Planning Commission-4. applicant be required to pay an annual fee of $14,824.00 for the purpose of funding a portion of the City's litter control program which is conducted through the Summer Youth Employment Program. In response to this suggestion, the applicant has indicated in their attached letter that McDonald's will coordinate trash removal with the local Surfrider Agency to help coordinate the facilitation of organizing other businesses to broaden the circumference of the beach front clean up program that currently exists. McDonald's will also check the on-site parking area every 30 minutes for trash. In addition, litter will be picked up within a one block radius of the restaurant, including the area surrounding the 28th Street Marina Complex. It should be noted that at the April 7, 1994 public hearing, Commissioner Ridgeway requested that the applicant submit a written proposal for litter control as described by the applicant's consultant at the public hearing. To date,the only information submitted to staff regarding the applicant's proposed litter control program, are the two sentences set forth in Item No. 3 of the applicant's attached letter. In considering the information submitted by'the applicant, it is noted that at the previous public hearing, the applicant's representative indicated that McDonald's spends approximately $16,380.00 per employee per year for their existing.clean-up program. As described in this case,the existing/proposed clean-up program is to cover a one block radius around the restaurant site. In contrast, the litter control program suggested by the General Services Director would be $17,412.00 per employee per year, but would cover the area from the bay to the ocean and 32nd Street to the Newport Pier. Although the City's program is slightly more expensive, the coverage is considerably greater than that proposed by the applicant. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject project,the Commission may desire to add the following condition to the attached Exhibit W. That the applicant shall pay an annual fee to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of$34,824.00, for the purpose of funding a portion of the City's litter control program conducted through Summer Youth Employment Program. The dollar amount noted in this condition shall be increased automatically based on any interim increase in the Consumer Price Index (the Los Angeles -Long Beach and Anaheim Index) and this automatic increase shall be calculated and become effective July 1, 1994 and thereafter, on.July 1 of each Fiscal Year for which the Consumer Price Index changes. Exterior Architecture In response to concerns regarding the proposed.architecture of the building(Classic Design), which included large illuminated arches, the applicant has revised the architectural design of the structure to be more compatible with the existing architecture of the 28th Street Marina Project. The applicant has submitted the attached colored elevations which set forth the new architecture and color scheme for the project,which the applicant describes as Cape Cod. TO: Planning Commission - 5. Proposed Signagg The applicant's original proposal included two, twenty-five foot high pole signs, each containing 100 square feet each,three wall signs containing 50 square feet each; a 35 square foot drive-through menu board; and five special purpose directional signs which contain 6 square feet each and include the golden arches logo. The proposed sign program remains the same with the exception that the two pole signs have been eliminated, and a new 52 square footmonument sign is proposed at the southwesterly comer of the site. As indicated in the attached sign elevation, the proposed monument sign will be 7 feet 8 inches wide and 6 feet high, with a 2 foot peak, for a total height of 8 feet. It should be noted that in a majority of the commercial Planned Communities within the City, monument signs are limited to a height of 4 feet in order to insure that such signs maintain a low profile and are easily integrated into the landscaping design. In light of this requirement, it is suggested that the proposed monument sign be limited to an intermediate height of 4 feet, a maximum height of 5 feet at the peak of the sign and an area of 25 square feet. Should the Planning Commission agree with this suggestion, the following additional wording should be added to Condition No. 4 in the attached Exhibit "A": That the height of the proposed monument sign shall be limited to an intermediate height of 4 feet and a maximum height of 5 feet at the peak of the sign. The area of the sign shall not exceed 25 square feet. The Public Works Department is also suggesting that the special purpose directional signs be limited to a height of 24 inches, or they should be move back so as not to encroach into the required sight distance triangles at each of the three driveways. Staff has included such a condition in the attached Exhibit "A". ,Sight Plan Changes As indicated in the applicant's letter, the floor plan of the restaurant has been revised so as to provide direct access to the public restrooms from the interior dining area. However, in order to make this change the gross floor area of the building has increased from 1,366 square feet to 1,500 square feet. The applicant has also redesigned the drive-through lane along 28th Street to incorporate a minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter which will be planted with a minimum 3 foot high hedge so as to screen the headlights of automobiles using the drive-through lane. The new design of the drive-through lane has reduced the stacking capacity from nine automobiles to eight. The applicant has also added a 6 foot high masonry block wall along the northerly property line as previously suggested by staff. Said wall has been designed to step down as it approaches each of the adjoining streets so as to meet the City's sight distance Standard 110-L 1 h h H TO: Planning Commission- 6. Revised Traffic Studv A revised traffic study has been prepared based on the information and assumptions set forth in the Executive Summary, beginning on page i of the attached traffic study. Automobile and-pedestrian trip volumes were based'on hourly sales transaction data for the West Coast Highway McDonald's and the Santa Monica McDonald's, in relationship to specific ratios of walk-up to drive-up customers. During the peak summer months, these ratios are 55% drive-through, 15% walking/biking, and 30% arrive by car. The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table "A" (page ii) of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for.the trip generation forecasts is set.forth on Page 7 of the traffic study. The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the•City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the following three intersections which could be affected by the proposed project: 1. Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street 2. Newport Boulevard and Via Lido• 3. West Coast Highway and West Balboa Boulevard at Superior Avenue The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent 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 one percent of the projected 2V2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the three intersections, the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-1/2 hour morning and afternoon peak traffic on the first two intersections, and was less than 1% onthe third intersection. Therefore,.an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis was prepared for each of these intersections. As indicated in Table 4, located on Page 19 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values, during the A.M. and P.M. peak for these two intersections did not exceeded 0.90. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersections and that the project is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Drive-In and Outdoor Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code was adopted in 1967 by the City in order to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to review any proposed take-out restaurant through the use permit procedure. Development standards were established for take-out restaurants so as to insure that such facilities would be aesthetically compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards are set forth in,Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code and include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking, traffic circulation, walls surrounding the take-out restaurant site,landscaping, r� TO: Planning Commission - 7. parking lot illumination,signing,underground utilities and storage. The projects compliance with these development standards are discussed in the following sections. Pedestrian Circulation Inasmuch as the proposed project is in the vicinity of the public beach but somewhat removed from the beach itself, staff has had some concern on the amount of pedestrian traffic that would be generated by the proposed project and its potential impact on traffic circulation and pedestrian safety. In order to address these concerns, staff requested the consulting traffic engineer to analyze the expected pedestrian traffic from the project. A full discussion of said analysis is contained on Page 21-23 of the attached traffic study which is summarized as follows: Non-Summer Pedestrians It is expected that the highest volume of project related pedestrian traffic during the off season will occur between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. on any week day and will be 30 pedestrian trips. Of these 30 pedestrian trips, 18 are expected to originate from the area north of the restaurant site, and 12 are expected from the beach area. Assuming that these pedestrians walk in groups of 2 to 3 persons, there will be no more than 6 groups of pedestrians traveling between the beach and the proposed restaurant during the peak 1 hour period. Inasmuch as the beach going customers will cross West Balboa Boulevard and the southbound leg of Newport Boulevard in the vicinity of 28th Street,both of which do not include traffic signals, crossing will be unassisted and will require a minimum traffic breaks of at least 8.5 seconds. Traffic breaks on West Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard '(southbound) during the peak 1 hour period were calculated at approximately 10.7 seconds. Based on these assumptions, the consulting traffic engineer concludes that the non-summer pedestrian traffic will not unduly interrupt traffic volumes on either West Balboa Boulevard or Newport Boulevard (southbound). Peak Summer Pedestrians It is expected that the highest volume of project related pedestrian traffic during the peak summer period will occur between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. on the weekend and will be approximately 51 pedestrians. Of these 51 pedestrian trips, 13 are expected to originate from the area north of the'restaurant site, and 38 are expected from the beach area. Assuming groups-of 2 to 3 persons,there will be approximately 13 to 15 groups of pedestrians traveling between the beach and the proposed restaurant, during the peak 1 hour period. That means one group every 4 to 6 minutes in each direction of travel. The consulting traffic engineer again concludes that such a volume of pedestrian traffic will not unduly interrupt traffic volumes on either West Balboa Boulevard or Newport Boulevard (southbound). TO: Planning Commission- 8. With regards to the issue of.pedestrians crossing Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (southbound) at the unsignalized intersections at 28th Street,, the consulting traffic engineer has estimated that 19 (509o')of these journeys would cross at a signalized intersection between 28th Street and McFadden Square;whereas the remaining 19 trips would cross at 28th Street. In -response to the previous concerns regarding pedestrian safety and traffic circulation relative to the number of customers coming from the beach area, the consulting traffic engineer has provided a further analysis beginning on Page 35 of the traffic study. The conclusion of this analysis is that the number of pedestrians crossing the streets in the vicinity of the site is not unduly large and that the existing traffic gaps on Newport Boulevard(southbound)and Balboa Boulevard are sufficient to insure that the expected number pedestrian crossing these streets will not create any significant problems. 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 unless modified or waived by the Planning Commission. Based on the proposed 1,500± sq. ft. of gross floor area and 6 employees, 36 parking spaces are required for the proposed take-out restaurant (1,500t sq.fL + 50 sq.ft. = 30 spaces + 6 employee spaces = 36 spaces). Proposed Off-Street Parking As indicated on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing 28 parking spaces within the project. In addition,the-applicant is requesting parking credit for the 8 vehicle stacking lane in conjunction with the drive-through facility, for a total of 36 parking spaces. It should be noted that the Planning Commission has granted similar parking credits for drive-through facilities associated with take-out restaurants on the basis that drive-through facilities reduce the number of walk-up orders and therefore reduce the overall parking demand. It should also be noted that staff requested that a parking demand study be prepared as part of the traffic analysis for the subject project. The parameters on which the parking demand estimates were made are set"forth on Page 31 of the attached traffic study. The conclusion is that the actual parking demand during the non-summer weekday,peak hour period will be 17 vehicles assuming a 12 to 15 minute eating time and the need for employee parking spaces. Under the worst case condition, if the average eating time were doubled to 30 minutes, the total parking demand would be 23 spaces which is still less than the 28 parking spaces provided. Based on this analysis, it appears the proposed off-street parking will be adequate for the proposed use. • �3 . 1 0 TO: Planning Commission - 9. Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation As shown on the attached site plan, there are two entrances and two exits proposed for the site. The most southerly entrance is on the southbound leg of Newport Boulevard and will be a 15 feet wide "Entry Only." The second entry is from the northbound,leg of Newport Boulevard and is part of a 26 foot wide two-way entry/exit driveway. The second exit is on the southbound leg of Newport Boulevard and will be a 15 foot wide "Exit Only" driveway. With this driveway configuration, each leg of Newport Boulevard is provided equal access to both,the drive-through lane and to all of the on-site parking. The applicant has also noted that the proposed driveway locations are based on coordination and input from the City Traffic Engineer. It is also noted that the applicant has, at the request of the Planning Commission, marked the location of each proposed driveway on the site. The markings are made with paint and are located on the inside edge of the sidewalk for Commission review. As indicated previously,the drive-through lane has been redesigned so as to provide stacking for eight cars. In addition, the applicant intends to utilize a face-to-face approach to placing order,which will minimize the misunderstanding of customer orders that occur through the microphone and thereby shorten the customer waiting time as well as the car queues within the drive-through facility. As shown on the attached site plan, there is 4 car stacking between the pick-up window and the order window as well as between the order window and the end of the stacking lane. In order to determine if the proposed stacking lane is sufficient to handle expected queues, staff requested that two comparable McDonald's Restaurants be surveyed. The representatives of the McDonald's Corporation selected the restaurants in Rancho Cucamonga and La Verne as comparable locations. The methodology and results of the survey are set forth on Pages 25-27 of the attached traffic study. Recognizing that it is impossible to forecast the exact number of car queues and the frequency of each queue category unless a similar facility, with a similar surrounding environment is available to survey, the consulting traffic engineer concludes that it is reasonable to say that there will be no queues of 7 or 8 cars behind the ordering station at the proposed facility; 5 car queues are possible and 6 car queues are expected only during a surge. Because of the rather limited distance between the proposed "Face-to-Face" window and Newport Boulevard,measures must be implemented in order to eliminate 6 car queues, inimi�e 5 car queues, and'limit the majority of queues to a maximum of 4 cars. Staff has discussed this issue with the applicant and they indicated that when the car queues between the order window and the end of the stacking lane are exceeded, they intend to provide a person to control the traffic and prevent cars from blocking the driveway and backing into the public right-of-way. The applicant further indicated that this is the procedure used at the existing McDonald's on West Coast Highway. However, it is staffs opinion that if the project is reasonably expected to generate car queues thatwill exceed the available stacking, the project should be redesigned accordingly, or denied. i TO: Planning Commission- 10. Proposed Landsoaoin¢ Section 20.72.080 of the Zoning Code requires that a minimum of 10 percent of the site area, or 1,777 square feet be provided in landscaping. As indicated on the attached plans, the applicant is providing 2,760 square feet of landscaping within the project,,or 15.5 percent of the site. Site Security In past years, the,City of Newport Beach Police Department has reported to the Planning Commission regarding the recurrent problems with customers and visitors congregating and loitering in the parking lots of the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant at the comer of West Coast Highway and West Balboa Boulevard and the Carl's Jr.Restaurant at the comer of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Although the Police Department has indicated that loitering at these locations is not currently a problem, the potential for these problems to reoccur in the previous locations, as well as at any new take-out restaurant site, is a very real possibility. In an attempt to alleviate this problem, the applicant has indicated that they require that a Certified Manager periodically walk the parking lot to insure that people are not loitering on the premisses. However, considering the late night hours of operation proposed by the applicant, the Planning Commission may wish to consider requiring a uniform security guard on the site after 10:00 p.m. Such a requirement will provide a greater security presence on the site as well as a greater degree of noise control during the late night hours. It is also suggested that the applicant be required to secure the on-site parking area every night by placing a chain across each of the access driveways, to insure that people will not have the opportunity to park and loiter on the site after the restaurant closes. Staff has included such a condition in the attached Exhibit W; however, no other requirement for site security has been included. Parking Lot Lighting In accordance with Section20.72.090, all parking areas within a restaurant site are required to provided, security lighting. The lighting system is to be designed to .n;mm;�e the reflection of light to streets and properties adjoining the restaurant site. As indicated on the site plan, and perspective in the attached brochure the applicant is providing the required parking lot lighting. It should also be noted that the attached Negative Declaration,includes a mitigation measure which requires that the lighting be designed and maintained in such a manner to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential properties. 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 TO: Planning Commission - 11. welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Chapter 15A0 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. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny these applications, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT James D. Hewicker, Director B11 4W. illiam Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Letter from applicant Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated April 7, 1994 Letter from City Manager Regarding Litter Control Revised Traffic Study Petition and Letters of Support Letters of Opposition Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations ��4 TO: Planning Commission- 12. EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO: 939 USE PERMIT NO. 3516 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT in in 1. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 2. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incor- porated into the proposed project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study,Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto and that if the mitigationmeasures are incorporated into the project, it will not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 4. That no cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this project. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. That the findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the action taken on Traffic Study No. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease interceptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the City, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and Orange County Health Department. 4r TO: Planning Commission - 13. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. B. TRAFFIC STUDY No 93 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified; or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on one of the three study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the second and third intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3516 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and, as conditioned,is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter walls around the parking areas will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed project includes perimeter landscaping which provides sufficient visual buffer of the on-site parking areas. 3. That adequaie parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding beach and residential areas or use the proposed drive-through facility. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. p, TO: Planning Commission - 14. 5. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the take-out restaurant facility. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3516 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health; safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. Said bathroom facilities shall be accessible to the handicapped. 3. That the development standard pertaining to parking lot walls shall be waived. 4. That no pole identification sign shall be permitted on the site. However,a maximum of three wall identification signs, not exceeding 50 square feet each, shall be permitted. One freestanding menu sign shall be permitted and shall not exceed 35 square feet. Special purpose directional signs shall not exceed 6 square feet each and may include the golden arches logo. One monument sign shall also be permitted as shown on the site plan. 5. That the hours of operation during the off season(October 1 through April 30)shall be limited from 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.,Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 am. to 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday. During the peak season .(May 1 through September 30), the hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 am. to 12:00 midnight, Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 am. to 1:00 am. Friday and Saturday. 6. That no outdoor loudspeaker or music system shall be permitted. 7. That the proposed parking lot lighting shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 20.72.090 of the Municipal Code, with the exception that the light TO: Planning Commission - 15. standards may exceed a height of 10 feet if necessary. 8. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take-out restaurant facility is prohibited. 9. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building and the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and,orderly manner. 10. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 11. That all mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated to 55 dba at the property lines. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining streets. 13. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 14. That a Parcel Map or Lot Line Adjustment as required by the Planning Department to combine the three parcels into one parcel shall be processed and recorded prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 15. 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. 16. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That the intersection of the private drives and Newport Boulevard be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. 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. That the proposed direction signs at the entrances be no higher than 24 inches above sidewalk grade or be relocated behind the sight distance plan line as shown in the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L. 18. That a ten (10) foot wide radius comer cutoff at the comer of Newport Boulevard (northbound) at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) at 28th Street be �P 0 TO: Planning Commission - 16. dedicated to the public. 19. That deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard(southbound)frontage and the 28th Street frontage. That curb,gutter and full width sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard (northbound) frontage and the unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb,,gutter and sidewalk. That a curb access ramp be constructed at the comer of Newport Boulevard (southbound) and 28th Street per City Standard 181-L. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 21. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized 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. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Newport Boulevard rights- of-way. 22. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded.to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140. of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 23. That the drive-thru facility shall be operated in such a manner that vehicles will not be allowed to block access driveways. This shall be monitored at all times by the applicants' representatives at the site. If back-ups occur, the incoming customers shall be directed to bypass the drive-up facility. If a traffic congestion problem occurs on Newport Boulevard related to the drive-up facility that is not immediately corrected, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City,Council revocation of this Use Permit. 24. That 28 parking spaces shall be provided on-site for the proposed restaurant in addition to the 8 vehicle stacking lane. 25. 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. Handicapped parking stalls shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide. al ! A TO: Planning Commission - 17. 26. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 27. There are a total of eight parking meters on both sides of Newport Boulevard that will be impacted by the proposed project. All parking meter relocations.shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall relocate/remove meters pursuant to a Public Works Encroachment Permit. 28. That the parking area shall be secured after closing hours every night by placing a chain across each of the access driveways. 29. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. 30. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety; peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 31. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. as TO: Planning Commission- 18. EXHIBIT"B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 93, USE PERMIT NO. 3516 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the previously certified environmental document. 2. Make the findings listed below: in in 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. 93 and Use Permit No. 3516. B. TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 93 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. 3516 1. Deny Use Permit No. 3516 with the findings listed below. indin 1. That the proposed'drive-through facility will generate car queues which exceed the available stacking capacity between the order window and the end of the stacking lane, which will result in cars blocking access driveways and extending into traffic lanes on Newport Boulevard (southbound). 3 P" 0 TO: Planning Commission - 19. 2. That the proposed drive-through facility, in relationship to size of the subject property and its location between two, one-way couplets of Newport Boulevard,will adversely effect the vehicular traffic circulation on adjoining streets. 3. That the location and proximity of the proposed take-out restaurant to nearby, residential uses along with the proposed hours of operation of the restaurant will result in an unacceptable increase in the level of late night noise and traffic experienced by nearby residential areas: 4. That the location of the proposed take-out restaurant will significantly increase the amount of pedestrian traffic between the restaurant site and the nearby public beaches which will adversely effect the vehicular traffic circulation on West Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (southbound). 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3516 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. a:2/ w VIC 114 IT "or M file , E MAP A/0. .3 JEE cw� ¢ \ � "rIs SP-i av 'c �4j 4 • \ V \\ 1 P OwSP i Sv Ah a ;•% l ; \ \ sr q,,� U Sp -i A SP-i y^ 0- \ a \` �i h •5 •� \ \\\ �C Sp - S m Q; '�, /� r S • \ \\ spa "sSp- 5P C •._•` 1✓t P,L P�' 5�0' .ta'S'f ry` • £ 2A t zs lk ,r s • F `ti „31 1'9• w O� lP4 > 'H� q q a�i e� R•C i '� \\ \\z ,c' Jw. .w ro•'/ rer N o c v i •E Q;1 cP 6i r \\ S �X � \� C1M •t•y\ Z9 9D P1 4•.' 9 gt. i\ti1� \\ ZBTN 5T r�! ' \\no �^,- \n\ Is r PLO � 1 Q'2• .n' oo .' 4b 5T. C @� 0 04 s N� 5Q. 6 M Y twtr:YYlYr.r tO f:U, �• ' •� \ NEWPORT I rt.n-•.w.-m E rl';t ItR�WW �ti*•Sn. ` •� n r4YU rUYpplIY fYWY C•D•t.Y•I.Y.IR41u11• �aYrmiaR.e .nn-rw JFF MAP M7 9 DISTRICTING MAP N,EWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA 11.p1MfYt(Rr M tW e•1.re re rp.r f wY unn eer.b Yn I N'•A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R_A MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-1 SINGLE FANILT REFIDENTIAL C-1 LIGHT COMNEROIAL R-E DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL -E GENERAL COMMERCIAL R-] RESTIL Muu rma-R[7GENTDM. M-1 NANUFACTORINS OPA NO.NAS w aF AaR Ci - r - CQI/flfO DISTRIM UNCLASSIFIED DEC.CSri/ED FrM Ysrd De h In I"+ Shown Thus t- - T41:1216 STop*4( NOS 3 �� J5aE PEP—Mir NO � 000, a D CITY OPNEWPORT BEACH r L E D ® � �' E C) 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 r��a a. 1994 Newport Beach,CA92659-1768 A if 1994 ,ti AR GARYL.GRAN -,Co t Clerk NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARYL.GR , LL ' ounlyClark RV TSY �DEPIIT' From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department © 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 XX Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XXX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for fding at OPR/County Clerk: i Santa Ana,CA 92702 i Publicreviewperiod 3-4-1994 To 4-4-1994 i NameofProject: McDonald's Classic Restaurant, UP-3516, Traffic Study No. 93 Project Location: 2007 -Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Project Description: Construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would accommodate both inside dining of approximately 30 seats and take out food service with a drive-tru and a walk-up window. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertainingto procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee b.*evaluated the proposed project and ,determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the envi divaent. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to fmal action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a publichearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. Date 3-3-1994 John(biad�i ougla ICP ' Envir ental rdinator Revised 4/92 a6 .�,< . r M�vrRON MMM ANALYsxs CHECKLIST j CITY of NBHMRT HEa • I. HACRGRODND 1. Application Nos Use Permit No. 3516, Traffic Study No. 93 2. project name: McDonald's Classic Restaurant 3. project location:2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach a. Applicant: McDonald's Corporation / 2188 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (see attached explanations) yes Maybe I�3 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? —. b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?. _ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion v of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the ,channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, ' mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? • 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ 2L s— C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, �( either locally or regionally? — L 0 Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 2 Yes Maybe io 3. water. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? 1L g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water y otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 Yes Maybe tjs S. Animal Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land •animals including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? .__ _ .,Y C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? • d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat2 _ 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Licht and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? a. Land Use. Would the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land, use of an area, or conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? _ 9. Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ 10. Risk of Accident. Would the proposal involves 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? b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth " rate of the human population of the area? �7 22. Aousina. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ — Environmental Analysis checklist - Page 4 Yes Maybe HO 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parkins. Would the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? -- d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor x vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — 14. Public services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? -- -X- C. Schools? -- d. Parks or other recreational facilities? -X- e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. other governmental services? _— T 15. Enemy. Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel ,or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or v require the development of new sources of energy? A 16. utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X , a. Electricity or natural gas? -`� b. Communications systema? — -- C. Water or wastewater? — -- � d. Storm water drainage? --- "X e. Solid waste and disposal? -- -�/h� Environmental Analysis Checkl�t - Page 5 t es Maybe Lr4 17. Human Health. Would the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? s 18. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? I _ 20. Cultural Resources. Would the propoeals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ C. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ,— _ III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. 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 pro-history? 2. 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 relatively brief,, definitive period of time while long- term impacts endure well into the future.) Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 6 f Yes Maybe 7J_o 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have an impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant; or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) _ 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ 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 HE PREPARED. [XJ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPARED. ( ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Aziz H. Aslami (Associate Planner) Date.= 3-3-1994 t Signature: .' . /UI Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations f:\...\FORMS\CHECUST. Revised 72/91 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS MC DONALD'S 'RESTAURANT Traffic Study No. 93 Use Permit No. 3516 Project Description The proposed site is an undeveloped parcel of land located on the northwesterly comer of Newport Boulevard and 28th Street within the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan (see Vicinity Map). The site is surrounded by some retail and service commercial, marine related and light industrial, and residential land use. The proposed project will involve construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would accommodate both inside dining of approximately 30 seats and take-out food service with both a drive-tru and a walkup window. The subject parcel is approximately 0.408 acre in size. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site is an undeveloped lot, and minor excavation and grading of the site will be required. Construction activities will result in some soil, disruption and compaction or soil displacement. The site is flat and there are no known active faults in the vicinity of this project. The City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) contains requirements for geotechnical evaluation and appropriate erosion control methods. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code would reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level. 2. Air Construction Impacts During the course of construction some soot and odor from diesel exhaust would be released, but is not considered' significant due to the small size and limited duration of 1 2 3 construction activities. Dust will be minimized as a result of site watering procedures required by City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Construction odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Qperational Impacts Cooking odors will be treated via an appropriate filtration system on mechanical exhaust devices. After completion the project would generate an estimated 130 average daily trips (ADT) during traffic peak hours. Although exhaust emissions, from this additional traffic would result in air quality impacts, the size of the project is below the threshold of significance as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality. There are no other operational characteristics of the project such as hazardous or toxic materials that could adversely affect air quality. 3. Water The area surrounding the proposed site is developed with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Surface drainage is provided by an existing 24" RCP storm drain system. The proposed improvements would not substantially increase water runoff or affect any drainage pattern. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located within the flood hazard area. The following mitigation measure would reduce flooding hazard within the new structure so as to maintain the minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level as required by the Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure #1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level. The proposed project has the potential to discharge grease and other insoluble products to the public wastewater system. With 2 the following mitigation measure and the provisions contained in the Food Establishment Grease Disposal Code (NBMC Chapter 14.30), the impacts would be reduced below the'level of significance. Mitigation Measure_#2 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicantsball demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease interceptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the City, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and Orange County Health Department. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in,a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Construction Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. There are some residential properties in the vicinity of the proposed project which are considered a noise sensitive land use. Any construction activity would be required to comply with the noise limitations in the CiWs Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28) and would be restrictedto the hours of 7:00 am. to 6:30 pxL weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 pxL Saturdays. This restriction, combined with the temporary nature of construction noise, will reduce construction noise impacts below the level of significance. 3 �u '� II Operational Impact Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. Since projected traffic generation is within the level assumed in the General Plan,no new significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of the proposed action. 7. light and Glare The proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect nearby residential properties. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that potential impacts from nuisance glare would not be significant. Mitigation Measure #3 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. 8. Land Use The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use in the City's General Plan Land Use EIement and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Restaurants are allowed under RSC land use designation. The Zoning designation for the property is "Cannery Village Specific Area Plan". This zoning designation permits restaurant operations subject to the securing of a use permit. This project is located within the Coastal Zone and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is also required. The proposed use is consistent with City's General Plan, LCP and Zoning, and with the recommended mitigation measures would be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4 �"36 0 n ; J 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Accident- No toxic or explosive materials would be used or stored on the site. Therefore the proposed restaurant would not present the potential for a public health and safety hazard. 11. Population The proposed project would cause a minor increase in employment, however, no direct population increase would result from the project. 12. Housing The project would be estimated 'to result in approximately 5 employees during the peak employment period in the Cannery Village area. This increase in employment could generate an increased demand for housing, but this increase is not considered significant. 13. Transportation/Parking Circulation system impacts: Presently the subject site is a vacant lot. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic-study is necessary under the requirements of'the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . Of the three intersections that would be affected by the proposed project,two exceeded the one percent volume threshold for Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis: Newport Boulevard @ 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard @ Via Lido. ICU analysis was performed for both a.m. and p.m.2-1/2 hour peak periods and determined that the ICU values of these two intersections would remain well within acceptable levels with the addition of the proposed project (0.57 p.m. peak ICU at Newport/32nd and 0.56 at Newport/Via Lido). Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed project would have no significant impact on the circulation system. 5 I� 0 • Parkin . The parking requirement for the proposed development is one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area of the building plus one space per employee during peak employment. The proposed site plan contains 1,366 sgft. of building area requiring 28 spaces (1,366150 = 27.32 ). The plan also indicates that there would be five (5) employees during the peak employment thus requiring 5 additional parking spaces. Therefore total parking spaces required for the proposed project would be a total of 33 spaces (28+5 = 33). The proposed project provides for a total of 33 parking spaces which satisfies the parking requirement. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant additional demand for these services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems No significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 17. Human Health Since the proposed use is a restaurant, the proposed project is not anticipated to utilize hazardous materials on the site, therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics Compliance with the provisions of 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. 6 ��' 20. Cultural Resources The project site is located on filled land in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources are not reasonably expected to be found, therefore no significant impact would result. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. R\—\tratrc\tpo93\neg-0ec MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM McDonald's Classic Restaurant Traffic Study No. 93 Use Permit No. 3516 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. R\...\aziz-a\traffic\tpo93\mm monit. PTF fjy/ ATTACHMENTI MMGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY McDonald's Restaurant Trailic Study GTO#93) Mitigation Measure implementing Action Method of Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. Prior to-the issuance of any building Condition of Approval - Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Building Department plan permit the applicant shall building permit checker demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a minimum finished floor elevation of 6W Mean Sea Level. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificates-of Condition of Approval Condition of Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Use and Occupancy, the applicant Approval Certificate of Occupancy shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the add Use proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease intreeptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the CityMunicipal Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code and Orange County Health Department I Prior to issuance of a Buildinspumit Condition of Approval Plan Prior to the issuance of a theappliantsbaIIdemonstrateto the Condition o t buildin BaildingDepertmentthattheli;Ming Approval g Peim� s system shall be designed, directed, Department plan checker and maintamed in such a manner so as to conceal the light source and to .� minim;'light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer , with a kttetirom the Architect or Enghu m stating that,in his or her opinion,this requirement - has been satisfied. R\—\aaz-a\tpo88\MM TABLE � II • 4 TI E OF PUBLIC HEARING + Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beth will hold a public hearing on the application of McDonald's Corporation for Use Permit No. 3516 and Traffic Study No. 93 on property located at 2807 Newport Boulevard. Request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facility on properly located in the"Retail and Service Commercial"area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan area The proposal includes a building design with two exterior walk-up order windows as well as an enclosed ancillary eating area The proposal also includes a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow: the addition of a second pole identification sign and a ground mounted menu sign on the property whereas the Sign Code allows only one pole or ground sign per site: and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the proposed directional signs The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic sty for the proposed 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 loth day of March 1994. at the hour of 77.30 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. Anne Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 3� 5 e VICINITY MAP Traffic Study No. 93 O � arru r�uu MD Sr No V O �J N O � SIX R d � 0 w y Cl 2 . p ntx tr w .� 0 c r x Proposed y D 0 Site 0 x LIDO PENINSULA O 0 O 0 � �D Ye fxppso k Owrr�rr •a Planning Department Newport Info System January 24. 1994 ,f¢ r `.r ' • for the CUM 'S I McDonald's WV May 26, 1994 �• Mr. William Ward Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 Dear Mr. Ward: This letter is in reference to resident and the City Planning Departments concerns regarding the development of our McDonald's Restaurant located at Newport and 28th Street,Newport Beach, CA. McDonald's Corporation has always prided itself on being a part of the community we serve. In keeping with that philosophy,McDonald's has taken several actions, in good faith, to resolve any homeowner and city concerns. Therefore, we would like to state the following concerns, as well as how McDonald's will mitigafe'these issues. It should be noted that these mitigations are a result of several meetings between McDonald's and the various Homeowner Associations as well as city staff. 1. Concern: Hours of Operation Solution: McDonald's plans to adjust our hours operation as follows: Summer Hours: 6:00 am-12:00 am Sunday-Thursday (6 am-2 am previous) 6:00 am- 1:00 am Friday&Saturday(6 am-2 am previous) Off Season: 6:00 am-I1:00 pm Sunday-Thursday (6 am-12.am previous) •6:00 am-12:00 am Friday& Saturday(6 am-2 am previous) It should be noted that these hours are more-limited than those of other restaurants in the surrounding area. 2. Concern: Drive-Thru Speaker Noise Solution: McDonald's has completely removed the drive-thru speaker,thereby eliminating this concern. The new ordering system involves direct communication with a McDonald's employee referred to as Face-to-Face ordering. 3. Concern: Trash Solution: McDonald's will coordinate trash removal with the local Surfrider Agency to help coordinate the facilitation of org anizing other businesses to broaden the McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Drive. Suite 800 San Diego.California 92122 6191635-8900 (' Page 2 May 26, 1994 circumference of the beach front clean up program that currently exists. In addition,the outside-parking lot area will be checked every thirty(30)minutes for trash. Litter will be picked up by McDonald's within a one block radius of the store,and will include the area surrounding the 28th Street Marina Complex. 4. Concern: Exterior Architecture Solution: Although there exists no formal architectural design review in the city of Newport Beach,McDonald's has developed an alternate building design due to neighborhood concerns. This new building is created in the spirit of cooperation, fully complimenting the existing architecture, (i.e. the 28th Street Marina,project), which incorporates the seaside theme of the Peninsula. S. Concern: Signage Solution: McDonald's first proposed two(2)twenty-five foot high pole sighs one hundred square feet of sign face each. 'Subsequent to the public hearing dated April 7, 1994,McDonald's has eliminated-the pole signs altogether. In lieu of the pole signs,McDonald's proposes-a single eight(8) foot high monument sign with a sign face area of only 52 square feet. The revised sign program has a total of 269 square feet of signage area for our project. The city sign code for this property allows for a maximum sign area of 338 square feet. This results in a 20°Io decrease in sign area when compared to city code. 6. Site Plan Modifications (Planning Department conditions dated April7, 1994) A. Concern:Restroom accessibility Solution: With the revised building for this site the restrooms now have direct public access for both the men'stwomeres restroom,facilities. The access is from the interior dining area. B. Concern:Perimeter landscaping at 28th Street Solution: McDonald's has redesigned the drive-thru along 28th Street to incorporate a minimum three foot wide landscape buffer. McDonald's intends to install a minimum three foot high hedge along this landscape buffer to screen the headlights of our customers using the drive-thru. Page 3 May 26, 1994 C. Concern:Northerly property line wall Solution: McDonald's has revised our site plan to include a six foot high masonry block wall along the northerly property line which steps down adjacent to the street right of way,so as to meet the City's sight distance standard 110-L. 7. Concern: Traffic Solution: Although the city required an outside registered traffic engineering firm to objectively analyze and evaluate all issues relating to traffic on or around our project,McDonald's would like to offer the following mitigation measure if deemed necessary. A. McDonald's will provide personnel to control the traffic on the premises during peak hours if traffic circulation becomes a concern. This would be similar to what has been implemented at our existing Newport Beach McDonald's on Pacific Coast Highway. Finally, McDonald's greatly anticipates becoming involved in the Balboa Peninsula community. We have demonstrated our goodwill as offered in the preceding.actions to resolve community concerns. McDonald's believes we will be an asset to the Balboa Peninsula,and looks forward to offering a bright, clean and wholesome family environment. Sincerely, 461g/ Robert M. Lombardi Sharon Collins Project Manager Real Estate Representative pc: Tony Bonwell Len Crosby-Continental Bank Jerry King John Lardas John Newcomb Ofelia Rodriguez Skip Stirling L:\R65OFAf G RICONST-D105279401.DOC 05/26/94 KS • COMMISSIONERS MIi�lI1TE5 ift CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That all trash shall be stored within the building un ' is scheduled to be picked up. 6. That the applicant shall obtain Coast Commission approval of this application prior to al 'ng the sale of animals or the performance of dog oming services on the premises. 7. That the Planning Co ion may add to or modify conditions of approval t is use permit, or recommend to the City Council the vocation of this use permit upon a determination tha a operation which is the subject of this amendment es injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, pea , morals, comfort, or general welfare of the commu 8. t this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 onths from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A Traffic Study No. 93 (PublicHearing) Item No.6 Request to approve a traffic study for a ,proposed McDonald's TS 93 take-out restaurant facility; and the acceptance of an UP3516 environmental document. Cont'd AND to 5/5/94 B. Use Permit No. 3516 (Publ' Hearing) equest to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through estaurant facility on property located in the "Retail and Service ommercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan area. The proposal includes a building design with o exterior walk-up order windows as well as an enclosed ancillary eating area. The proposal also includes a modification -13- q COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX o the Sign Code so as to allow: a greater amount of total sign rea than which is permitted by Code; the addition of a second ?Ole identification sign and a ground mounted menu sign on the roperty, whereas the Sign Code allows only one pole or ground ign per site; and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the proposed directional signs. CATION: Lots 11 and 12, Block 227, Section A, and Record of Survey 76-46, located at 2807 Newport Boulevard, on the northerly side of 28th Street, between Newport Boulevard (northbound) and Newport Boulevard (southbound), in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ONE: SP-6 PLICANT: McDonald's Corporation, San Diego WNER: Marina Partners, Newport Beach ames Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed McDonald's revious requests for take-out restaurant facilities on Newport oulevard in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan ea.He referred to Condition No.32,Exhibit"A"stating that the lanning Commission may call back the use permit for review if t would be determined that the use is detrimental to the ommunity. However, he stated that if there would be problems it the design or layout of the project that it would be difficult o correct those problems in the future. n response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy egarding the Public Works Department's suggested condition tating-that the vehicles would not be allowed to block access riveways,Don Webb,City Engineer,stated that the condition was uggested to control the traffic in the event the proposed stacking or nine vehicles from the pick-up window are not adequate. -14- COMMISSIONERS . ! MMTE9 o''o o�o'�� ary��s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7. 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford with regard to the foregoing suggested condition, Mr.Webb explained that the condition states that if traffic on site is causing the driveway from Newport Boulevard to the site to be blocked that - the employees of the restaurant would direct incoming customers to bypass the drive-up facility. Commissioner D!Sano,Mr.Hewicker,and Mr.Webb discussed the future circulation of Newport Boulevard in the vicinity of ,the subject site. Mr. Webb reported that the Circulation Element of the Master Plan provides for Newport Boulevard in the subject vicinity to have two lanes in each direction. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Webb replied that the turn-around sign for crowded conditions on the Peninsula would remain on 28th Street. In 'response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Webb and Mr. Hewicker indicated that previous "Island" use requests have been for fast food restaurants, and a residential site in conjunction with the 28th Street Marina. Mr. Hewicker stated that any retail or office use would be permitted on the subject site. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King reviewed the proposedproject. He further stated that the walk-up order window and pick-up window would be able to handle 15 customers at a time; and if necessary, it could be modified to handle additional customers by adding a third window; the state- of-the-art equipment consists of an exhaust filtering system that would filter grease so as to eliminate odors or nuisance greases; that based on McDonald's statistics it was ,predicted that approximately 40.percent of the business would be walk-up business; McDonaId's maintenance program would consist of a travel path and lot sweep, and many restaurants in the area have indicated an interest in participating inthe program;the 6:00 am. opening would provide a service to the public engaging in early -15- I �9 COMUSSIONERS • 0 MINUTES "rt°0c�11 �O's�Y °��� `� ° Os° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX morning activities in the area; the drive-through would close earlier than the proposed closing hour of 2:00 a.m.during the peak season to enable the restaurant to turn off the outdoor speaker; the proposed hours of operation of the restaurant's winter hours would be 6:00 am. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 am. to 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday; the restaurant intends to have on-going communication with .the residents and community associations to address issues that may be of concern; and the restaurant would include the residents in their landscaping plan. Mr. King concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". He addressed the condition suggested by the General Services Department requesting that McDonald's make a cash contribution to the City's litter control program in the amount of $34,824.00. McDonald's has suggested that they finance their own program.He explained that the restaurant currently has an existing clean-up program at many of their facilities throughout the Country that consists of youth going into the communities to clean the areas. McDonald's spends approximately $16,380.00 per employee per year working 5 to 9 hours in their existing clean-up program. McDonald's intends to police a larger area with the assistance of the aforementioned interested restaurants and associations from the West Newport area to the Balboa Pavilion. McDonald's would use the money under their own corporate sponsored clean-up operations that would be monitored by management. Mr. King addressed the previous stated concerns regarding the monitoring of peak hour traffic. r. King stated that McDonald's signage would allow the drivers o identify the destination and the driveways so as to complete the weaving activities in heavy traffic with a minimum of problems. e sign also incorporates a menu board and speaker container or efficiency that are attributable to the operation of the facility. r.King submitted a letter to the Planning Commission from the Newport Pier Association in support of the proposed restaurant. -16- ��O COMMISSIONERS , MIkTES 0�<< CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. King replied that the aforementioned 40 percent of walk-up business was a statistic used by McDonald's in Santa Monica. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. King discussed the concerns expressed by the residents with respect to McDonald's coming into an adjacent residential area. Mr. King further replied that the proposed hours of operation would accommodate the public's needs;however,if the business would be slow the restaurant would' close earlier. McDonald's would not utilize the outside speaker after midnight, and that would leave the walk-up window and interior area for seating and the parking lot for the public to eat their food. He indicated that several of the eating establishments in the area close at 2:00 a.m. Mr. King reviewed the proposed lighting, and he stated that McDonald's intends to meet with the neighbors to discuss the proposed lighting. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding the aforementioned litter control program, Mr. King replied that McDonald's would submit a proposal to the City of what the litter program would cost. Mr. Hewicker stated that the General Services Department reported that two City employees would concentrate in the area from the ocean to the bay, and from 32nd Street,to the Newport Pier. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. King discussed the McDonald's litter control program that would include several restaurant establishments and associations. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that conditions in Exhibit "A" do not address the litter program,and be requested that the applicant submit a written proposal as explained by Mr. King so as to incorporate a condition in Exhibit "R. Commissioner Edwards addressed,the proposed summer hours of operation from 6:00 am. to 2:00 am. daily and the aforementioned,28th Street turn-around area He indicated that the City may be intensifying the traffic problem in the area Mr. King replied that the restaurant would serve the people who are h r e to the Peninsula to o m the area, and the public would not come g p -17- CO21y W6SIONERS • . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX to McDonald's. Commissioner Edwards indicated his concern regarding the use of McDonald's parking lot, and the traffic. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. King discussed the land that would be developed by McDonald's and the demolition of the existing structures located on the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Webb replied that he reviewed the proposed plan and he was not aware of bicycle parking on the site. Mr. King stated that an area is proposed for bicycle parking. Mr. Robert Lombardi, Project Manager for McDonald's, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding the feasibility of egress/ingress on 28th Street, Mr. Lombardi explained that initially plans were submitted to the City Traffic Engineer with respect to the entrances, exits, the drive-through, and a general layout of the design. The final proposal submitted to the Planning Commission is the result of the Traffic Engineer's recommendations. Mr.Webb explained that the Public Works Department's primary reason for not supporting driveways on 28th Street is because 28th Street is a two-way street and there is a short distance between the two Newport Boulevards. Commissioner Ridgeway expressed a concern that the restaurant as proposed would create a traffic problem in the area. Mr. Lombardi explained that based on McDonald's projections that 40 percent of'the dollar volume is proposed to be walk-tip business and 75 percent of the 40 percent would be in the dining room,and 50 percent to 60 percent of the dollar volume would use the drive-through window. Commissioner Gifford determined that based on the traffic report submitted to the Planning Commission that two-thirds of the volume would be pedestrian traffic, and she requested a clarification of volume of walk-up customers as opposed to vehicle traffic -18- Set COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 LL CALL INDEX Mr. Lombardi responded to Commissioner Edwards' previously stated concerns and he addressed •Condition No. 9, Exhibit "A", regarding the parking lot lighting whereby he ,indicated that McDonald's does not intend to have light spillage outside of the property. He further replied that McDonald's attempts to help the community by providing a litter control program. Commissioner Ridgeway expressed his concern regarding the number of proposed on-site parking spaces, and the feasibility of automobiles"blocking traffic on Newport Boulevard waiting for a parking space. Mr. Lombardi explained that employees would monitor the problem. Commissioner Ridgeway expressed a concern that 24 parking spaces may be 'inadequate at the peak hour and an employee on-site may not be able to direct the traffic. Discussion ensued regarding the projected number of hourly transactions as submitted by the Traffic Consultant. Mr.James Person,507-29th Street,appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project. He stated that the subject parcel was originally included in the 28th Street Marina at the time the developer of the 28th Street Marina acquired the property. He objected to the subject location on the basis that the pedestrian customers coming from the beach would have to cross Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard with no signals; the traffic report did not address the major terminus of OCTD in the vicinity; and the projected numbers of pedestrians in the traffic report may not be accurate. He pointed out that if the Planning Commission approved the ,project and some time in the future called back the use permit for review• it may be difficult to redesign the restaurant. In response to questions posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Person replied that he could not recommend a parcel for a future McDonald's on the Balboa Peninsula. He further replied that a small commercial business or a small restaurant would be a viable use on the property, but not a restaurant with a high volume. -19- �.3 CgrdpUSSIONERS • . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 OLL CALL INDEX airman Merrill, Mr. Person, and Mr. Hewicker discussed the ordable housing use that was originally considered for the ubject parcel when the 28th Street Marina developer purchased e property. Gary DePerine, 2600 Newport Boulevard, No. 318, appeared efore the Planning Commission to oppose the subject application. e determined that the residents of 28th Street Marina would be pacted by the proposed establishment and the value of their roperty would depreciate. He objected to the restaurant's signs, Oise, and 2:00 a.m. closing. He addressed his concerns regarding he safety of children as they cross Newport Boulevard to cDonald's. Mr. DePerine further stated that the traffic report oes not adequately project the volume of business that cDonald's would attract. He suggested that McDonald's onsider establishing a restaurant in the Fun Zone area. n response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. ePerine suggested that any commercial business that would ttract normal traffic and signage would be a suitable use for the 'abject parcel. r. Douglas Boyd, 2101 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before he Planning Commission on behalf of the Balboa Peninsula Point sociation. Mr. Boyd addressed the Association's concerns egarding the congestion that could occur in the McDonald's arking lot, and the 2:00 a.m. closing. He suggested throw down ow intensity lighting so as not to infringe the lighting on the eighbors. Mr. Boyd further stated that signage is not critical for cDonald's restaurant. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Police epartment's concerns regarding customers congregating and oitering in the parking lot were addressed in the staff report. The uggestions include securing the parking lot after the restaurant is losed, the presence of a uniformed security officer on the site, d the reduction of hours of operation. Russ Fluter, Balboa Peninsula realtor and property owner, ppeared before the Planning Commission in support of the -20- COMMISSIONERS • • MNU7c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Apri17, 1994 ROLL.CALL INDEX roject. Mr. Fluter stated that the restaurant would be a major improvement at the entrance to Cannery Village inasmuch as it would have low intensity;a low Floor Area Ratio;well landscaped; d the project would be a classic design. He stated that cDonald's'fits in all types of locations,and that the benefits from e take out restaurant would outweigh the negatives. . George Edgerton, 112 - 27th Street, appeared before the Tanning Commission. He expressed concerns regarding the affic; the volume of customers during peak hours; that the urrounding area would lose parldng spaces; and trash cans and tter control programs would not work successfully in the area. e said that any fast food restaurant at the subject site would ake a bad situation worse, and he suggested a parking lot be developed on the site. John Newcomb, 1821 West Bay and the developer of the 28th treet Marina, appeared before the Planning Commission. He tated that he has no personal economic interest in the proposed roject. Mr.Newcomb addressed the quantity of trash left on the each on any given day, and he commented that if the businesses ffi the area that sold food to the public were closed, i.e. grocery tores,convenience stores,liquor stores,take-out restaurants,there would still be trash on the beach; however, the closures would conomically devastate the community. Mr. Newcomb compared e proposed McDonald's with the McDonald's that is located,on 'Vest Coast Highway adjacent to an expensive residential area, d he pointed out that he was not aware of the residents omplaining about noise or odor. Mr.Newcomb stated that there re establishments adjacent to the site that are open until 2:00 m., and there have been no complaints regarding those establishments. He said that to have a responsible community- riented business build a new restaurant on the Balboa Peninsula would go a long way to revitalize the area. response to a question posed by, Commissioner DiSano, Mr. ewcomb replied that the traffic studies indicate that the proposed roject would be a good plan. McDonald's would be a good -21- „ o� . coi lbuskOIVERs 0 • MINUTES 0'00 or G�� o O o. o 0��o'�tr �oy�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 OLL CALL INDEX corporate occupant to come into a blighted area and that would increase the value of businesses,and they would clean up their act. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Newcomb replied that he signed the subject application; however, he is no longer the owner of the property. Mr. Christopher RoIfs, 2700 Newport Boulevard, No. 324, appeared before the Planning Commission. He expressed concerns regarding the noise and the skateboarders that would be coming from McDonald's to the residential area,,and the safety of he children crossing Newport Boulevard to McDonald's. r. Kent Stoddard, 2700 Newport Boulevard, No. 326, appeared efore the Planning Commission to oppose the subject project. e addressed the density in the area, the noise, and he pointed ut that it would be another business in the area that would stay pen too late.He stated that if the Planning Commission approved he application that the restaurant not be allowed to remain open nti12:00 a.m. any day of the week or year, and he recommended hat the establishment close at 10:00 p.m. inasmuch as the peration is adjacent to a residential area. The restaurant should of be permitted to have more signs than the number of signs allowed by the Sign Code. Mr. Stoddard stated that the residents ere originally informed that the drive-through would be on the pposite side of the building from the 28th Street Marina; owever,the plans indicate that the drive-through would be on the ame side of the building as the 28th Street residents. Mr. toddard concluded that the proposed restaurant would be in a ad location for the amount of activity that is proposed. Nfts. Marlin Stoddard, 2700 Newport Boulevard, No. 326, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that the roposed plan is offensive because it is a classic design, and the umber of golden arches that would be located across from her esidence would be an atrocity. She expressed hei concerns ' egarding the egress\ingress traffic across from the 28th Street -22- �!� COMMSSIONERS • . MIWTES, 0'00 ���ffi 0. o�<< �� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL RMEX Marina on (northbound) Newport Boulevard; the congestion; the transients; and the children on skateboards. Mr. Laith Ezzet, 2700 Newport Boulevard, No. 226, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the residents are currently putting up with the noise and other nuisances from the adjacent restaurants,and he objected to the McDonald's customers also abusing their property. He questioned if the City would receive additional tax revenue from the restaurant because the customers would be able to go to other fast food restaurants that are in close proximity to the subject site; however, the restaurant would reduce their property values and the City's property tax revenue. He stated that if the Commission would approve the subject request that the restaurant not be allowed to remain open after 10:00 p.m.; that the proposed litter program include the 28th Street Marina residential area;that a sound wall be constructed on 28th Street and (northbound) Newport Boulevard so as to keep the public off of the Marina property; and black out the portion of the McDonald's sign that would be facing the residents. He suggested that the parcel be developed as a parking lot. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Ezzet replied that his primary concern is that McDonald's customers would wander into the Marina to leave their trash. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Ezzet replied that there are virtually no businesses located at the 28th Street Marina. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Ezzet replied that the adjacent pizza parlor remains open until 1:30 am. to 2:00 am. if there are enough customers to serve. W. Joe Catron, 215 - 28th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is concerned with the safety of the public crossing Newport Boulevard from the beach to McDonald's; trash; noise; and lights. He said that if the application would be -23- �f ' COADUSSIONERS • • MINUTES o�9c�o 'cc�P �O�'oo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX approved that he would request a traffic light at the intersection of 28th Street and (southbound) Newport Boulevard. Mr. Carlo None, 42 Seton Road, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that he was a former restaurant owner, and that he'assisted in the design of the proposed restaurant. He pointed out that the proposed classic design is first in the Country with a new concept. He commended McDonald's and their proposed operation. The residents have valid concerns; however, McDonald's would be considerate of the neighbors, and the restaurant would be an asset to the community. n response to a question .posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. None replied that the proposed restaurant would have more pace, landscaping, and square footage than the McDonald's restaurants that would be similarly developed throughout the Country. He further commented that McDonald's is well versed in traffic flow and service times. r. Michael Palitz, 2102 West Ocean Front, appeared before the Tanning Commission. He stated that he operated the subject arcel as a parking lot last summer, and there was never a roblem with the automobiles egressing/ingressing the parking lot. e said that he has observed many commercial uses in the area, nd the subject location would be perfect for McDonald's, and the erchants in the area need a sign of stability and continuity in usiness. He said that customers would come to the restaurant, ake a purchase, and leave the area. He stated that the heaviest of is would be on Saturdays and Sundays, and not every day of he week. King reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated hat inasmuch as the operation of the drive-through closes at 12:00 'dnight that the speakers would also be turned off at 12:00 rr�dnight, and the customers would place their orders at the erving window after the speakers would be turned off. He- - iscussed the asset that McDonald's would be to the beach ommunity; the requested signage; and the trash pickup program. -24- J COMMISSIONERS . • MINUTES N1101 O�Ois 4' � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 OLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. King discussed the safety of the pedestrian traffic that would cross the southbound lanes of Newport Boulevard. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard,the public hearing was.closed at this time. Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff regarding a continuance of the public hearing to request that the traffic consultants and the City Traffic Engineer appear at a future public hearing to address the Commission's concerns regarding the traffic circulation. Commissioner Edwards stated that if the item would be continued that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with more specific information regarding the residents concerns: modify the hours of operation; submit a plan regarding policing the area; and signage and lighting. Chairman Merrill concurred that a lighting program be submitted in more detail. Commissioner Gifford,queried if the request is the right use for the subject parcel. She stated that if that would be a positive decision then it would be appropriate to address signage, lighting, and noise. She requested that the applicant come back with a clarification of volume vs. transactions or other types of data so as to assess the number of pedestrians that would come to the restaurant. She requested that the site 'be marked with the proposed entrances and exits, and where the location and height of the pole signs are planned. Commissioner Ridgeway requested that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission with a trash plan; the traffic backup time while waiting for large customer orders; bicycle and pedestrian traffic; traffic signal; and signage. In response to uestions osedb CommissionerRiB ewa Mr.Hewickerre lied q P Y Y� P g that take out restaurants are allowed two square feet of signs for the >fronts longest street e•> therefore the applicant is allowed 338 g g square feet of sign. Discussion ensued regarding the allowed -25- s9 CONEMSSIONERS • MINUTES cco'�'o°��'s 9�oc�� �Poso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 7, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX umber and size of signs on the premises. Commissioner dgeway suggested a lighted monument sign in the landscaping, d he queried if it is necessary for McDonald's to have a 25 foot gh identification sign. ommissioner Pomeroy requested alternate conditions beprovided bat would eliminate the speaker for automobile traffic at 10:00 m. and a 12:00 midnight closing time; a cleaning and policing rogram in writing; directional lighting away from the residents; d a smaller sign. Commissioner Gifford asked if the symbol of the McDonald's arch onstitutes a sign under the definition of the Sign Code, and if it oes, how does it enter into the calculation. In response to a equest for a clarification regarding Condition No. 9, Exhibit "A", . Hewicker explained that the Development Standards for take ut restaurants require that parking lot lighting for take out estaurants be no higher than 10 feet. Commissioner Gifford tated that she would be concerned if the light standards would xceed 10 feet. hainnan Merrill requested plans that would render all elevations f the building, signage, etc., where the lights are going to occur n the building, and what time the lights would be turned off. Motion * qotion was made and voted on to continue Traffic Study No. 93 Ayes * * * * * ind Use Permit No. 3516 to the Planning Commission meeting of Absent Vlay 5, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. sss -26- aoR @ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V Z c�<rFoa % (714) 644-3000 February 24, 1994 Ms. Sharon L Collins McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 RE: PROPOSED McDONALD'S ON 28th STREET IN NEWPORT BEACH Dear Ms. Collins: Late last week you dropped by my office to discuss the proposed new construction of a McDonald's at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach. You indicated to me at that time that you had visited with several members of our community and community associations who had expressed concern, regarding the construction of a McDonald's at this location and its impact on the amount of litter on City streets at beaches. You inquired'as to the current level of service provided by the City to control the amount of litter on City streets and beaches. In response to your inquiry I indicated that the City has for many years had a summer Youth Employment Program (•YEP) whose primary duties were the collection and disposal of litter throughout the City, but primarily focused on the Balboa Peninsula. The City's 1992193 budget Included seventeen YEP's working litter on the Peninsula: However, due to budget reductions in the current fiscal year we now have only eleven allocated to the Peninsula. As the City looks forward to the 1994/95 budget, we anticipate a further reduction In this program and will likely recommend to the City Council that only six part-time-positions be filled. If the McDonald's Corporation were interested in financially underwriting a portion of these services to handle additional litter generated by the proposed use, the City would require an additional $27,918 to keep our staffing levels at seventeen part-time employees. Inasmuch as the McDonald's operation will be year-round, after consulting our General Services Director he indicated that the funding for two Youth Employment Program employees year-round would be $34,824. REGEivED By PLANNNG DEPARTMENT pTY OF I NEWP09T EACH FEB 2 5 999-1 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O.Box 1768 • Newport Beach, CZ jtSt�j�t39tYtgpByl Ms. Sharon L. Collins February 24, 1994 Page 2 1 want to make it clear in closing that in providing you with this information I am in no way endorsing nor opposing the proposed project when it comes before the Planning Commission for public hearing. If the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the project and place a condition of approval requiring that McDonald's fund a portion of this City's litter program, I would also recommend that some type of cost-of-living adjustment be added so that the cost of the litter program can be adjusted over time to reflect the additional cost due to inflation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 644-3000. Sincerely, Ovinu y LagCity r KJM:kf cc: J. Douglas J. Hewicker D. Niederhaus ✓B. Ward ... .. . .. ... . .. ... r , • • ry�.E;;;j 'q'-�,,q�•qn 'e GARY L.GRANVILLE . •,�•ry . c F f�f�d�ING DEPART d'IE ART COUNTY CLERK' U NTY O F TY OF WEINPogiy BE5:/hJl TELEPHONE:71a183a.2248 m r OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 2 I .> �uC 16 1994 211 W.SANTA ANA SV/O. ..y, AM Pu P.O.Box 22013 5 a ^� RA N G nM a I SANTA ANA,CA 92702.2013 7180000412e1e213141516 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK Memorandum TO: , 0Itiv,44T� �N DATE: SUBJEC Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of "Public- Resources Code, Section. 21092 .311 . The-,attached Notice received, filed, and a copy was posted on JUL 12 694 It remained posted. for 30 (thirty) calendar- days .. Gary L. .Granville County Cl k of a State of•' Californi i d for. e County of Orange. By: Deputy NORMA DOEVE Public'•'Rescurce Code 21092.3 The. notices required pursuant' to Sections 21080 .4• and 21092 for an eviironmental impact report shall. be posted in the. office of the County Clerk of. each county***in which the project will. be located. and. shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of- 20 days unless- otherwise required b_Y_ law to be csted for- 30 days. The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resourse Code 21152 (c) 7 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall. be posted *** within 24 hours of receint in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for. a period of 30 days *** . Thereafter, the clerk chall return the notice to the local lead agency *** with a notation of the period it was posted. The local le_d agency shall retain the notice for not less than ni=e months . Addition or changes by underline: deleticns by s STATE OF CAUFOFM-THEE RESOURCES AGrNcY ����� DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRO"M.ENTAL PILING FEE ARECEIPT Lead Agency: -.:/ l A C',t'i it✓ ,:r Date: 5 , County/State Agency of Fling,4. C%t't�.K�i' E ! c'I�.W% �—�E�� Document/ffi�oJ.. G' U o i 4d/ SSI.C. i Project Title: Project Applicant Name: �- —7�D iva,(C1 S !uo �i[.�/ r.,,Qi • phone Num = a�f3 Project Applicant Address: .XZZa Project Applicant(check appropriatebox): Local Public Agency Q School District Q er I*ylgatr0l; r State Agency ❑ Private trll CHECK APPLIl4EE FEES:. :.) Environmental Impact.Report $8w.00 $ Negative Declaration. $1,250.00 $ Application Water S�Water $SW.00 $ l ) Mp ( 1 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ —�. �.y_ County.Administrative Fee $25.00 $ aK-t' b U l ' ( ) Project that Is exempt from fees TOTAL RECENEU � � 0 4 Signature and We of person roceiving payment: — 'R FIRST COPY-PROECTAPpACAf17 ,fk-Dk a 7HIRD�AFry- AGENCy V C � � FILED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH p 0 S 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Q 1994 J 12 1994 Newport Beach,CA 92669-1768 GpRYL.GRVLLE,Coanri Pel)n NOTICE OF DETERMINATION �pRVL.GRA I E,CounDRyTM 8 Office of Planning and Research From: City of Depar tie nt r 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA 95814 New Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) Public Services Division a P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: McDonald's Classic Restaurant 001395 Use Permit No. 3516 Traffic Study No. 93 State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.: John Douglas 714 /644-3230 Project Location: 2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would Project Description: accommodate both inside dining of approximately 30 seats and take-out food service with a drive-thru and a walk-up window. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 6-24-94 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date) 1. The project❑will ® will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measureAD were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was ®was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings Q were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225 7/&(g Joh H.Dou ,AICP,Environmental Coordinator Date Revised 5.92 V Y • CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME F I L E D CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION JUL Z 1994 GARY L.GRAN , Coanty Clerk De Minimis Impact Finding By DEPUTY A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 B. Project Description: Construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would accommodate both inside dining of approximately 30 seats and take-out food service with a drive-thru and a walk-up window. C. Project Location: 2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. 001395 D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, 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. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. -7 g4 Date 4EneintaCoordinator AICP l City of Newport Beach F.\WP51\PLANMNGVOHN-D\FORMS\DFG-EXEM. SEW P0,4T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 e+< cg4FoaN�r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 July 8, 1994 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Service Division P.O.Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination for McDonald's Restaurant at 28th Street, Newport Beach. Dear County Clerk: Enclosed please find three copies of "Notice of Determination" and "Certificate of Fee Exemption" for the approved McDonald's restaurant. A check in the amount of$25.00 (# 5600087), is enclosed to cover the required filing fee. After filing said document, please mail a copy to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Should you have any other questions regarding this project, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Aziz Nr Aslami Associate Planner F.\WP51\...\Aziz-A\Traffic\TP093\county.ltr xc: Sharon Collins 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach r McDonald's Corporation LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 4370 Ua Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800 [tAC4041 San Diego, CA 92122 ^ (619) 535-8900 DATE JOB NO. (J , AT NTI r vtt RE TO 3 3 o O /dew rf .Pl J `o / 7,68 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑Attached ❑Under separate cover via the following items: ❑Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COP Its DATE NO. _ DESCRIPTION ti \ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval ❑For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies fordistribution D As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED iAFTER �LOAN TO US REMARKS . _ � G1A-rt,L D EGEWED BY PLANNING nEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i n �ctnn AID „UmL PM tllllliilll6 COPY TO 011 O'BRIEN BUDD.INC. OB PRODUCT NO.4007876 SIGNE STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RRIVED BYawang.uy.PETS WILSON, Gorornor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION !•ITY OF NFWPORT BEACM DISTRICT 12 - s N STREET SAN ANA, AM APR 131994 PM " SANTA ANA CA 92705 April 61 1994 7180IDIll001314016 Mr. John Douglas, AICP File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH # 94031010 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 Dear Mr. Douglas: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration - for the construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of any projects which may impact State Highway Facilities. If you have any questions, please contact Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239. Sincerely, EVERRETT EVANS, Chief Office of Planning and Public Transportation cc: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning T.H. Wang, Traffic Operations South STATE OF CALIFORNIA • • PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH RECEIVED BY 1400 TENTH STREET PLANNING DEPARTMENT SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 f 1TY 0, NFINPORT BEACH a' APR 81994 PM AM ' , �181g1�}IllIu111213141516 April 4, 1994 Q JOHN H. DOUGLAS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 Subject: MCDONALD'S CLASSIC RESTAURANT, UP-35161 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 93 SCH #: 94031010 Dear JOHN H. DOUGLAS: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, Mi hael 4Cearin . Chief, Sta house �11 1 01, INEVV 01,(1 13EAC11 NOTICE* COMPLETION 9403100 and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth SL,Rm.121 3300 Newport Blvd.-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659.1768 (Orange County) (TcL No.: 9161445-0613) Contact Pcmom _ John H.Douglas,AICP,Principal Planner SCR#_ TCL No.: 7141644-3225 p,,,.,,.,.. 2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California CtoeSocen PRth Street TOWAuee 0.408 A.PNo. so'dom IWP• Rugg Date: whida2Mam: State HwyF. 1 w,tp aye Newport Bay Aitpone liaaw,rc srhoote Present Lad uar/LonlogrG..mi Punum Retail and Service Commercial/Cannery Village Specific Plan rr,j.dD.ipu.. Construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would acco"todate both inside dining of approxiinately 30 seats and take out food service with a drive-tru and a walk-up win do. D«vment Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER ❑ NOP ❑ Sup cannot/Subaqueot ❑ Not ❑ Joint Document Ewycow ❑ Pm(PriorscHNo.) ❑ EA ElFinaiootvmpnt NegDee ❑ DraREIS ❑ other ❑ DnDtMR ❑ older ❑ PC= Iacd Acnonlype 6 70 ❑ GenOw r.1punjue ie ❑ specinbutler hun ❑ (Same oatjjon i ❑ GencNpuaAmmeat ❑ Flanodun t�-t� Fremne Rederol( nee �,� ❑ Gmenuatty Dement ❑ Punned UdtOn: L3 LandDWt FF'ee�6 tit ❑ Commatitypim ❑ Sileplm ❑ 4adDiHtbo(SubdtvWw om / PartclMap,Tram Map,em) `�9 9 DerelopmmtTypi, S3 'SpGsc, h ❑ Retideadid:Union Apes ❑ Walerinicallix 'type ❑ otprp Sgdn Amen Emploe.s ❑ Trampmtanom Type f$ Co=.,W:Sghi Acre Emplyeca� ❑ MWog: Nonni ❑ Induttdal: Sq.Fe.__Actes�Employ=— ❑ Pw.er. Type Watp ❑ Eauatioml ❑ WmacTrenlmme Type ❑ pC.RaNO0a1 ❑ Hantdomwanee Type ❑ Other. Pmi.cl luoea Diseeued I.Dacnutcet ' ❑ AuthcnUVisual ❑ Flood Piain/Floodmg ❑ schooWUnnerdacc ❑ Water Ouabry ❑' Agriondwral Land ❑ Forst Lamm Harard ❑ seplicSytlems ❑ Walter Supply/Ground"Icr Ati Ouality ❑ Gcologir/selmtr ❑ seatrrlpacity ❑ WalandMiu nan Archwlog.aNilttodpl ❑ Minemis ❑ Soil Ennion/CompapiodGoding ❑ Wildlife Couml Zone 12 Noise Solid Wane ❑ Gm hInducing Dninage/Abtorption ❑ PopulatiodHoming Dalantt Toxicnimundout ® land U. ❑ Economiddobt ,O PublieSemcea?acilntes � Tnfid0motiuon ❑ cumdmlh Effect,❑ F.=I ❑ Reccumi,,narls ❑ vegetation ❑ Other CLEARINGHOUSS CONTACT, MPJW COSS (916) 445-0613 QtT ENT am ANT _.:+_INsourt»a state/CtMstrar $yet STATZ RIVIIw BEGANt _ Boating _ —General services �j _ �Coastal on" OLA (School*) DEPT RIV TO AOINCYt t1 - _ —Coastal Coll Cal/tPA Colorado Svc Bid _ /GARB AGENCY RLV TO SCH s `Conservation �_ Ch Haste N91nt oil ."i h s Game_ _ _ANRcat--Grants SCH COMPLIANCE t - forestry _aNpCse--Delta _Parke s Nee/OIIP SWRCAi--Htr Qualil; laclamatlon aHRCB t--Htr Ai Its _DNN DTIC/CTC Yth/Atilt Corractiol P lef.;tt 1GTf sae 1<af1II oil ,hrr OOIYs1'I'1 Bus Treaep NOUN _ _corrections __Aeronautics Independant comet pl.Wt Prr01M I>TZ C011111Y't D1 Y cup �I �tnergy Comm TO T'nt IJiD s®CT OI¢T wGltrans 0 A NAHC __,Trans planning _ _Puc t� Dousing A Gavel _ _Santa WinHtn* AQmD/APCD,� (Resouree*s 3 / J ) _ �Nwlth i MeltarO �_Itate Lands Cosm Drinking 920 R91 Plan —Drinking Waste — —TahoeGthert .�ni iiA luAA / - eent.DY_3LBl �EWPpQT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 e,< cq<f FoaN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 March 23, 1994 Sharon L. Collins McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant at 28th Street, Newport Beach. Dear Ms Collins: Enclosed please find a copy of "Negative Declaration", for the proposed McDonald's restaurant, which has been filed with the County of Orange and State of California, Office of Planning and Research on March 4, 1994. The proposed project is scheduled for the City's Planning Commission public hearing on April 7, 1994. If approved, Notice of Determination must be filed immediately with the County and State's appropriate agencies. The County Clerk's Office would require a filing fee of$ 25.00. Therefore, please make a check payable to the County of Orange Clerk's Office and mail it to my office prior to April 7, 1994. Should you have any other questions regarding this project, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By • k*x:b Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner F.\WP51\...\Aziz.A\Traffic\TP093\Collins.ltr 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CI4Y OF NEWPORT BEACH F I L E POSTED 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659.768 8 291� MAR 0 4 1994 MAR 1994 NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARY L. GRANVILLE, County Clerk B To: GARY L.GRANVI 0l! From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning �esearch Planning Department XXX By .�108'Pelith Street, oom 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport,Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XXX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period 3-4-1994 To 4-4-1994 Name of Project: McDonald's Classic Restaurant, UP-3516, Traffic Study No. 93 Project Location: 2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Project Description Construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would accoramdate both inside dining of approximately 30 seats and take out food service with a drive-tru and a walk-up window. 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 would not have a significant effect on the enviioument. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this fording is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. I If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. 'There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. i If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. Date 3-3-1994 Joh H Douglas CP Envi mental rdinator heviu 4/92 ZKy n%L MMYSIS C'SBC LIST CITY of IKWPORT BRACH I, BACKGROUND 1. application No: Use Perr�it too. 3516 Traffic Stud No. 93 2. project name P4cDonald's Classic Restaurant 3. project location:2807 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach a. Applicant: 11cDonald's Cor oration 2188 II. BNVIRON?UMAL IMPACTS (See attached explanations) es Maybe 1. 8arth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? -- b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction — or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface _ V relief features? ¢ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any v unique geologic or physical features? —A- e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 4— f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? 1- b. The creation of objectionable odors? -- C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? — — invironmental Analysis Check 0t - Page 2 Yee Maybe ILO 3, Wate Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water V otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards ouch as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — — C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — l� d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — — Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 es Maybe NO S. Animal Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and X shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier 1( to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? -4 6, Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? -h- — 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new ± light or glare? a. Land Use. Would the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, or conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? — 9. Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — 10. Risk of Accident. Would 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? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? 11 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? — ly, Rovsina. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? /-,- Environmental Analysis Chec*st - Page 4 . es Maybe NO 13. Transvortatton/Circaation/Par m. Would the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? --- b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? "— d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation, or movement of people and/or goods? — e. alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — -P- f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — 14. public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: �[ a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? -- — _L1 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — — -X- e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — x` f. other governmental services? T ls. Eneray. Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or v require the development of new sources of energy? A 16. utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water or wastewater? d. Storm water drainage? e. Solid waste and disposal? Environmental Analysis Checklist - page 5 ' es maybe 17. g mark Health. would the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? — IS. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically — offensive site open to public view? — 19. Recreation. would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing 1(' recreational opportunities? 20. cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. gave the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? �1 d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within \/ the potential impact area? III. MANDATORY FINDINGS of sIGNIFICANCE. 1. 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 pre-history? _ -- 2. 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 relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts endure well into the future. ) — Environmental Analysis Ch*ist - Page 6 • Yen Maybe TLo 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have an impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant; or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) — 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — — 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 DEC'LARATIOR WILL BE PREPARED. [�) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. 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. Prepared by: Aziz M. Aslani (Associate Planner) Date: 3-3-1994 Signature: V. Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations {;\...\PORMS\CRECKIST. Revised 12/91 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS MC DONALD'S RESTAURANT Traffic Study No. 93 Use Permit No. 3516 Prgiect Description The proposed site is an undeveloped parcel of land located on the northwesterly comer of Newport Boulevard and 28th Street within the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan (see Vicinity Map). The site is surrounded by some retail and service commercial, marine related and light industrial, and residential land use. The proposed project will involve construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant, which would accommodate both inside dining of approximately 30 seats and take-out food service with both a drive-tru and a walk-up window. The subject parcel is approximately 0.408 acre in size. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed projects environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site is an undeveloped lot, and minor excavation and grading of the site will be required. Construction activities will result in some soil disruption and compaction or soil displacement. The site is flat and there are no known active faults in the vicinity of this project. The City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) contains requirements for geotechnical evaluation and appropriate erosion control methods. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code would reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level. 2. Air Construction Im.,pacts During the course of construction some soot and odor from diesel exhaust would be released, but is not considered significant due to the small size and limited duration of 1 construction activities. Dust will be minimized as a result of site watering procedures required by City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Construction odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Operational Impacts Cooking odors will be treated via an appropriate filtration system on mechanical exhaust devices. After completion the project would generate an estimated 130 average daily trips (ADT) during traffic peak hours. Although exhaust emissions from this additional traffic would result in air quality impacts, the size of the project is below the threshold of significance as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality. There are no other operational characteristics of the project such as hazardous or toxic materials that could adversely affect air quality. 3. Water The area surrounding the proposed site is developed with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Surface drainage is provided by an existing 24" RCP storm drain system. The proposed improvements would not substantially increase water runoff or affect any drainage pattern. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located within the flood hazard area. The following mitigation measure would reduce flooding hazard within the new structure so as to maintain the minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level as required by the Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure #1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level. The proposed project has the potential to discharge grease and other insoluble products to the public waste water system. With 2 the following mitigation measure and the provisions contained in the Food Establishment Grease Disposal Code (NBMC Chapter 14.30), the impacts would be reduced below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure #2 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease interceptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the City, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and Orange County Health Department. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Construction Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. There are some residential properties in the vicinity of the proposed project which are considered a noise sensitive land use. Any construction activity would be required to comply with the noise limitations in the CSty's Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28) and would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays. This restriction, combined with the temporary nature of construction noise, will reduce construction noise impacts below the level of significance. 3 Operational Impact Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. Since projected traffic generation is within the level assumed in the General Plan,no new significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of the proposed action. 7. Light and Glare The proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect nearby residential properties. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that potential impacts from nuisance glare would not be significant. Mitigation Measure #3 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. 8. Land Use The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use in the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Restaurants are allowed under RSC land use designation. The Zoning designation for the property is Cannery Village Specific Area Plan". This zoning designation permits restaurant operations subject to the securing of a use permit. This project is located within the Coastal Zone and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is also required. The proposed use is consistent with City's General Plan, LCP and Zoning, and with the recommended mitigation measures would be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4 I` 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Accident No toxic or explosive materials would be used or stored on the site. Therefore the proposed restaurant would not present the potential for a public health and safety hazard. 11. Population The proposed project would cause a minor increase in employment, however, no direct population increase would result from the project. 12. Housing The project would be estimated to result in approximately 5 employees during the peak employment period in the Cannery Village area. This increase in employment could generate an increased demand for housing, but this increase is not considered significant. 13. Transportation/Parking Circulation Ey is em impacts: Presently the subject site is a vacant lot. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is necessary under the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . Of the three intersections that would be affected by the proposed project,two exceeded the one percent volume threshold for Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis: Newport Boulevard @ 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard @ Via Lido. ICU analysis was performed for both a.m. and p.m. 2-1/2 hour peak periods and determined that the ICU values of these two intersections would remain well within acceptable levels with the addition of the proposed project (0.57 p.m. peak ICU at Newport/32nd and 0.56 at Newport/Via Lido). Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed project would have no significant impact on the circulation system. 5 Parkin . The parking requirement for the proposed development is one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area of the building plus one space per employee during peak employment. The proposed site plan contains 1,366 sq.ft. of building area requiring 28 spaces (1,366150 = 27.32 ). The plan also indicates that there would be five (5) employees during the peak employment thus requiring'5 additional parldng spaces. Therefore total parking spaces required for the proposed project would be a total of 33 spaces (28+5 = 33). The proposed project provides for a total of 33 parking spaces which satisfies the parking requirement. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant additional demand for these services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems No significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 17. Human Health Since the proposed use is a restaurant, the proposed project is not anticipated to utilize hazardous materials on the site, therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics Compliance with the provisions of 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. 6 20. Cultural Resources The project site is located on filled land in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources are not reasonably expected to be found, therefore no significant impact would result. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. P.\...\traffic\"93\neg-dec 7 MITIGATIW MONITORING AND REPORTIWJ PROGRAM McDonald's Classic Restaurant Traffic Study No. 93 Use Permit No. 3516 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. R\...\aziz-a\traffic\tpo93\mm-monit. ATTACHMENT 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY McDonald's Restaurant Traffic Study(TPO#93) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. Prior to the issuance of any building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Building Department plan permit the applicant shall building permit checker demonstrate to the City Building Department that the proposed restaurant structure has been designed so as to maintain a • minimum finished floor elevation of 6.27 Mean Sea Level. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Condition of Approval Condition o f Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Use and Occupancy, the applicant Approval Certificate of Occupancy shall demonstrate to the City and Use Building Department that the proposed restaurant has appropriate installation of a grease intmeptor with minimum 750 gallon capacity and adequate grease traps as required by the City Municipal Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code and Orange County Health Department. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building permit Condition of Approval Plan check - Prior to the issuance of a the applicant shall demonstrate to the Condition of building permitBLilding Building Department that the lighting Approval Department plan checker system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner so • as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer , with a Ietterfrom the Architect or Engineer stating that,in his or her opinion,this requirement has been satisfied. F-\_\aziza\tpoM\MM TABLE , 1 VICINITY MAO Traffic Study No. 93 7DD SEND Sr oO O a CD � Do G 9 T 0 QOTH 'v 2 D m i o l m ti � m 0 � r ,gym a Proposed O Site D � D �mn LIDO PENINSULA 0 � 0 0 D NEW D w D t7H� �uCOe O � 0� �D g`PUiscN '� k D 4N, MAR/NA R,R Planning Department Newport Info System January 24, 1994 Notice is hereby given that the JVning Commission of the City of Ney ort Beach will hold a public ' hedeii g on the application of MMonald's Corporation, for Use rpo 3516 and Traffic Study No. 93 on property located at 2807 Newport Boulevard. Request to establish a McDonald's take-out and drive through restaurant facilily„onprQpr y_located in the Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan area The proposal includes a building design with two exterior walk-up order windows as well as an enclosed ancill_1yi eating area The proposal also includes a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow the addition of a second pole identification gign and a ground mounted menu sign on the propel} whereas the ,Sign Code allows o& one pole or ground sign per site• and the use of the McDonald's logo on each of the proposed directional signs The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed 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 10th day of March 1994, 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. Anne Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. atr a� off (T�• .�/{C{�/y\a4tlx Stabs 1400 Tenth Pa nR 7m21 f ea xdi '= � JCM H. MY CP N3%W IENH P.O. ECK 176B PFD41"fZP EMCH, M 926S 176E MO IEDM T - - State-of-e3likmia Pmject NDtificatim and Fe4ew%sban Office cf the Cb e= (M) 445-0613 SCH PINl3~R: 94031010 'S aAMc REmu ta', LP-3516, M;P=SM DO. 93 >xarftmnt Date: 03/04/94 CLeamrm Date: 041M/94 (7f d=ent reamed after 10 PM review starts an,rot day.) Please tm the State ClemmrrJ-nLtse Nnber m future correaxnJam with this clffice aryl with dies annvrlrr3 cr maAeving yxr pzgeat. 'This card des eat*,�ify amplimm with aariztxzoantal. review ,��; s. A letter cxkainirxj the States asm is cr a letter crnfim. m State armalts will.be R xvarded bo 1ai after the review is miplete. F L Offices_of UP- omle= STATE OF CAUFORNIA•THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASKRECEIPT 0 319 DFG 733,5a(e-31) A q ���((( Lead ency: � �,�,rd��/ (+ �1^�•.�-�� / f ��/ Date: [�' n County/State Agency of Filing: Document No.: !� Project Title: Mc,V014 IS C1 �5�.G �5r U -'S1 `MP N0 95 Project Applicant Name: OM 0- ,,11 I-'Q 1 Phone Number: r�, A 01 Project Applicant Address: 04 1 B14 S-w d F Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agency School District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State ency ❑ Private Entity El CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ - ( ) Negative.Declaration $1,250.00 $ O Application Fee Water Diversion(State WatePResouroes Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 .$—�f-��s71 �d� County.Administrative Fee $25.00 $ r-p• UV i) ProjectAhat is exempt from fees 7/1L RECEIVED $ ' J 'V O Signature and title of person receiving payment: �,�y FIRST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB 1 THIRD COFY-LEADAGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING A USEIHISAIRBIILFORSHI EVTSWTTHIN CONDNWALVSAALASIGAHORAWAII AIRBILL ENEINIFpNAi10VALNAWAYBILLFORSHIPMMTOPUDITOAILOM'OAl1N0.VUSLOCA00N5 PACKAGE 96988538224 QUEST)ONSMALL OOL238-5355 TOLL FREE. TRACKING NUMBER 1 9698851 24 • F6=F78iFI�,;L ElP:.Fs3ACC,:"�Rf.:.'�E3 I ate � R �'T.,Is r! • 1.L� (p� -(JLt¢Y� CH , � Ca�.PY From(Your ame)�ieas�¢P_mij YoAvi �uurr PtenBNummbeer(Very lmQponanq To(Recipients Name)Please Pnnt ,Recylenrs Plane Mvroer LverylmpawiQ I� +• /.r,��4_—�py„ nUFloor No it ate__Clear-Snghouse.__.___._____t(9.1H_1.4 pany p �ntlFloar No • `S SVeetACr --0f�§e ar ueaWl'��nnt s--4lept•-------- Fxact SUeetAddreufVle CannotOr6rer1oP0.R=OfP.O.Zrp Codex) • —3300--Newport-Ba vd. 14Q0_Tenth-St..,--Rm._221—_-__- • Cily State — BP Required Gry q State ZIPRequired I . { 9L G YOUR/Ni f BLL/NGREfERENCEiN RMARON(opffanal)(Post24chamcterswillappearanlnw1m) IFHO ATLOCATION,PArdffDIXAddresS Nere Street AYMENT 4 BSSeraer 2 Ba Re arils FixJa 110 3❑Be3N PvyFMEVAv1 No 4❑Ba Credttutl City Slate ]fPRequired f 5❑CF.J AaNLreGt Cab No .. G'of • SERVICES DELIVERYAND SPECIAL HANDLING PA—nj WEIOIN WWpl� VvuDECUAEO SERVICE CONDITIONS,DECLARED VALUE FEE=,ai Erprrsuso �: 'i'• ® • (Check ontyane box) (Check services • n^M* uE required) oy rs..roa AND LIMIT Of LIABILITY njonly �Ij (Min to our ■� QFE�PERER S O�• 1 ❑HOLOASffiu YS AY xI��_ Paaa PonsOHo ¢vauablad�¢mmal�eldW ePrery, Olnu ty`ry ' .'uscnar a or ary is of � 41 OMfq 51 OTHER 2 BEllVINWEEKDAY S�ernro r� 9 • I O g No Pe } 12 mhEel'rvery,oisoa antlaawm¢nlWura�dual lossiare4�mee¢' ❑fEOIXPAK' 62®FEOIXPAK' 31 ❑NOLDAFLOCARONSANROAYgjx1 payan ergro CantLmo,of;M co,eCunenF ml Flmresa for aw lem Q(har2 , !I • 13❑FFOIXBOX 53❑ffOIXBOX 3❑0�E(�SAN�AAOAeVY� Total Total Totai appN Yo«n9ht b recover from FetlerW EmUns 1«airy bss, I • O 14❑gOIXNBE 54❑FEDIX7U9E 9❑gNROAYPICK-UPwro.l n'•i0f1d1el gh%ammM.I.aeab,arid! ams ofdamraw�M eW�er eE«. ermB�aemar.¢aro¢w¢nom.«SpeoalxwRl¢atouwereal«a ra�si cn_rq:. Ee«+!rr/Tno,Da/ Co.2arrrvxit Otrerlty7ht ____.........................._._ r1 5100«ihe tletlaretl vaY¢speafietl to Ne kN.Recwe wirot ' • S Ulfiand:n D1.:I SHIPI,£JliC�ap�t'z'::ag+iii ¢:ceetl aaWtloamentetlkas The maomum 0etlarea7la'uelar (ttevrgsraaomrnaNrl Ixm.+alaa.w�nserr RLr 9 A 30 ECONOMY' 41 GOVT 4 DANGEROUS GOODS P"camel FetlExLatter¢MFetlFx PakpazFagess5500 RMSIONDME1M ) • ❑ ❑LETTER ❑ ❑ __ ___.----_—WO In the event of untimely tlelNery,Fede al FVress rill al yo0i F1RT e13M5 cem ,• • ienjauPo e.wrm>aRe 410 1 GOV'! G DflY/CE rMu¢steM mNaWna lunuaLMerehMan U&ispoifaLm sham. FORMATRISB G Meavn Fcaum/2e ❑PACKAGE ❑p ppq Gmessbgaspa«remrclrtNYW i T'r e.R p•tl Bea.Servk¢GuiEo lurNMerintama6on Fy,ZZtSfw'cB _ r"•__ X4--X—��B— Senderautlaiizes FederalE�ressWtleGv¢rlhlasNprtenlvnUwul 1I Mw soAal pItAIHieH—_.x_._k}eJ1 nl obWang a deg elgamre arA sha0 riMemray and InW • 70❑OYMNIGH 50❑ TWO-OAY ❑ +❑Rxr-:r g'-a '7 me B haen'sss Fetleml iron eery aorta resuRmg Merelmn •_-- ±rc ,: fARGM" I i { p ta�*n ew' .aauyw.Lmtswa 12❑HOLRMYDEUMY(Baa�l Release ea�xnwmueav "Wnr saxeAe (EandwP) z❑h. +S;x 5G_::n Signature. d(, .. �,r,awx:<"�:� _ �:; z `,nn:.... , , an ,:.::. _zf.. i+.u..v- >...,.-x -_.r•.v�„k � :. CITY OF NENPORT BEACH . Building Department 3300 Newport Blvd. " P.O. Box 1768 ' Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 f (714) 644-3288/3289 PLM CHECK NO FEE RECEIPTS ceived From Job Addmss ; is Building Plan Check Valuation $ 010-5002 $ I Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-*a004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................014-5002/5004 S z r, Special"Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P.................................010-SON S Temporary Electric.......'....... ........................010-442 S a: Temporary Gas...........................................010-4610 S ` Grease lnterceptor................. ...........010-4620 $ XPlanning Department Fees :.. GFr .......,.410 5000 Sale of Maps t Publications. ...........................010.581E $ Oetermination. of Unreasonable Hardship ..................010-5018 S q: Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................CID Hazardous aterial Disclosare......... 018-SB�2l S " Other ! 1 ' .y/.. ��. RECEIVED sY: ' 17 W3 TDTAL EEM . 4L C" OF Nr VvrOH i § NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after applicatjj6t .q(�jj 5k 4 {: (We"Cpb'1.93Y t V� / ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Poo City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3225 A. General Information 1. Applicant/Agent: McDonald's Corporation Phone: (619') 535-8900 Address: 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Ste 800 San Diego CA 92122 2. Property Owner: John Newcomb/N/R Marina Partners Phone: (714) 675-9844 Address: 2025 W. Balboa Ave Newport Beach CA 92658 B. Proiect Description Please attach the following materials for the project: �''� • Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scaleL/ • Proposed revisions to zoning map At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map ebrl4ceeub notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: McDonald's Classic 2. Project location: NEC 28th @ Newport 3. Assessor's parcel #: See attached 4. Permit application 0: Be. Proposed use: McDonald's Drive thru only w/patio seating 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc. )_Ap proX 1200 sq.ft. ' So. Site size: Approx. 15.000 Sq. ft. 5d. Building height: Approx, 22 ft. 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: Zoning: C-2 Specific Plan: LCP: 7. Previous governmental approvals: Yes office building/condominium S. Other governmental approvals required: Federal: State: roactal rnmmiccinn Regional: Local: 9. Begin construction: Feb/1994 Estimated occupancy: May/ 1994 (date) (date) C. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or "None". (See attached) 1. Earth Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. 2. Air Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. 3. Water Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater levels or bodies of surface water. Is the project located in a afllooId�hazard zone? 4. Siolocical Resourcee RAJd�1 Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees ( rubs that are - x to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the Si$ ��93 '� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7 5. Noise Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generbting equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? 6, Light and Glare Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. 7. Land Use Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility With surrounding land uses. 8. Public Health and- Safety Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to 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 spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? I£ so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? 9. Population/Housing/Employment a. If the project is residential, please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the average tiousehold size expected. b. If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Please describe how the project will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project. 11. Public Services/Utilities Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Communications Systems • Electrical power • Fire protection • Natural gas • Parks/recreational facilities • Police protection • Schools • Sewer systems or septic tanks • Solid waste and disposal • Storm water drainage systems 12. Aesthetics Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, Could the project block any private views? 13. Cultural and Historic Resources Please identify any known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist on the site. Would the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. .5harov) L.Cllrm, Print name of owner or representative Signature 7 Date • v v v v v s vvvvavvvavvvv.vvvvvv y u { Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: f:\...\JD\FORMS\ENV-INFO. Rev. 12/91 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM NARRATIVE/MCDONALD'S C.U.P. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 004-2188 1. There will be relatively minor earthwork involved. The existing site is a level pad. Since our proposed improvements do not incorporate a basement,the earthwork involved will be negligible. 2. Air emissions are minor in that the proposed construction is relatively minor in scope. Standard construction equipment will be used as typical for this type of development. 3. The existing site is level. Our proposed restaurant will have surface drainage that will be directed to the cities storm drain system. 4. The existing site is a dirt lot. There are no existing vegetation or trees of note. No fish or wildlife presently inhabit the site. LAR650PMGR\RS_D\10199301.D0C 10/22/93 MM 24`� RGP J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 23, 1995 TO: Ray Schuller,Building Director FROM: John Douglas,Principal Planner SUBJECT; McDonald's Plan Check Please note that the Planning Department has now received payment in full from McDonald's for traffic consultant work done in support of their Use Permit application. Please direct your staff to resume work on plan checks for this project. If you have any questions please call me at x3230. cc: Robert Burnham,City Attorney inn Hewicker,Planning Director Kevin Murphy, City Manager Sharon Collins,McDonalds Jerry King t.t..V0HN-DNTPMCDorbm1Tx I �gW Pp�,r @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 e� Building Department - (714) 644-3288/3289 DATE ^�� FEE RECEIPT / PLAN CHECK N0. 01 �g-�T11 Received From -Job Addres Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Zoning Plan Check ....... ................ ..............010-5003 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Fire Plan Check .............................. ......... 010-5055 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G....................... ...010-5002/5004 $ Additional Building Plan Check .........................010-5002 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Preliminary Code Compliance Review .....................010-5002 $ Reinspection B E H P.................................010-5008 $ Reinspection Fire ......................................010-5050 $ Temporary Electric......................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...........................................010-4616 $ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy .....................010-5008 $ Underground Utilities Waiver ........ tr) .........010-2225 $ Grease Interceptor.............................. ........ $ Planning Department Fees...........JAR I&1995.......010-5000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable 16r11WPNRvjP.0?J.5FAgH..010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ Fire Dept. azardous Material /Review....................010-5058 $ xOther Py C 7��1 y3) em-50/D $ RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES S NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. FEE RECEIPT NO. (Afeercpt6.94) Y � �gW PAR e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 Z P.O.BOX 1768,AWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 d.. Building Department' - (714) 644,3288/3289 FEE RECEIPT DATE PLAN CHECK NO. Received From Job Address , Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ ` Zoning Plan Check . ...... ................ ...... ........010-5003 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Fire Plan Check ... .................................... 010-5055 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Additional Building Plan Check .........................010-5002 $ Special Inspection............................... ... ....010-5008 $ Preliminary Code Compliance Review .....................010-5002 $ Reinspection B E H P.................................010-5008 $ Reinspection Fire .......... .. ............. ....... ......010-5050 $ ' Temporary Electric. ...... ...... ........... ......... .....010-4612 $ Temporary Gas......... .......................... .........010-4616 $ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy .....................010-5008 S Underground Utilities Waiver ....................g.......010-2225 $ Grease Interceptor........................i5 A VP.....010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees.................. .........0. 010-5000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications..............SpM.........010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..... ..�1. ��t�16018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies.. .......E�jy.®F...... ... ...0O-5019 $ 1 Hazardous Material Disclosute...........................010-5021 $ Fire Dept. Hazardous Material Review....................010-5058 $ Other $ RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. { FEE RECEIPT NO. (f%feercpt6.94) �EWPORT @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT a = NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 °�aFoaN� 5180'3 RECEIVED BY: MAD CUSTOMER: SAN DIEGO LEGION DISBURSE ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 010-5010 $207.75 TOTAL DUE _ $207.75 7 CASH PAID CHECK FAIID.'U11 NO a TENDERED CHANGE $. 00 $207:75 5C3Gf01:El- j $207. 75 $. 00 DATE — 0171`$/ 144 39. 4.8 6 4 4 McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 800 JM,"Wonql,�'s San Diego, California 92122 L7 619/535-8900 January 17, 1995 Jon Douglas City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Jon: RE: Balance due for Traffic Study 004-2188 The amount of$2,077.50 was paid on December 20, 1994 to Justin Farmer directly. A check for$207.75 which represents the 10% Administrative fee imposed by the City,is attached hereto. Please except my apology with regard to this matter and I ask that you notify all parties interested, i.e., city planning staff, city attorney. Sincerely, MCDONALD'S CORPORATION Sharon Collins Real Estate Representative SC/nj attachment UR65DEV\SHAR0N\2188FEE.D0C 01/17/95 NJ 01/17/14S95 12:17 714-447-6080 JUSTIN FARMER TRANS PAGE 01 JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 1NC. qvp"iF� 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(114) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 Transmittal To: �' Y �� ,F� Date: OQ2C7=� � a17 Pro'.. No 4 Re: A4.1- CC: Attn:(," � We are sending you: ❑ Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover ❑ Personal Delivery Via ❑ US Mail ❑ Delivery Service 'Ej-'/17AX ❑ The Following ❑ Reports ❑ Copy of Letter � � O Plans ❑ Specifications O © Prints ❑ Data ❑ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. For: ❑ Your Use Your Files ❑ Review & Comment ❑ Use on Job ❑ Approval ❑ ❑ As Requested ❑ For Corrections ❑ Description: 7 � Remarks: yG Rccpeotfully, 01Y17/1595 12:17 714-447-6080 JUSTIN FARMER TRANS PAGE 02 "A 29672821 11 MCDDNALDS CORPORATION 11 10643232 H*0• CORP CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTING 12/20/94 * 1=2r077.50 —' PAY TNQ-THO USA ND—SE VENTY—SE VEN-6-50/300Mur; TO JUSTIN F. FAKMER THE 223 EAST IMPERIAL HWY ORDER SUITE 155 OF FULLERTON CA 92635 Colonial Bank,Affiliate of Bank of Bostor• Waiemuryy.C' , • ref ai iairir ri ll� lay "•i •:er Via:._.._._ _ _ Y t_•..1:•'a.' [IN LOG 43232116 1:01ii1008051: S4L. 0365211' H.O. CORP CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTING ,cmnald'S. r 29672821 10643232 10'64323i t1"ICI%SA:�fd +..:a1dlSRlww^i�� ..,: _94127859.Opt 2085. 061894 i BUILDING—OWNED LA 1506 004 2188 12120 0'49• , 2017.5C t I i ---...... . . i. . . , 11 MCDONA•LDS CORPORATION 11 �. 2077.50 W Wy �n rYW tc _r LLW$U LLZ 2 O 'AaWW 'J Bank Of AMarl TOTAL �/ Brea ei..c WSY (7f{) a33-M7 DEPOSIT y/4.�- w 2eDSWh Sleie CoU6DB Boulerad C Brea G W6]f �: 5 100008 59f: 09 5 29rr 3 549811' 0T/17/1$95 12:17 714-447-6080 JUSTIN FARMER TRANS PAGE 03 JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. ;iU 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, 'CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6090 FAX (714) 447.6080 INVOICE City of Newport Beach August 18, 1994 3300 Newport Beach Blvd . Newport Beach, Ca 92658 INVOICE 42085 OUR FILE #F1044-B RE: Data Collection, Traffic Circulation, and Parking Study for Mc Donald ' s Restaurant . located at 28th St . /Newport Blvd . Newport Beach - EXTRA WORK EFFORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Attended City Council meeting, staff meeting requested by Mr . King, and a Planning Commission meeting which were not included as part of the original contract . FOR THE PERIOD OF: June 23, July 26, and August 8, 1994 EXTRA CHARGES BASED ON TIME AND MATERIAL Justin Farmer 15 hrs R $135. 00 $2 . 025 . 00 Mileage 150 miles R $ . 36 52 . 50 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PER INVOICE $2, 077. 50 Please make checks payable to: JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Th you, Justin F. Farmer , President NET 30 DAYS K CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 10, 1995 TO: Ray Schuller, Building Director FROM: ` John Douglas, Principal Planner SUBJECT. McDonald's Plan Check McDonalds has not paid the balance of$2,285.25 due for traffic consultant work for their project at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard. This project was approved by the City Council on August 8, 1994 (Use Permit No. 3516). Until the City receives payment from McDonalds, we cannot pay the invoice from the consultant for work done over 6 months ago. My most recent conversation with Sharon Collins, McDonalds representative was on December 6, 1994. At that time she stated that the payment had been approved and the check would go out "in a few days". That was 5 weeks ago. Please direct your staff to stop work on all plan checks and to withhold all permits for this project until further notice. If you have any questions please call me at x3230. cc: Robert Burnham, City Attorney Jim Hewhcker, Planning Director Kevin Murphy, City Manager Sharon Collins, McDonalds f.\...\JOHN-D\TPO\MCDONLDS.LIR I �I %����y �� �� ��� �� ' �� ° � � ��� �� . Ale- g(7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 5, 1994 TO: Ellen, Building Dept. FROM: Joanne, Planning Dept. SUBJECT: McDonald's Restaurant For some months, McDonald's Restaurant has had an unpaid balance of$2,285.25 on their Traffic Study Account in the Planning Department. According to Aziz, he spoke with Ray Schuller and you to arrange attaching this unpaid sum to McDonald's building permit fees. Can you tell me whether or not this amount was, indeed, added to the permit fees, and if so, has it been collected? Thanks. 410d /7F OVA.,�30,e) , � i�-may-y� w/��� � ��u�� .� ��� � ���� � � ��-� �� �� ��� � � �� �� �;� � � �U� ��' �SEW Pp�T e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U ? P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 aH °q<rFoaN�r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 29, 1994 Sharon L. Collins McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant at 28th Street, Newport Beach, Additional Traffic Services. Dear Ms Collins: The City of Newport Beach has received an invoice, No. 2085, from Justin Farmer Transportation Engineers Inc. in the of$2,077.50 for attending a meeting requested by Mr. King, a Planning Commission meeting and a City Council meeting for the proposed McDonald's restaurant. The City administrative fee is a 10% ($207.75) charge. Please submit a check in the amount of $2,285.25, payable to the City of Newport Beach at your earliest convenience. Should you have any other questions regarding this matter, or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWIC/KER, DIRECTOR of By . Post-it"Fax Note 7671 From / pages► VNI „ 1. _ To From Aziz M. Aslami Co./ ep Co. Associate Planner Phone Phone k Fax N . Fax R F:\WP51\...\Aziz.A\Traffic\TP093\Collins.lt4 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 `f INVOICE City of Newport Beach August 18, 1994 3300 Newport Beach Blvd . Newport Beach, Ca 92658 INVOICE #2085 OUR FILE #F1044-B RE: Data Collection, Traffic Circulation, and Par-king Study for McDonald 's Restaurant, -1-ocated at 28.t.h- St_/Newport Blvd_ Newport Beach - EXTRA WORK EFFORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Attended City Council meeting, staff meeting requested by Mr . King, and a Planning Commission meeting which were not included as part of-- the original contract . FOR THE PERIOD OF: June 23, July 26, and August 8, 1994 EXTRA CHARGES BASED ON TIME AND MATERIAL Justin Farmer 15 hrs 4 $135. 00 $2. 025. 00 Mileage 150 miles N $ . 35 52. 50 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PER INVOICE $2, 077 . 50 Please make checks payable to: JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, I•NC. Th you, Justin F. Farmer, President NET 30 DAYS t OF ���TINPOP T (�UU, 2 _ 1994 P� - �r� 7181911U11111ZI112A4{5t6 DATE FOR WHILE YOU WERE OUTN pkx r sW�� OF PHONE No. ' EXT. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN CAME IN TO SEE YOU URRGEENNTT� MESSAGE � 3/ `� ,� 94Le- RG x�� 1 ...� �� V� _ --- �,, � r 1 ,,', `- O�SEW FO�r CITt OF NEWPORT BEACH U _ T P.C . BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659•1768 p �r '�Gf FO FN FAX COVER SHEET DATE: ,' JLA TO: Skaro� L . ColIInS BUSINESS PHONE: �� °� S3 S1—$�0 0 FAX NUMBER: ( (.o L q) S3 S — R q 4 4 RE: �"�G �6VIA CLII UY-Q V1� cV� 29-Hi 5� �ee'I"� �( Poae�► THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 PHONE NO. : (714) -3225 FAX NO. : (714)644-3250 NO. OF PAGES: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ./ 1. 6 q POST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U Z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 ent PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 June 16, 1994 Sharon L Collins McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant at 28th Street, Newport Beach, Additional Traffic Services. Dear Ms Collins: The additional traffic study related services for the proposed McDonald's restaurant,which required as a result of the proposed site plan changes, was a lump sum of$3,600. The City, administrative fee is a 109o' ($360) charge. The required services have been provided by the Justin Farmer Transportation Engineering Inc. Please submit a check in the amount of $3,960, payable to the City of Newport Beach prior to June 23, 1994 to avoid further delay of this project. Should you have any other questions regarding this project, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Aziz M. Asla Associate Planner F..\wrsi\...\A:i:-A\Trarrc\TPo93\cown:.u2 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1 t ) v REPORT ON: ° ' TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION FOR A ' MCDONALD'S CLASSIC RESTAURANT NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 28TH STREET CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' MR.JOHN DOUGLAS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92658 ' PREPARED BY: JUSTIN F. FARMER ' TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 ' FULLERTON, CALIF. 92635 (714) 447-6070 ' FAX (714) 447-6080 ' OUR FILE F1044 FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Revised MARCH 30, 1994 ' Revised JUNE 7, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . 1 Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map . . . . . .. ... . . . 2 _ Figure 2 - Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SiteArea Streetseets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SiiePhotographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seasonal Variation: Santa Monica Beach 6 Hourly Variations: West Coast Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Proposed McDonald's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 1 - McDonald's Monthly Variations Sales Transactions . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3 - McDonald's Monthly Variations Sales Transactions ... . . . . . . . 9 Table 2A - Hourly Sales Transactions (Non-Summer) West Coast Hwy. . . . . 10 Table 2B - Summary Number of Transaction (Summer) West Coast Hwy. . . . 11 Figure 4A - McDonald's Non-Summer Hourly Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' Figure 4B - McDonald's Summer Hourly Variations• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 3A - Hourly Sales Transactions 28th at Newport ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3B - Summary Number of Transactions 28th at Newport . . . . . . . . . . 15 ' Figure 5A - Non-Summer Hourly Variations 28th at Newport . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 5B - Summer Hourly Transactions Forecast 28th at Newport . . . . . . 17 Table 4A - Trip Generation Forecast (Non-Summer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' Table 4B - Trip Generation Forecast (Summer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ' REGIONAL GROWTH IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 6 - Project Trip Distribution 2 1/2 Hr Peaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 THE "ONE PERCENT TEST" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 5 - Summary of One Percent Test & LOS Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ' INTERNAL CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 DRIVE-THRU LANE ANALYSIS . 24 QUEUE LENGTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 DRIVEWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . Table 6 - McDonald's Drive-Thru Lane Survey (Face-to-Face) . 28 Table 7 - McDonald's Drive-Thru Lane Survey (Queue Length Data) . . . . . . 29 ' Figure 7 : Queue Length Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 PARKING 31 BIKE ACCESSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 ' PEDESTRIANS TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . 33 Non-Summer Weekday Pedestrian . 33 Summer Weekend Pedestrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ' Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ' APPENDIX ' JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. tt y '. EXECUTIVE-SUA�AAA' Y o The McDonald's Corporation wishes to construct a restaurant on the north side of 28th Street between the two roadways of Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach. o Due to limited space on the subject parcel, the restaurant will be limited in size and will have approximately 400 square feet of indoor seating. The building itself will ' have a total of 1500 square feet. o A traffic forecast has been prepared generally as follows: ' 1) Sales transactions from a McDonald's Restaurant in Santa Monica was used to obtain seasonal variations for a restaurant at a Southern California beach ' venue. ' 2) Hourly sales transaction data were obtained from a McDonald's Restaurant on West Coast Highway in Newport Beach. ' 3) A market study and sales forecast was made for the site by McDonald's staff. 4) The relationship between sales transactions anticipated for the proposed ' restaurant and actual trip generation was based upon data at the Santa Monica and the West Coast Highway restaurants. A ratio of walk-up to drive-up customers was provided by the McDonald's Corporation and was ' used in the analysis of this report. These ratios are: Non-Summer Summer Drive-thru 55% 55% ' Walking/Biking 25% 15% Arrive with Car 20% 30% 5) A forecast was prepared of the amount of auto and pedestrian traffic to be generated by the proposed restaurant. This forecast is presented on Table"A" ' on the following page. ' 6) An assessment was made of the impact pedestrians will have on site vicinity streets. ' 7) Bikes accessibility was assessed insofar as existing and future availability of bikeway in the site vicinity can be predicted.. I ' JUSTIN R- FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS. INC. TABLE A TRIP GENERATION FORECAST MCDONALD's RESTAURANT VEHICLES&TEDE STRIAN TRIPS FULL BUILD-OUT YEAR ....... . ...... ........ .- ............. TarAL(l) AUTO TRW(2) PED.;MIPS MT��(I) j AUTO TRIPS (2) qFPFEDE�TIUPPS TRAUMMO',, DRWFTHRU =m TRIICMC170Nd 11 DRXMTHRU MHM (3) 73 40/3Z /18 L63 49 39 24/30 15119 to .......... .............. DR�.TnAU TW�WnONS DR�THRV aMEA (3) :(2)::. .............. AUTO TRIPS (2)--ToTAL�(l) AUTO TRIPS(2) .:..PEA TRIPS =AL(l) PED, TRIPS TMNMCTIONS 3 49/40 W—M 166F.92/37 30138 69 38 31. [1712111--__11— 1 42134 ........... .............6d. 84 108 x:PM: 84 92 (L) TRANSACTIONS = A GROUP PLACING ONE ORDER(SEE TABLE 3A) (2) TRANSACTIONS X 751A 1 taS TRANSACTION PER VEHICLE (85%FOR NON-SUMMER) (1) TRANSACTIONS 112111 X 10 PERSON PER TRANSACTIONS (L5% FOR NON-SUMMER) (4) FIRST NUMBER=NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS/SECOND NUMBER=NUMBER OF TRIPS JUSTIN E FARMER 71 TRANSPORTATION FWANEERS, INC. o Level Of. Service analyses were conducted•in compliance with the City's.Traffic B ' Phasing Ordinance. Listed below, in Table is a summary of that,analysis.,, TABLE B ' SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT TEST & LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES �:�:�:I�P1TE12SEG'TTQI+#:: , sccivaaio:::�� �:�:� :�?:�:�:•: �t; `•c+:;:; :: G$1&�;Rat;i;i%L•CUl4I•.`: ;t�FPRC)J;: ;:�IF17G` . AM PEAK YES 0.40/A 0.4llA 0.42/A NA FM PEAK YES 0 56/A 0.56/A 0 5 A_ NA PiE.... ...C�:VIA;.... .. :•: AM PEAK YES 0.54/A 0.55% 0.WA NA ' PM PEAK YES O.SKA LOZ&A 0S6/A NA dOM*T:�:Biitg6A?Si3i?; AM PEAK NO 0.62/B NOT REQUIRED ' PM PEAK NO 0.7SVC NOT REQUIRED 'PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC EXCEEDS 1% OF NON-PROJECT ' TRAFFIC FOR BUILD-OUT YEAR o Because levels of service were in the"A" range,no mitigation measures were necessary at all study intersections.. ' o Detailed drive-thru lane analysis and queue length analysis were conducted in order ' to evaluate the face-to-face approach of placing an order. Trained observers were stationed on two existing McDonald's Restaurants during the busiest weekday peak period (from 11:30 A.M. - 1:30 P.M.). The following is a summary of our findings: ' 1. During the peak noon hour, McDonald's in Rancho Cucamonga serviced 85 cars and McDonald's in La Verne serviced 82 cars in the drive-thru lane. At ' both locations, drive-thru "one hour' peak occurred between 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. and peak 15 minutes occurred between 12:15 P.M. and 12:30 P.M. ' 2. At both locations during mid-day peak periods, the number of queues equal to or greater than 3 cars were approximately the same with 59 queues at Rancho Cucamonga and 64 queues at LaVerne. However, queues equal to or greater than 4 cars occurred 35 times at Rancho Cucamonga verses 61 ' JUSTIN E FARMER iii TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. t , > times in LaVerne. Queues equal to or greater than 5 cars occurred 19 times , ',,;t - -- �•• , at Rancho Cucamonga verses 51,times at�LaVeme.,,`T•,heimproved,customer. service in Rancho Cucamonga could be attributing to the following: ' a. During lunch peak period, the Rancho Cucamonga restaurant improved customer service providing for a temporary Face-To-Face ordering ' location, approximately 100 feet beyond its permanent location. Additionally, customers were provided napkins, ketchup, etc. before the pick-up window to minimize waiting time. I b. Distance between the ordering station and the food pick-up window is 180 feet in Rancho Cucamonga and 85 feet in LaVeg e; that equates to ' additional 5 car stacking distance. 3. At McDonald's in LaVeme, queues of 8 cars occurred 3 times and queues of ' 7 cars occurred 12 times. At McDonald's in Rancho Cucamonga, 7 car queues were experienced 4 times and 8 car queues were not experienced. ' This would also be the result of the above discussion. ' 4. The proposed McDonald's would have a 72 car demand at the drive-thru lane during the midday peak hour or approximately 15% less than the average in both surveyed facilities (84 cars). This may be attributed to a smaller seating ' area. The decreased demand and the difference in environment between the surveyed locations and the proposed location will result in lesser queue frequency. ' It is noted that it is almost impossible to forecast the exact number of car queues and the frequency of each queue category unless a similar facility with' similar design and surrounding environment is available for survey. However, based on the above information, it is reasonable to say that there will be no queues of 7 and 8 cars behind the ordering station at the proposed facility; ' S car queues are possible and 6 car queues are expected only during a surge. Because of the rather limited distance between the proposed Face-To-Face window and Newport Boulevard, measures must be implemented in order to ' eliminate 6 car queues, minimize 5 car queues, and limit the majority of queues to a maximum of 4 cars. If such measures are not operationally feasible, the site plan should be revised in order to accommodate such longer ' queues. ' o Summer and non-summer weekday parking demands were assessed based on the number of transactions and McDonald's characteristics. The provided number of parking spaces appear to be adequate. JUSTIN R FARMER iv TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. o With respect to-bike accessibility, it is noted that a number of customers would•arrive ' 3 Ito the-proposedMcDonald's by bike. Newport Boulevard and Balboa,Boulevard do not have bike lanes. Bicyclist in this area, customarily use sidewalks and ocean front ' adjacent to the beach. It is anticipated that similar conditions will remain at full build-out of McDonald's and that the number of bicyclists using the site would not trigger the need to install bike lanes on these streets. o Concern has been voiced that there might be an undue amount of pedestrian activities induced by this proposed restaurant. Detailed analysis were conducted and is ' presented in this report, Pages 33-39. Due to the complexity and the scope-of this analysis, a brief summary here will not adequately represent the assessments. Therefore, please refer to the complete pedestrian section. 1 ' JUSTIN E FARMER V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' INTRODUCTION A proposal has been made to construct a new "CLASSIC" McDonald's Restaurant on a parcel of land north, of 28th' Street between the two Newport Boulevards, in .Central' , , , Newport Beach.'The site is currently vacant. The purpose of this report is to assess traffic and pedestrian impacts which may result from the project.The report will also comply with ' the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' THE PROJECT The project will consist of constructing a small "CLASSIC' McDonald's drive-thru restaurant on the north side of 28th Street at Newport Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach (see Figure 1, Page 2 for Site Vicinity Map). Because of limited parcel size, the t restaurant will have only 1,500 square feet of building size with indoor seating of approximately 400 square feet where customers sit and eat their meal. Figure 2, Page 3, illustrates the proposed Site Plan. ' Access to Newport Boulevard will be via three driveways, all onto the ONE-WAY Newport Boulevard couplet.Figure 2 indicates ingress and egress via one driveway to the northbound ' street while there will be two driveways on the southbound street segment. Parking is based upon the total square footage of the restaurant plus employee parking. ' - Parking Required ' Building area 1,500 Sq. Ft. @ 1 Stall per 50 Sq. Ft: 30 Stalls Employee parking = 6 Stalls ' TOTAL REQUIRED = . 36 Stalls ' - Parking Provided ' Regular stalls 26 Stalls Handicap stalls 2 Stalls Drive-thru = 8 Stalls ' TOTAL PROVIDED = 36 Stalls ' Although it is recognized that on-street parking is not counted towards satisfying parking requirements, at-curb parking is permitted on the southbound couplet. Inasmuch as there will be nominal on-site seating the primary food preparation effort will be directed toward the drive-thru lane, thus increasing the efficiency of food service in that drive-thru lane. Figure 2, Page 3, indicated eight cars total capacity in the drive-thru lane. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. t� u � _ "x- u �1 S=1sr d iG ,® 3 '•W 5/ � .e a rrtn rose d � y I MILJ P. ° � u n nan - •E •� roves ru � L_ �G}' � — �` a` i mn+ n ` '< a sr sr $r qy '<p� °? f`� ' "i��• 0 wRo vn .� r tr p•N' aro,ry. i a al 5 SURF fA• ,4 J} 9 r HaM �g°�EeyeERxmnr n91a °.> 67 .°'w4 ,�1 ar t' O s ` 95l 19iH 5T ■ P i& ■tt �-0 �� �Or� >,® .Jx.�'+ '`♦f. ' -----� Y `SEFxrtR 9TH uBERKa sT O ST o ,¢t�• pJ b` d'i o xE u_ d = ' smrr PI B Da !•�tt �yJ ♦ Ig "8 w^n �ur..wex cr b L_ alvnn a \ r lam ; 4•♦H 1 R ni •tY Qr•• s aunxu \ t� me rP �,� nnr on xee e, � f `T 4 ♦ I ' SEE FS x\ HRI RNHT 9VAIw Pv H I ! c6grr rb Y P ''♦ �`° �� . I 0 \\u HR xEvroN Vt 2alw ' r° ` !� \ 'ri •ai`P e o .a� r f♦ ♦ ♦ 74pq ¢� u uwu a e.c a nP I 3 mx n ♦� o '�• �.. �, / r$ S/..? o p S 1 ti ` I I i P�,•8 N r4 °�, 7 1Pg .? ,ry. � �"♦ a Sr sµ= a ,+'�,\ _ I 1 )I < yl.! ��G��'ltl9'LQ ♦ Y^lEH ' \\ I >• P __ �r f$i •tG �8 W,'Ml�W, tiP,9 K a i esr ast i°N'utiu�n rmvn r n P, .y W :, � P s .�( ! "♦ fF � •�o g �x r nlun n I a na iarnu2 ■ p �F+ l o p °)y� �r�prPB,/ •,��, e,�3' �' c hi A/ i n p n ew■ P . 4 u? a ' d• 4� e I A r u tr`W' o'` •? , „ M O x? pay f•� `�' �•S��x as Sp4 ERIOP j »e':M dyes off' ay9 z! q`' !" ,�a• 3' r+ a qP� xaa�x pr C ,' P U P• �� eEh;o oAS1 wl ° P " r m ♦x�. xwaR w� t xESPFPrcl ffs' _ ---.._--- � � � .�"' tN _r �Y� ' ',� ^ �•' 1. , oti -- •. ,I r •�4 I, ; xtxcs rPi � r \•. ' \•. � : ( ♦'4�+A W COAST HWY I `tPoE $ err ■ � \ �. \\• � � ,. •� nue• . ere g •;��.., ��' . _ �QQy� 4f • ram`. a .a _ , r - •,ersR� ,��Yi. 4 �.. i�na '�.• S 2 ' — ` ?dt ..\I. :In•.n �'��_—, t! S k/ saPaPn sry EY CM .. I O �T. Ran E1 ''••F rr•rr. � ,\ a ALOOA I4HI B - 11Y11p t1Pll rr PIR f\lltlf'i)i I " r ' 1r 1 Map source : Thomas Bros. FIG ' SITE VICINITY MAP 1 ' JUSTIN F. F.ARIER 2 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER,,.INC. 1 � RT _ e � ' , t Mc�O •:t -=LA6 ?OLE5 (5t 05 � ' .V ' i — 'cX15f1NG O�Y • s ' i i ttL '`� 6 i u • SIK` ie,4,GK If'+ ' •'13. 'L-H• ,d, LANDxAPE T'J , J , ,Q •GONG ° ���._ J ♦flF[ 1� - J i • .fl e 1 °l w u . I• ' ® y rib�e 5"JR W AWN i 4 1 4 Q ' -a, BLDG• 1 n? i i ' Pwa o / co i =� ?�A .5_O.. to ENTRY o s l' I VIFZM 'r,ONAL 516\- ' DIREGTtONAL 516N J -'O 52 507-. 1 H H16!• FIG - PROJECT SITE PLAN 2 NEWPORT SOULEVAPp r—� SETTING SITE AREA STREETS ' Newport Boulevard in the project area is a north-south separated arterial roadway which borders the site on both the west and east. Newport Boulevard in the project area has an approximate width of 44 feet in the southbound direction and 44 feet in the northbound' ' direction and provides two travel lanes in each direction. Balboa Boulevard is a northwest-southeast arterial roadway approximately one block west of the site. In the project area it has a width of 74:feet and is striped with two travel lanes in each direction. Left-tarn lanes are provided on Balboa Boulevard at most intersections. Parking is permitted on both'sides of the roadway. ' Twenty-eight Street is an east-west local street which borders the site on the south. The street has an approximate width of 64 feet and provides two travel lanes in each direction ' except between the two Newport Boulevards where it is 40 feet wide. The intersection of 28th Street and southbound Newport Boulevard, as well as the intersection of 28th Street and Balboa Boulevard, are controlled by stop signs on 28th Street.The intersection of 28th Street and northbound Newport Boulevard is signalized.No parking restrictions are posted. AREA DEVELOPMENT ' Land uses in the vicinity of the site are predominantly residential and commercial in nature. ' See photograph below and on the following page. Ciljr Looking north toward the project site from Newport South/28th Intersection. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 1 Looking north toward the project site from Newport North/28th Intersection. 1 - View of the unsignalized T t- o � i,�• �t ;e;i,,,,. •• � intersection of Newport *— -' Blvd. South at 28th Street; the arrow points to the 1 project site. .1 Vf' 1 _ c 1 - View of signalized r intersection of Newport 1 � , � Blvd.North at 20th Street; �w�- •- ; --��Y the arrow points to the project site. 1 - w 1 JUSTIN E FARMER 5 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily and peak houg traffic generation for projects such as that being proposed are normally expressed in 'terms of trip ends per'1,000 square feet of gross floor area. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicular journey either to or from the site, or it may be a journey totally within the site. The later is referred to as an internal trip. Each trip will have two trip ends; one at the origin and one at the destination of the trip. Trip making characteristics for a variety of land use types have been collected from a number of field studies at actual projects, both in Southern California and elsewhere in the United States. The results of these studies have been reported upon by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers),SANDAG(San Diego Association of Governments),CALTRANS (California Department of Transportation), Arizona Department of Transportation and various published and unpublished private,studies. ' SEASONAL VARIATIONS In order to address seasonal variations in customer activity at a beach oriented site, data ' were collected from a McDonald's Restaurant near the beach in Santa Monica. Sales data were collected for each month of the year for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. These data, expressed in terms of percentage of the peak month, are arrayed in Table 1 and Figure 3 on Pages 8 and 9. It was determined that February is the lowest month of the year (non- summer), being only 64% of August, the peak month (summer). HOURLY VARIATIONS ' In order to properly assess daily peak hour activity at a Newport Beach venue, data were collected from a McDonald's Restaurant on West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. Data were collected fora summer and non-summer weekday,for a weekend and for ' the average of all 7 days in the week. Tables 2A and 2B and Figures 4A and 4B, on the following pages represent the number of transactions by hour, for weekday and weekend, ' and for both summer and non-summer conditions. The data represents an average four consecutive weeks during both conditions. ' THE PROPOSED MCDONALD'S The proposed McDonald's fast-food restaurant,will be a unique fast-food restaurant which will be located within walking distance of the beach area and close to nearby commercial centers and offices. Inasmuch as the proposed restaurant will be designed primarily for ' drive-thru customers with minimal customer seating(approximately 400 square feet indoor seating, it was deemed inappropriate to use ITE trip rates. This is compounded by the fact that there is expected to be a number of walk-up customers who will buy food and drinks ' for a number of others, and then carry their purchases back to the beach or office. I ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 6 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' l A trip generation forecast for the subject restaurant was prepared using transaction data from McDonald's Restaurants at both the West Coast Highway McDonald's Restaurant and a similar restaurant near the beach in Santa Monica. Both restaurants maintain very complete data regarding transactions during each hour of the day and each month of the year. From these data, it was possible to obtain data on seasonal fluctuations•as well as data forweekday-and weekend transactions. Specific•fordcast was developed-by McDonald's - Corporation in order to estimate future walk-up customers. A trip generation forecast for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant on 28th Street and Newport Boulevard was prepared based upon the following criteria: 1. As a matter of policy, The McDonald's Corporation conducts extensive marketing studies prior to committing to a specific site. In the course of those studies, a forecast ' is made of sales to be generated at the proposed site. ' 2. The following information was provided by the McDonald's Corporation in order to forecast cash transactions at the proposed McDonald's on 28th Street and was used to estimate vehicular and pedestrian trips: Summer Non-Summer Drive-thru 55% 55% ' - Walking/Biking 25% 15% Dine-in 15% 9% Take-out 10% 6% ' - Arrived in a Car 20% 30% Dine-in 12% 18% Take-out 8% 12% ' TOTAL 100% 100% ' 3. In the subject assessment, total cash transactions anticipated at the proposed restaurant (from the market survey) were compared to known cash receipts at the West Coast Highway restaurant in Newport Beach. Those data were then factored from gross dollar data to summer and non-summer hourly traffic data, thus arriving at a forecast for a fully occupied restaurant. Results of that forecast are summarized in Table 3A and 3B and Figures 5A and 5 B on Pages 14 , 15, 16 and 17. 4. The above forecasts are expressed in terms of TRANSACTIONS and therefore must ' be converted to either persons or autos. Observations of persons using drive thru lanes and parry sizes at walk-up windows suggests that the average party ' size/transaction ratio is 1.25 transactions per vehicle; i.e., if there were 100 transactions in a given time period, then there would be 80 vehicles (100/1.25=80). A conversion from transactions to walk-up persons also utilized a factor of 1.25. In ' this case observations indicated that there are 1.25 persons in a parry where there is one cash transactions; i.e., group sizes are relatively small with respect to walk-up parties, many persons placing individual orders and paying separately. Results of the ' Trip Generation Forecast for the proposed McDonald's are therefore as summarized on Table 4A and 4B on Pages 18 and 19. Table 4A summarizes non-summer conditions and Table 4B summarizes summer conditions for weekdays and weekends. ' ' JUSTIN E FARMER 7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 4 TABLE 1 MCDONALDIS MONTHLY VARIATIONS SALES TRANSACTION SANTA MONICA BEACH --- ------- 7�- .......... ... ...... .. .......AVE" .. YEARS 9 a 7 7 %7:- JAN 65.14% 69.65% 68.54% ........ ..:4 5; 7- : -63 MAR 73.44% 68.72% 75.62% 72.59% 73.18% APR 77.31% 81.76% 80.99% 80.02% 89.667o MAY 81.65% 74.01% 83.97v/o 79.87% 80.52% JUN 84.84% 83.49% 87.07% 85.13% 85.82% JUL 98.47% 96.68% 100.00% 98.38% 99.18%........................ ..... .....6.........4%0-6 ...... w: 7... 0 SEP 76.71% 76.17c/o 79.34% 77.40% -7&03% OCT 73.04% 76.62% 74.48% 74.71% 75.31% NOV 69.06% 67.11% 67.54% 66.24% 66.77% DEC 64.35% 69.22% 69.68% 67.75% 68.29% K V6'. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MCDONALD'S CORPORATION DATA PRESENTS VARIATIONS BASED ON NUMBER OF TRANSACTION AND MONTHLY SALES "LOWEST MONTH OF YEAR ***HIGHEST MONTH OF YEAR rn z in 1 I FIGURE 3 i ' MCDONALD'S MONTHLY VARIATIONS SALES TRANSACTIONS-SANTA MONICA BEACH ' L00 y ........................................................................................................................ ................._................................................._.................................................._..... gp ..................................................................... ............... ................................................................................ ..................................................................__... Zq ........................................... ......................................................................................................................._............................................. ............................_........ vFa60 .................................................................................................................................................................._.........................................................................._......... x x ' o 40-.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... z C ........................................................ _... .............................. ............ ..................... ......... ................ _...._..... ................... _.__....._.........._._....... ..................... ' a LO ......................................................................................................._._._._...._._..............._.........................__......................_._.........................__...._............__... ' 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY AN JUL AUG SIP OCT NOV DEC MONTH ' *** =BUSIEST MONTH ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 9 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. TABLE 2A HOURLY SALES TRANSACTIONS MCDONALD'S - WEST COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA NON SUMMER .. . . .. ............. ........... THUR FRI SAT SUN WEEK _EK DAY WE EN; DAY 12AM 15 12 13 F 1 2 I001 3 1 0 F_ 2-7 1 3 I0000000 4 I 5 17 0001 I o 11 o I I 1 6 0000000 7 1 8 IF 77 80 F 817 9 E 7-1 79 1 83 j79 to -6 - F­94_7F_-8-1 -1 F -IF 71.71 IF _ 96 9L7F 7 11 987F 78 12pm IF L677 LSL 135 1 73 lf::P.'::..:1.74::::.:::Il 104 139 I t IF 102 -IF LOS -IF L72 107 2 69 76 657F 98 73 3 74 4 5 F 6-4 71F-60 ­176-0ll 56 58 160 6 F _71 IF-677601 63- 11 69 11 62 7 F 61 -IF-71 I M L 66 11 -_ 52 1 59 28 3-3 8 39 367F 32 F 8 9 38 44 i� F34 43 26 34 10 32 15 28 34 A *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MCDONALDwS CORPORATION;DATA PRESENTS HOURLY VARIATIONS. PEAK HOUR TRANSACTIONS JUSTIN F. FARMER 10 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC TABLE 2B SUMMARY NUMBER OF TRANSICTIONS MCDONALD'S - WEST COAST HWY NEW-PORT,BEACH, - CALIFORNIA• SUMMER ..... . ....... ............ ... .... .. ............. ............. .. . .... ...... ...... THUR WEEK WEEK DAY ............... ....... FRI SAT SUN DAY END IZAM -117—o -1 17-10-1 11 is 1 2010 2 0F 6 -]F 107 E:::= 3 IF--O -]0E-0 --]F 0 4 007-0—T-0-1 5 0 F-33­117-327F 267F 13 7 F-66­7-6-477-59­17-31---I 8 F-95-117-9-57--s-7 -117-57 9 IF--m7F--94 lt-75F 89 99 94 to IF—s6 I ]F 104 111 It IF 107 127 1097F 99 F 12PM ----17-5— 180 131- 125 •• 128 I Ia F143F1267 148 -T4-1 2 106 109 Lls t04 108 3 91 7 104 1127F 917 1 F 01 4 70 78 75 87 78 F 8 5 7 --I LA F 66 F 8 F-59 �F 60 -IF-54 F 49 ]F 527F M 45 50 25 91m_ ----] 41-146 10 F-477F 547F 53 ]F 28 L It ... .... ..... ....... ......... .. ...... . .. ... ........ ............... *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MCDONALD'S CORPORATION;DATA PRESENTS HOURLY VARIATIONS. PEAK HOUR TRANSACTIONS JUSTIN E FARMER 11 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC ' FIGURE 4A ' MCDONALDIS NON-SUMMER HOURLY VARIATIONS SALES TRANSACTIONS -WEST COAST HWY 180 160 ..........................._................_..................__._..........._.._..---.._....._._.. ......._..._.........................--..........................._......_........ _.._. ' r4 140 ...............................................__.._......._.............._............_._.._.._._._._. __...._._............._.........................._..............................._..............._.... Z 0 120 .................._...................................._......_....._................_..._.._.. _........_._......_.._._....._........._.._._....._..........._.__......_.___...._.._........ 1 0 so .............._......................................................_...................__. ._. _ : . .._....... ......................._.................................._......................0 w o Z4 ............................................._............._.._... .... : .. : .. ;.. ; .. .. _........_...... 20 ....................._............................................ _.. '.. ; .. : . _ ............. 0 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN ' ® AVERAGE WEEKDAY 0 AVERAGE WEEKEND ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 12 'CRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC 1 1 1 FIGURE 4B 1 MC_DONALDIS SUMMER HOURLY VARIATIONS SALES TRANSACTIONS - WEST COAST HWY 1so ' 1 160 •--..............._............._-...............-..............-......-._..........-..........................._ ..............................._......._..................-...._..........._........_.......-...............-. 1 y 140 ...........-..................................._.............................................-........................_. ..... .........................................................................................._................. O 120 ................................................................._............................................. .._.-----------.__. 100 ..................................................-_------........................................ ,........... ` .. ............................_............................-................... 1 H ..........................................-._..-...... 0 .................................._.......-.................................... ....- :. ... :._ .. : .. .. .:..... ...................... ... W .-..... 1 ......................................._......._......_.................. . ...... . : .. :.. ... . a 1 20 ....................................................................... ... .. :.. _....... 0 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1312PM 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 TIME BEGIN 1 ® AVERAGE WEEKDAY 0 AVERAGE WEEKEND i 1 1 1 JUSTIN F. FARMER 13 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC 1 TABLE 3A 1 HOURLY SALES TRANSACTIONS MCDONALD'S - 28TH @ NEWPORT NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA 1 NON - SUMMER- ': 11VIi :':• THUR FRI SAT SUN WEEK ••••WEEK• : BCGCN::'❑❑❑❑ DAY END DAY 1 L2AM 0 zs 22 0 14F-fl--ll 12 1 11 10 0® 0000000 1 3 0000000 4 0000000 � 5 D000000 11 6 38 37 19 37 0 23 7 60 65 42 32 62 37 50 1 8 72 75 76 57 9 66 74 8L 0 70 77 74 to 62 ®® 90 64 88 76 1 It ® so ®0 82 11 82 82 12PM 1 t 95 tot it4 too 98 �� : �:7(l7:;:�: � 103 z ® 71 6t ® 68 72 70 3 6a 62 77 76 63 76 69 1 4 sid 7 57 66 so a7 62s 37 37 36 26 37 31 9 36 4t 34 30 38 32 1I t0 3o ® 32 L7 40 24 32 LL JE 14 26 32 13 1 20 22 21 1 :.•:Tr L• :•;: •: :.: :•: .. i .6... ... 9...... .11 $... ...iQ6 . . ...1122 . 1 *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MCDONALD'S CORPORATION;DATA PRESENTS HOURLY VARIATIONS. 1 PEAK HOUR TRANSACTIONS 1 1 JUSTIN F. FARMER 14 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. TABLE 3B ' SUMMARY NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS MCDONALD'S - 28TH @ NEWPORT NEWPORT_BEACH - CALIFORNIA SUMMER... GE:•» : :: THUR FRI SAT SUN WEEK•'•••.•.WEEK " mar.V :❑❑ DAY END DAY ' 12AM 14 20 30 5 17 1717� 17 1 L9 18 O 9 'JO o000000 3 0000000 4 F o I o 0 ' 5 0000000 6 31 30 24 L2 30 18 24 7 62 60 0 29 61 42 51 ' 8 89 89 SL 56 $J: ..4! :: :% 79 9 79 83 108 78 83 93 88 ' LO 80 80 102 76 80 89 84 LL 100 119 102 93 110 ® 103 L2PM L64 l68 123 11.7 ' 1 139 F 138 2 99 Lot 110 ® 101 104 102 3 85 ® L05 F91 ® 95 4 66 73 70 8L ::i;::;69::;> : :• 7G : 73 ' 5 ®®® 74 68 0 70 6 66 60 75 70 63 73 68 ' 7 68 62 62 65 ® 63 8 52 0 56 51 54 53 54 ' 9 F=46 I49 51 42 47 47 47 Lo ® sl 50 z6 47 ® 43 LL 23 38 29 19 31 1 24 27 ' .'TOTI: :;:;I375>::: ::: 70;: 13:: 19' :.•. •::..4.. •:• :.:. .....::: :::....:.::•. ' *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MCDONALD•S CORPORATION;DATA PRESENTS ' HOURLY VARIATIONS. PEAK HOUR TRANSACTIONS ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 15 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. FIGURE 5A ' MCDONALD'S NON-SUMMER HOURLY VARIATIONS SALES TRANSACTIONS - 28 TH STREET 180 ...._........................................................................_................._....... ......................_......................................_............................_..._.....I....... .......... ...................._._............._...................._.........»........................._............. O ' j 120 ............._............................._._._...._..............._.................._......._..._...._. ._._...................._.........._............_......_._......_....._...._..........._............. 100 ............._............................................................................................__...... ....... ...................................._............._................_............................... k+ 80 ........................................................................................................ .. . ..................................................._................._._............................ O 1 W 60 ............................................................................. .... ... .. .. .. _ .. ..... ........_. .... ....................................................... 20 ............................. .._............................. _. .. ._ .. _ _ .. _ _ .. _ _ ._._.............. 0 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN I ' ®AVERAGE WEEKDAY M AVERAGE WEEKEND t ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 16 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC 1 ' FIGURE SB MCDONALD'S SUMMER HOURLY VARIATIONS SALES TRANSACTIONS --28 TH STREET 180 ' 160 .................. .................._........................................................... ....................................._...................................».»................._.............. ' Z 140 ...................»..................._.._............ .._.....»......».»............._._.............._._................._.._............................ ... O_ 120 ............................................................................._....................................». ..........................».......................................................................... 1 ................._............................ .._ .. .. . . .. .. ......»._................._..».............»....................._.............. O W .......................... 1 20 .. .. _ .. .. .. .. ..I -, ..... _............ 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN ' ®AVERAGE WEEKDAY M AVERAGE WEEKEND 1 1 ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 17 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC TABLE 4A TRIP GENERATION FORECAST MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT VEHICLES &PEDESTRIAN TRIPS FULL BUILD-OUT YEAR NON-SUMMER .. . ... . ..... . .......... ....... .. ... .... .. TOTAL(1) AUTOTRIPS(2) PEDFTRIPS] PED. TRIPS TOTAL(L) AUTOOTR71PWS (2)�dl TRANSACTIONS DRIVE-THRU......... OTHER (3) TRANSACTIONS DRPffTHRU OTHER (3) co i 73 40/32 22/19 11114 —66 36/32 20/17 10113 90/72 49139 24130 97 23 15119 X [ 1-6/13 81-10 30/24 2_6 18114 -i PEAK 3•.5 Ilotal �a - 100 > 98 Z ;o 74 L T. 7 W TRANSACTIONS = A GROUP PLACING ONE ORDER(SEE TABLE 3A) (2) TRANSACTIONS X 85%11.25 TRANSACTION PER VEHICLE O (3) TRANSACTIONS X 15% X 1.25 PERSON PER TRANSACTIONS (4) FIRST NUMBER=NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS/SECOND NUMBER=NUMBER OF TRIPS M. ci TABLE 4B TRIP GENERATION FORECAST MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT VEHICLES &PEDESTRIAN TRIPS FULL BUILD-OUT YEAR SUMMER .......... ........ ..... ....... TOTAL(1) AUTO TRIPS(2) PED. TRIPS TOTAL(1) AUTO TRIPS (2) PED. TRIPS ..... ....... . .... .. ... .............. TRANSACTIONS bi5m OTHER (3) TRANSACTIONS DRnTTHRu OTHER (3) 99 49140 [�—Y21—29 38131........... !!f ... IE 33127 66153 24/19 �301 38 69 38/31 14/11 17121 76 PpAKA ::H611RS*.-t 108 84 z 84 92 (L) TRANSACTIONS = A GROUP PLACING ONE ORDER(SEE TABLE 3A) (2) TRANSACTIONS X 75%/125 TRANSACTION PER VEHICLE (3) TRANSACTIONS X 25% X 125 PERSON PER TRANSACTIONS :z (4) FIRST NUMBER =NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS/SECOND NUMBER =NUMBER OF TRIPS TRIP 'DISTRIBUTION A forecast of the distributional pattern of traffic associated with the proposed McDonald's ' Restaurant has been prepared, based in part on the spatial location of residential and commercial areas in the region, recognizing that there will be a considerable amount of pedestrian walk-up traffic originating along the beaches. Traffic was assigned to the street ' network based upon the characteristics of the streets and observed current traffic patterns. Figure 6, Page 21, illustrates the assignment of those project trips during the peak 2 1/2 hours. Figure 6 also pictorially illustrates the spatial distribution of traffic associated with the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ' The City of Newport Beach has in effect a TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE which is a standardized method of assessing Level Of Service (LOS) at major intersections which may ' be impacted by a specific project. Summarized very briefly, the city collects data on existing traffic counts, intersection data and proposed or approved development at major ' intersections. The consultant completes the analysis based upon site specific information. When a new project is proposed, the City Traffic Engineer makes an estimate of those ' portions of the street network that may be impacted and requests a traffic impact analysis of those specific locations. City forces provide existing traffic counts and information on "cumulative"projects which have been approved but are not fully implemented. These data ' are provided to the consultant in a printed format. The consultant then prepares a trip generation forecast for the peak 2 1/2 hour periods and assigns that traffic on any approach to the street network which may be impacted. If the analysis indicates there is an increase of 1%in total entering traffic at an intersection, then an LOS" analysis must be performed. If that LOS analysis indicates a worsening of LOS into the D or E level and the project is responsible for that lessening of LOS, then the consultant must prepare an estimate of those ' measures which will mitigate that diminution of LOS. REGIONAL GROWTH IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' Based upon annual traffic counts taken by the city, regional growth rates are applied to traffic counts. The regional growth rate associated with Newport Boulevard has been ' calculated to be 1% per annum north of Coast Highway. On Coast Highway that rate is 1% east of Newport Boulevard and 2.5 % to the west. LOS = Level of Service, based upon a ratio of traffic volumes divided by capacity of the approach streets. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 20 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC 7� P i hh e 1 CIO 'qsp 0v I �m a 0 o 1 m or " 6 •y;� � 1 32ND sT �oq o s 1 o � �} o y 60-48 1 y -40-32 N N to � dI M n d V 1 M ( �5�� Y. SITE �5-5 28TH S7 � 4-4 1 5-5 LEGEND 1 AM PK—PM PK �N g 1 f IN OUT m t AM 100 100 o e, p ``� NOT TO SCALE 1 PM 80 80 m ray FIG 1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 6 2 1/2 HOUR PEAKS 1 JUSTIN F. FARMER 21 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS - ' The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the intersection most likely to be impacted by the McDonald's project will be: ' 1) Newport/32nd, 2) Newport/ Via Lido, and 3) Coast Highway/Balboa/Superior ' As a consequence, traffic from the proposed McDonald's Restaurant was assigned to the street system at least as far as Newport/Via Lido and Coast Hwy/Balboa/Superior. 1 THE "ONE PERCENT TEST" ' The methodology discussed below describes the test applied to projects in Newport Beach to determine if the impact is appreciable and should be assessed further. ' The City Traffic Engineer's office prepares and supplies a form (Form 1) containing existing traffic counts for the two peak 2 1/2 hour periods. That office also prepares a listing of all cumulative projects and the amount of traffic from each such cumulative project which ' traverses each key intersection. ' The consultant then extrapolates these count data to the design year by use of a regional growth rate, also supplied by the City Traffic Engineer. To this are added trips from cumulative projects, and a total peak 2 1/2 hour traffic volume, sans.project traffic,is listed. ' Volumes on .each intersection leg are multiplied by 1% and that figure is recorded on Form 1. Also listed on Form 1 are volumes generated by the project. ' If project generated volumes do not exceed the 1% figure, the process is terminated. If, however, project associated traffic volumes exceed the 1%, then hourly traffic volumes are ' calculated for both the project and "other" and Level of Service (LOS) is calculated and mitigated as necessary. ' Calculation sheets for the three intersections are included in the appendix hereto but are summarized in Table 5 on the following page. It will be noted that project generated traffic at the Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd./Superior intersection did not exceed the 1% volume and ' thus were deemed insignificant. However, project associated traffic at the other two intersections did exceed the 1% level and thus LOS calculations were performed. In both of the latter cases,LOS was calculated to be in the middle 0.50's; i.e., LOS A, and increased ' only nominally after addition of project traffic. It is therefore concluded, that the project will have a very nominal impact on Level of tService at key nearby intersections. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 22 TRANSPORTATION F.NGINEF,RS, INC. r TABLE 5 SUMMARY--OF ONE PERCENT TEST & ' LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES �:�:`.'•f%� �i�i� �:::?:�:`•:� ICU:�f��liL'�L :Ok:•:SER'�TC•�<�:� : �`: 1 1` .... .. I Est... .......:.:.. ..:. .sC1+�t tlQ.. :. :..:. ... XY .:::.:.: :+ TIN• CE3::> :::: .::::::::: .. .... ........... .............. ... . .. ........ .. ......... .....:.M•,.:.-t-Fi�OJ::: �1VIIZ�G:;: AM PEAK YES 0.40/A 0.41/A 0.42/A NA ' PM PEAK YES 0.56/A1 0.56/A 0.58/A I NA AM PEAK YES 0.541, 0.55/A 0.58/A NA PM PEAK ,j YES 11 0.55/A 0.55/A 0.56/A NA ' C(xt35T{c�:$tIE�ECfPiJSLi�' :::'::: ' AM PEAK NO 0.62/B NOT REQUIRED PM PEAK NO 11 0.75/C NOT REQUIRED ' * PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC EXCEEDS 1%n OF NON-PROJECT TRAFFIC FOR BUILD- OUT YEAR 1 I ' I ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 23 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. INTERNAL CIRCULATION Tables 4A and 4B. Pages 18 and 19, list the amount of traffic, both auto and pedestrian, ' expected to.be generated by the project for summer atid non-summer. For purposes of - - addressing the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, only peak AM and PM volumes are ' considered and during non-summer weekday only. However, to assess circulation associated with the drive-thru lane, trip generation data were compared. A close look at Tables 4A and 4B,indicate that vehicular activities noticeably increase during mid-day peak -• ' for summer and non-summer conditions. It is also noted that although the number of transactions is higher during summer as compared to non-summer, auto trips associated with non-summer is actually higher. This is a result of the increase in walking trips during ' summer. During non-summer weekdays, the highest peak occurs from 12:00 to 1:00 PM, during which it is expected that there may be a high of 111 autos entering the restaurant. Based on information provided,by the McDonald's Corporation, 72 cars will enter to use ' the drive-thru lane and 39 will order at the counter. DRIVE-THRU LANE ANALYSIS Over the last ten years,JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC., has prepared a number of traffic studies and conducted numerous surveys regarding fast ' food restaurants in Southern California. It has been observed that there are a number of factors that influence the design of drive- ' thru facilities and positioning of the ordering station. They are as follows: 1. The number of autos and arrival: The raw number of customers is not a reliable ' guide to queue length. If arrivals are not spread evenly in time, queue length will not be uniform; i.e., if a large employer is located nearby and employees have a limited lunch period, there will be longer queue lengths, compared with an evenly distributed ' demand. ' Although the proposed site is to be within a beach commercial area, a look into future conditions would suggest that there will be no large concentration of fast food restaurant users who must eat within a short time span (such as a large office ' complex or factory). It is, therefore, expected that customers will tend to arrive in a uniform pattern and not in large surges. ' 2. Placing an order: The amount of time taken by a customer to place an order will vary depending upon how fast the clerk comes onto the speaker and how easy the menu is to read. It was noted from previous surveys that customers took from 31.8 ' to 42.5 seconds (average) to place an order. During those surveys, it was observed that a considerable amount of time was ' consumed at the ordering station while customers read the menu. At most surveyed locations, the menu is posted at the speaker location and is printed in relatively small copy. When the auto contains passengers, those people on the right side of the car JUSTIN E FARMER 24 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC must lean across the car to read the menu. It is, therefore, suggested that two menu boards be located at the ordering station, one on the left and one on the right side of the auto. Where possible, copy should be enlarged for easier and quicker reading. As an alternative, an advance menu board will perform the similar function. ' 3. Processing an order: There is a distinct correlation between the length of a drive-thru lane and the order/processing time. It was observed that it takes approximately 10 ' seconds to drive forward, 30 seconds to pay for the order, another 10 seconds to dispense the order, and approximately 15 seconds for the customer to leave the pick- up window. It, therefore, takes approximately 65 seconds to process one car through ' the pick-up window. It was also observed that preparation of the order takes approximately 3 minutes. ' Therefore, the ordering station should be positioned in such a way that there will be approximately 4 to 5 cars waiting between the ordering station and dispensing ' window. In this way, the order should be ready for the customer when he arrives at the window. Because autos queue up quite closely (average 19 feet per car), a length of approximately 100 feet, as provided herein, is optimum and can hold five standard cars between the ordering menu board and the pick-up window. This is adequate to accommodate project demand. ' QUEUE LENGTH Figure 2, Page 3, illustrates the proposed footprint of the restaurant and location of the ' drive-thru lane, as well as its' parking spaces. The menu board is located approximately 120 feet from the pick-up window, which will allow for more than 6 standard cars. There is approximately 150 feet between the menu board and the east-west parking aisles.: The ' 150 feet is adequate to accommodate 7 to 8 cars. The City of Newport Beach has requested that we assess the propensity of the project to create stacking of vehicles at the drive-thru lane vicinity or across the driveway entry. A survey was, therefore, conducted of queuing characteristics associated with the drive-thru lane, particularly regarding maximum queue length and the characteristics of that queue. The McDonald's Corporation has recently implemented a modernized "Face-To-Face" approach to place an order. The purpose of such an approach is to minimize potential ' orders misunderstanding through the microphone and to expedite and shorten customers waiting time, i.e., to improve customer service. ' This approach was implemented nationwide and in several McDonald's Restaurants in Southern California. The subject method was selected to be used in the proposed Newport JUSTIN F. FARMER 25 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC I '. ' Beach facility and City staff requested that two comparable McDonald's Restaurants be surveyed. McDonald's representatives indicate the restaurants in Rancho Cucamonga and La Verne would be comparable insofar as the "Face-To-Face" ordering window is concerned.. It should be noted, however, that both restaurants contain approximately -'• •2;800 sq. ft. and 70-80,seating capacity. Additionally, both are located,in areas' adjacent to several large employers, i.e., a more sharp lunch hour peak is expected. ' During the Rancho Cucamonga survey, the "Face-To-Face" booth was utilized to dispense napkins, ketchup, etc. for customers. The employee taking customers orders was remotely ' located 100 feet from subject booth. This approach expedites service to customers and resulted in overall less frequency of large queues. 1 Trained observers were stationed on the sites from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM to record the length of the queue in the vicinity. Specific attention was given to the issue of car stacking ' } with respect to the face-to-face method. Car queues were recorded when they are equal to or greater than 3 cars length only. Queues of 2 cars were considered minimal. At both locations queues length were observed and recorded beyond the face-to-face order location. ' Tables 6 and 7 on the following pages, present the summary of our drive-thru lane surveys; while Figure 7 graphically illustrates the same. Data presented in these tables and figures ' include hourly queue variation and their frequency and percentages of queues in which each queue category occurred. Data presented in these tables and figures is self explanatory. Presented below is a summary of our observation, comments„ and recommendations. ' 1. During the peak noon hour,McDonald's in Rancho Cucamonga serviced 85 cars and McDonald's in La Verne serviced 82 cars in the drive-thru lane. At both locations, drive-thru "one hour" peak occurred between 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. and peak 15 ' minutes occurred between 12:15 P.M. and 12:30 P.M. 2. At both locations during mid-day peak.periods, the number of queues equal to or greater than 3 cars were approximately the same with 59 queues at Rancho Cucamonga and 64 queues at LaVerne. However, queues equal to or greater than 4 cars occurred 35 times at Rancho Cucamonga verses 61 times in LaVerne. Queues ' equal to or greater than 5 cars occurred 19 times at Rancho Cucamonga verses 51 times at LaVerne. The improved customer service in Rancho Cucamonga could be attributing to the following: ' a. During lunch peak period, the Rancho Cucamonga restaurant improved customer service providing for a temporary "Face-To-Face" ordering location, approximately 100 feet beyond its permanent location. Additionally, customers were provided napkins, ketchup, etc. before the pick-up window to minimize waiting time. I ' JUSTIN E FARMER 26 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC ' b. Distance between the ordering station and the food pick-up window is 180 feet in Rancho Cucamonga and 85 feet in LaVerne; that equates to additional 5 car stacking distance. 3. At McDonald's in LaVerne, queues of 8 cars occurred-3 times and queues of 7 cirs occurred 12 times. At McDonald's in Rancho Cucamonga, 7 car queues were ' experienced 4 times and 8 car queues were not experienced. This would also be the result of the above discussion. ' It should be noted that our field observation indicated that 7 and 8 vehicle queues occurred at a result of customers waiting at the menu board, although there was opportunity to move ahead, i.e., the customer immediately in front had proceeded ahead which left a car gap ' between the menu board and the next window. At the project being proposed herein, this condition could be mitigated by providing for additional signs as a message PLEASE MOVE ' FORWARD or by installation of a flashing beacon with sensors at the ordering menu board. The subject beacon boards proceeds past the sensor to the pay window, flashing a message PLEASE MOVE FORWARD to the next customer in line. We believe that this mitigation ' would convey the message to a customer waiting at the menu board and would minimize queues length.. ' With respect to the McDonald's proposed herein, 4 car queues would be available beyond the "Face-To-Face" ordering location. A fifth compact car is also possible without unduly impact parking lot circulation. The proposed McDonald's would have a 72 car demand at the drive-thru lane during the midday peak hour or approximately 15% less than the average in both surveyed facilities ' (84 cars). This may be attributed to a smaller site with minimal seating area. The decreased demand and the difference in environment between the surveyed locations and the proposed location will result in lesser queue frequency. It is noted that it is almost impossible to forecast the exact number of car queues and the frequency of each queue category unless a similar facility with similar design and ' surrounding environment is available for survey. However,based on the above information, it is reasonable to say that there will be no queues of 7 and 8 cars behind the ordering station at the proposed facility; 5 car queues are possible and 6 car queues are expected ' only during a surge. Because of the rather limited distance between the proposed"Face-To- Face"window and Newport Boulevard,measures must be implemented in order to eliminate 6 car queues, minimize 5 car queues, and limit the majority of queues to a maximum of 4 ' cars. If such measures are not operationally feasible, the site plan should be revised in order to accommodate such longer queues. < DRIVEWAYS ' Inasmuch as Newport Boulevard is a ONE-WAY couplet, the site must have access to both streets, for entering and leaving. It is appropriate for the northwestern driveway to ' be an exit such that exiting drivers do not traverse any more of the parking area than is necessary. The same logic follows for the southwestern entrance driveway. ' IUSTIN F. FARMER 27 TRANSPORTATION FNCINFFRS, INC. ' TABLE,6. ' MCDONALD'S DRIVE THRU LANE SURVEY FACE-TO-FACE OPERATION ' PEAK NOON PERIOD LOCATION NUMBER OF CARS 12... .. ............. Lv ... 22 RC IV 20 IV is IV 22 '•: :7 �)fi LV is IV 16 16 1 '•`:::. ::: AVG 2 HOUR 142 PFAI 4-HOUJR:: RC;> > s »: :`: 85 92 ' RC = MCDONALD'S RANCHO CUCAMONGA LV = MCDONALD'S LAVERNE ' JUSTIN E FARMER 28 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. TABLE 7 MCDONALD'S DRIVE THRU LANE, SURVEY QUEUE LENGTH DATA LOCATION 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL % CARS CARS CARS CARS CARS CARS # AVERAG >11:30:>: ::• :•::•>12C:::. ?::;: ::: 1::; ::;::1:;: ' : : ;.... > : :;: : � ;;;: 4.9% 4 : .: ::•:.LV. .. i... ...1... . .. . 2 10.60 2 5 ffC:' s: :: : : 1:. •>::;: ::: :: : 7;::: < 13.0% 1 ::..::. :: ::.:::•:::.::.:. :• ::....::. ...:::.:. ... ... ....... . ...... ........ ` :125` LV 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 9 : :3 > i:: ::: :: 1:1::::: 19.5% LV 5 5 3 13 .... .... . i : it 0 : 15.4010 c. :.: >:2: ' i:>` > :: <:: :::;:' : :• :: :<> :;>:::4 : 11.4% LV 2 1 1 4 1 9 LV 2 4 2 1 1 10 ' TO%AL 21l 2F22v/o7lF 2100% QIt:JV]O1tZ;: AIZS'' :2::H(?E7I2g: LV 3 OR MORE CARS ( 2 HOURS ) 64 MORE:`LIARS::::;2::;[3QE1tL5 ........ Lv 4 OR MORE CARS (2 HOURS) 61 Olt E:"PARI2CCa :'•�: IIOEJI2S : ::':is>::: " ' LV 5 OR MORE CARS (2 HOURS ) 51 RC = MCDONALD'S RANCHO CUCAMONGA LV = MCDONALD'S LAVERNE ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 29 TRANSPORTATION rNGINEERS, INC. FIGURE 7 QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS 25 ' �:) Y w 1 0 ........... _ ..... . ..... ..._ a ..... ..................................................................................... U 15 �; a W � , _.. ' w 10 w ................. _... _. ..... _._._.._ .............................. a o AM==) ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 NUMBER OF CARS IN QUEUE 1 1 ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 30 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' PARKING It will be noted that the restaurant proposed herein, has considerably smaller inside seating area than those customarily provide by a typical McDonald's. Therefore, the need for on ' site parking would be considerably less than -might- be expected at a' convetitional" McDonald's Restaurant. A total of 400 square feet of indoor seating area will be provided. ' Parking demand has been estimated using the following parameters: Non-Summer Weekday ' 0 Of the 111 autos arriving during the midday peak hour, 39 cars during the entire hour will be parked on-site. ' o After receiving their order, (15%) or 16 cars will leave the site and eat elsewhere, leaving 23 per hour to eat on-site. 0 The average eating time is 12 to 15 minutes, which equates to a turn-over rate of 4 cars per hour using the same parking stall. 0 23 vehicles per hour will require approximately 6 parking spaces. o Take-out customers would utilize 2-3 parking spaces during the same hour. o During the same peak period, there will be a need for 8 staff parking spaces. o Total parking demand will, therefore, be 17 stalls (6+3+8=17 actual needs). ' o The project provides for a total of 28 parking spaces (excluding drive-thru lane) which is more than the forecasted parking demand presented above. o As a worse case condition, if the average eating time is doubled,i.e.,30 minutes, total ' parking demand would be 23 which is still less than the 28 provided by the project. Summer Weekday ' o Of 100 autos arriving during the midday peak hour 27 cars will be parked on-site. o After receiving their order 8% or 11 cars will leave the site and eat elsewhere, leaving 16 per hour to eat on-site. o There will be a need for 3 parking stalls for those who walk-in, place an order, then leave to eat elsewhere. o The average eating time is 12 to 15 minutes, which equates to a turn-over rate of 4 cars per hour using the same parking stall. 0 16 vehicles per hour will require approximately 4 parking spaces. ' o During the same peak period, there will be a need for 8 staff parking spaces. o Total parking demand therefore will be 15 stalls (3+4+8=15 actual need). o The project provides for a total of 28 parking spaces (excluding drive-thru lane), ' which is more than the forecasted parking demand presented above. o As a worse case condition,if the average eating time is doubled,i.e., 30 minutes, total parking demand would be 19 which is still less that the 28 provided by the project. ' It should be noted that the above parking forecasts did not consider constrains of limited ' seating availability shared with walk-up customers; i.e., as a worse case condition it assumes ALL SEATING is used by drive-in customers and walk-up customers do not use inside seating. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 31 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 1 � ' BU ES ACCESSIBH= Concerns have been expressed regarding bicycle access to and from the proposed McDonald's. The subject restaurant will be located on Newport Boulevard, a one-way couplet in the project vicinity and will have access to both streets. ' At the project vicinity, Newport Boulevard does not have bike lanes, and they are not proposed to be constructed; however, bike lanes are proposed on Balbod Boulevard (per the City General Plan Circulation Element). Bicyclists in this area, customarily use sidewalks and use Ocean Front adjacent to the beach. It is anticipated that similar conditions will remain at full build-out of McDonald's and that the number of bicyclists would not trigger the need to install bike lanes on Newport Boulevard. It is recommended; ' however, that McDonald's Corporation provides for adequate on-site bike racks to the satisfaction of City staff. If bike parking racks are to be placed, care should be exercised so that such racks do not interfere with persons entering or leaving an auto, nor should they impede internal ' pedestrian circulation. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 32 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC '0 PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC Concern has been voiced that there might be an undue amount of pedestrian activity _ mduced.by this. proposed restaurant. Tables.4A and 4B, Pages 18 .,and 19, indicate..a_ .• weekday and a weekend peak pedestrian.attraction during the midday•peak one-hour for an autumn month (October). ' Although it is not possible to tell exactly what travel route will be taken by pedestrians traveling to and from the site, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a considerable amount of walk-in traffic from the adjacent commercial, offices, and retail business. There will also be a considerable amount of pedestrian attraction to or from the Newport beaches. ' Inasmuch as the site lies generally between the Newport Beach"Downtown"businesses and its beaches, but slightly closer to the beaches north of the Newport Pier, the assumption has 'been made that pedestrian activity will be somewhat based upon walking distances to the ' restaurant which is as follows: 1) City Hall to site - 0.25 mile ' 2) Pier to site - 0.40 mile 3) 36th/Ocean Front to site - 0.50 mile 4) 28th/Ocean Front to site - 0.15 mile It appears that walking distance for the average beach goer will be very similar to that from City Hall. ' On the basis of walking distance, it would seem that normal weekday non-summer pedestrian activity would be oriented more toward the commercial uses to the north than ' to the beaches to the west and south. However, on weekends and during summer months, the reverse may be true due to the greater number of potential customers at the beach than in the downtown area. ' NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY PEDESTRIANS ; ' During a typical non-summer weekday, there would be more customers in the downtown area than there will be beach going customers and thus more pedestrian customers for the ' restaurant. Table 4A,Page 18, indicates that the highest pedestrian volume occurs between 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.with 30 pedestrian trips. Assuming a 60% north vs 40% to the beach directional split on a non-summer weekday, there would be 18 pedestrians (30 pedestrians ' X 60% = 18) approaching from the north and then returning northward during the noon one hour.These pedestrians may or may not cross Newport Boulevard during their walking trip.It would appear that 2/3rds (12) of these journeys originate east of Newport Boulevard ' and must cross Newport Boulevard presumably north of 28th Street. The average weekday noon vehicular volume on Newport Boulevard is approximately 1,280 VPH (Vehicles Per Hour) northbound and 1,020 VPH southbound.However, most of the pedestrian crossings ' of Newport Boulevard are at signalized intersections and thus cause little or no undue inconveniences. ' JUSTIN R FARMER 33 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. r Pedestrians traveling to or from the beach will cross Balboa Boulevard or southbound Newport Boulevard. On a weekday, there are expected to be 12 (30 total x 40% = 12)"_ ' pedestrians traveling to or from the beach areas.Inasmuch as these pedestrians,will teed to' travel in small groups of 2 to 3 persons, there will be no more than 6 groups during fie ' weekday non-summer noon period (one direction). SUMMER WEEKEND PEDESTRIANS An undated memorandum from the Newport Beach City Engineer to the City Council, ' discussed peak summer Peninsula Traffic conditions. In that memorandum, it was stated that "... there are probably between 10 and 15 days that can be considered peak weekend traffic days. This is 2.7% to 4.1% of the year..." Inasmuch as the months of June,July and ' parts of August are often overcast and cool in Southern California, the statement by the City Engineer appear to be reasonable. ' The forecasts for a summer condition, does not necessarily reflect conditions during the entire summer season. ' Table 4B, Page 19, indicates that the highest pedestrian volumes during summer weekend conditions occur between 12:00 - 1:00 PM with 51 pedestrian trips. It would be appropriate to assume higher percentages of pedestrian to and from the beach than those ' during non-summer. For purposes of summer weekend pedestrian assessment, a distributional pattern of 75% south and west verses 25% toward the north will be assumed. Based on the above assumptions and the data presented on Table 4B,Page 19, there would be 13 pedestrians approaching from the north and then returning northward during the noon peak hour. There would also be 38 pedestrians coming from the beach area and returning toward the south and west. It is assumed that the beach area to the south served by McDonald's is between 28th Street and the Newport Pier, however, the majority of ' "beach goers" pedestrians would probably be coming from the immediate vicinity of the pier, i.e., from beach goers area of concentration. ' Pedestrians to or from the beach area may or may not cross Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard at 28th Street. In fact, pedestrian trips originating adjacent to the pier ' area would most likely utilize signalized intersections between 28th Street and McFadden Square. As a worse case condition, 50% (19) of these journeys will be assumed to utilize the pedestrian crossing at 28th Street , while the remaining 50% (19) would utilize those signalized intersection between 28th Street and McFadden Square. Concerns have been expressed by citizens of the City of Newport Beach and by City ' representatives regarding pedestrian accessibility to and from the project. Therefore, ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 34 TRANSPORTATION ENGI\GERS, INC. r JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION :ENGINEERS, -INC. conducted a focused ,'•,• . , ; ,, , ,traffic study�regarding the subject proposed restaurant and submitted such to the City of Newport Beach on March 30, 1994. Since then the project has slightly been modified,and ' further concerns were raised regarding pedestrians by members of the Planning Commission. These concerns could be summarized as follows: ' FIRST The magnitude and number of pedestrian forecasted at the subject site appears to be low. •' DISCUSSION The issue of pedestrian volume and percentage of total McDonald's business was discussed, in detail, with McDonald's representatives and with City staff. Inasmuch as the proposed McDonald's is unique in ' nature and operation, a comparable facility(s) to survey was not available in California. McDonald's representatives were, therefore, requested to provide back-up data. The percentage of walk-up customers provided ' herein were developed by McDonald's Corporation and were analyzed by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' Inasmuch as the success of the restaurant is of critical concern by McDonald's Corporation, they conduct extensive market studies for any existing and future facility. It is assumed that these forecasts provided for the project proposed herein are accurate. SECOND Pedestrian safety concerns have been expressed on a number of occasions ' particularly regarding customers walking between the proposed McDonald's and the beach area. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, staff, and citizens expressed concern regarding pedestrian ' trip made from the beach and/or from the OCTD bus terminal at Balboa Boulevard and 23rd Street. DISCUSSION Customarily, pedestrian safety analysis are conducted when an actual problem is experienced, when statistics indicate pedestrian accident history at a specific location and when citizen concerns are expressed regarding specific "existing trouble location". In the case herein, this report presents forecasts of the number of pedestrians that would be utilizing the proposed McDonald's and their origin and destination. It is ' impractical to assume that pedestrians approaching McDonald's will experience problems or will result in pedestrian/vehicle or vehicle/vehicle accident simply because it is not possible to identify exactly what travel ' route will be taken by pedestrians traveling to and from the site. The section which follows, however, explores various measures of minimizing pedestrian/vehicles conflict. It is understood that such measures could not ' be implemented at specific locations without an overall look to pedestrian movement and pedestrian crossing in the entire area. It is also noted that JUSTIN E FARMER 35 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' on a case-by-case basis implementing specific engineering improvements might help; however, studies have shown that the greatest potential for improved pedestrian safety lies within increased pedestrian and driver ' education.-, ACTION Traffic Engineers are constantly searching for new ways to improve pedestrian ' safety. Most pedestrian accidents are caused by inattention on behalf of both the pedestrian and the vehicle driver. If attentiveness could be improved by either party, collisions could most likely be avoided. 1 Presented below are the engineering measures explored (though not necessarily recommended) in this study. It should be noted that these measures, if adopted by City ' staff, are considered in addition to the standard traffic signs and pavement markings. a. Fully actuated traffic signals. ' It is recognized that traffic signals should not be installed where one is not needed or justified. It is also well recognized that traffic signals, when installed at unwarranted ' location, could be responsible for collision which might not otherwise have occurred, i.e., rear-end collision. Drivers frequently rely on traffic signal to assign right-of-way ' rather than using reason and common courtesy. For these reasons, criteria (warrants) have been developed whereby the need for or propriety of installing a traffic signal may be assessed. Those warrants are adopted by Caltrans and used with minor ' variation nationwide. Warrant #3 (Minimum Pedestrian Volumes) is satisfied when pedestrian volume ' crossing the major street at an intersection or mid-block location during an average day is: ' 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any one 1 hour ' Pedestrian volumes resulted from McDonald's will not satisfy this warrant at the intersection of 28th Street at Balboa Boulevard or at Newport Boulevard south, nor any other intersection. b. Flashing yellow beacon. t A flashing yellow beacon is a traffic control device that aids pedestrian and drivers in making safe and efficient use of the road. A flashing yellow beacon increases chances of avoiding pedestrian/vehicular collisions by improving driver attentiveness. ' Results of a recent study at a school route flashing beacon, indicates considerable reduction in average speeds during the period when advance flashers were operating; ' however, studies indicate that such reductions might also be attributed to drivers awareness and their respect for traffic control devices. JUSTIN E FARMER 36 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 1 If flashing yellow beacon(s) would be installed,-it is recommended,that such beacons be solar 1 operated. and be 'activated by pedestrian push-button similar to 'those- provided at conventional intersections. Studies have shown that flashing beacons 1 operating 24 hours loses their effectiveness after approximately 6 month of installation. 1 C. Crosswalk removal Several major studies were conducted to evaluate safety at existing crosswalks*. 1 These studies indicate that painted crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections give pedestrian a false safety feeling of protection, while pedestrian crossings at unmarked locations increase their attentiveness and reduce probabilities of vehicular/pedestrian 1 conflicts. They also indicate that for the study period, 95% of all pedestrian accidents within the City of Long Beach occurred within marked crosswalks and that marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersection experience 7.5 times more accidents 1 than unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. It is not the intention of this study to recommend removal of crosswalks around the 1 proposed McDonald's for the purpose of pedestrian safely. Such measures should be approved by City staff and if acceptable, should be implemented as part of a City program. 1 d. Installation of Rumble Stops. 1 Rumble strips or Rumble bars are a visible and-audible reminder to motorist that also increases their attentiveness in advance of a crosswalk. However, they increase noise and are not normally recommended adjacent to residential areas such as the one 1 proposed herein. e. Major street speed limit reduction. 1 It is recognized that reducing street speed limit would reduce probability and severity 1 of pedestrian/vehicular collision. However, such an alternative is not recommended herein, because of the negative overall impact upon the street system and the Level of Service at the intersection. 1 f. Speed Humps. 1 Speed humps in the vicinity of the proposed McDonald's as a measure of speed reduction does not meet City of Newport Beach standards and are not recommended on arterials such as Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. 1 1 City of Long Beach Pedestrian/Crosswalk Study 1 JUSTIN R FARMER 37 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC g. 4-Way stop. A 4-way stop is not warranted on 28th Street at Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. Additionally, rhey would be' detrimental to traffic conditions on major streets. ' h. Pedestrian bridge. Low pedestrian volumes and physical restrictions make it impractical to install' a ' pedestrian bridge to accommodate McDonald's customers coming from the beach. Based upon the above analysis, it would appear that the number of pedestrians crossing the ' site vicinity streets is not unduly large and will not create any significant problems. ' GAP ANALYSIS The following gap analysis is provided in order to quantitatively assess gap availability. ' Customarily, gap availability would be based on actual gap studies; however, inasmuch as this study was conducted during non-summer, the following method was used. ' Traffic volumes on Balboa Boulevard are in the order of 14,000 vehicle per day (Average Daily Traffic). In order to estimate traffic volumes during the noon peak period, the following assumptions were utilized: ' - Noon Peak Hour = 8% of Daily Traffic ' - 600/o/40% Directional Split Traffic volumes per lane per hour in the heavier direction = 14,000 VPD x 8% (noon hour) x 60% heavy direction @ 2 -lanes = 336 vehicle per hour ' per lane. VPHPL A traffic volume of 336 VPHPL equates to an average gap of 10.7 seconds (3,600 ' seconds/336 VPHPL). However, due to platooning gaps are expanded to variable amount larger than 10.7 seconds. ' An average person, when crossing a street, walks approximately 3.5 to 4.0 feet per second. Using an average of 3.75 feet per second, a person can cross one half of a 4 lane street in 8.5 second (two 12 foot lanes plus one 8 foot parking lane, or 32 feet @ 3.75 = 8.5 ' second). A pedestrian therefore will search for a gap he (or she) estimates to be 8.5 seconds or greater in traffic on half of the roadway. Pedestrians will normally search for a gap which will allow for crossing one direction at a time, which is perceived to be ' approximately 8.5 seconds. Average gaps were calculated at approximately 10.7 seconds. During non-summer it would appear that 12 groups (both direction) of pedestrians per ' noon hour, walking at a normal rate of 3.75 feet per second, will find ample gaps in vehicular traffic and will not unduly interrupt traffic volumes on either Balboa Boulevard or Newport Boulevard. In that regard the capacity for pedestrian crossings is many time the ' demand. ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 38 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' Beach oriented pedestrians will use much the same travel route as those discussed previously and will cross southbound Newport and Balboa Boulevards. A total of 37 persons will consist of approximately 10 to 15 parties. Each group will search for gaps in the order of 9 to 10 seconds and then start their street crossing. If there are 10 to 15 groups per'noon hourthat.means,.one group every 4 to 16 mintites�in,each-direction-of-travel. Certainly ' pedestrians volumes of this magnitude can be accommodated easily on the City's street network. Based upon the above analysis,it would appear that the number of pedestrians crossing the ' site vicinity streets is not unduly large and will not create any significant problems for the City. ' If the City of Newport Beach chooses to implement traffic control measures for purposes of accommodating McDonald's pedestrian traffic, a solar operating flashing yellow beacon with a pedestrian push-button would be most appropriate with respect to pedestrian ' customers coming from or going to the bus stop at Balboa Boulevard and 23rd Street, the same discussion above are applicable hereto. Bus users wishing to go to McDonald's would utilize sidewalks on the north side of Balboa Boulevard or the south side on Newport ' Boulevard south. Crosswalks are available at busy locations; however, the majority of the route invoke crossing minor streets with minor traffic volumes. Assuming a worst case, 25% of total pedestrian volume would be coming from or going to the OCTD bus stop, this equates to 4-5 groups during the noon period or one group each 12-15 minutes in each direction of travel at either Newport Boulevard or Balboa Boulevard. ' Assume 50%-50% distribution, only half this number of groups would be utilizing each street. It is our believe that those pedestrian volumes can easily be accommodated without ' unduly impact the surrounding street system. ' Distance between vehicles measured in terms of seconds of time. ' JUSTIN E FARMER 39 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. I ' SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION With..,the .exceptions noted herein, .the project ..appears to be properly- designed., Recommendations and mitigation measures have been discussed and if implemented on-site circulation and the adjacent streets will function satisfactorily. Respectfully submitted, ' JU F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Justin F. Farmer, President ' JFF:sf ' fESS' "r! a #186 rn ' ExP ,; 3/ 9� �t FOF CAS\F� 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' JUSTIN F. FARMER 40 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC APPENDIX 1 ' ONE PERCENT TEST 1 1 1 1 t 1 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT TRAFFIC STUDY ' JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. 1 II 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 93 AM ' Peak 2+5 Hour Approved Approach Existing I Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth Peak 21-, Hour 'Peak 2; Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume j Volume Northbound 1595 0 I 16 1 ,611 I 16 15 ' Southbound 1207 0 18 1 , 225 12 i 5 I I i Eastbound 5349 267 614 J 6 , 230 ? 62 I 10 Westbound 1925 96 236 2, 257 23 0 ' Proj.ect Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected x Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ----Project Traffic -is7estimated'to -be greater than 7% -of Projected --- -- -- - -- Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ', McDonald's, Newport Beach DATE: June 7, 1994 ' PROJECT: FORM I ' to Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1g _ PM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 Hour Growth Peak 2 Hour Peak Z Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1864 0 30 1 , 894 19 : 13 So uthbound 2472 0 10 2,482 25 j 5 I Eastbound 3729 186 336 4, 241 42 8 ' Westbound 4252 213 633 5,098 51 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume __-P.r-ojectt Traffic as -estimated to-be -greater than 1%-of Projected — 4t0 Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. McDonald's, Newport Beach June 7, 1994 DATE: ' PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/32ND STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1992 AM ' Peak 2-; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21-, Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2: Hour Peak 2h Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2102 N/A 4 2, 106 21 . 50 Southbound 1598 N/A I 0 1 , 598 16 i 50 Eastbound 786 N 0 786 8 i 0 l Westbound 256 256 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 'J? McDonald's, Newport Beach DATE: June 7, 1994 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/32ND STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 92_)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k, Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2-� Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound f 2203 N/A I 3 2, 206 22 40 ' southbound I 3227 N/A 4 3, 231 32 40 Eastbound I : 756 N/A I 0 756 6 i 0 l Westbound 448 N/A 0 448 4 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume —, Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected M Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. McDonald's, Newport Beach DATE: June 7, 1994 PROJECT: 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter.Spring 19 _)AM 1 Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour 1 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 3023 N/A 10 3,033 30 d50 1 Southbound 2745 N/A 0 2 , 745 27 Eastbound 6 N/A 0 16 1 Westbound 1061 L N A 0 1 f 061 11 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 y Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected - ' X Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-) 1 McDonald's, Newport Beach DATE: June 7, 1994 PROJECT: 3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 92 PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lop of Projected Project Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 23$ Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2gg3 N/A 3 2, 991 30 � 40 ' Southbound 4524 N/A 6 4,530 45 40 Eastbound f - ' 41 N/A 0 41 1 0 i L Westbound 1181 N/A 0 1 , 181 12 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected X Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' McDonald's, Newport Beach DATE: June 7, .,1994 PROJECT: ' APPENDIX 2 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT TRAFFIC STUDY ' JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. NE1310AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & 32ND STREET 1310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVotume I V/C I i (CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume -I Volume )w/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ____________________________________________________________ I NL 1 16001 1 161 0.011 - I - I .01 1 - I .01I I 1 - - 1 2 1 0.27 * 1 50 10 . 284 I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.26 *----------------------------------------------I I NR I 1 11 I I I I I I I---•------------------------------•----------------- -------------___-----------------I SL 1 1600 1 1 43 1 0.03 * - I - 1 .03* 1 - 10.03# ------------------------------------------_------------------------------------------------I i sT 1 1 604 1 - I - 1 0.23 1 50 10.25 1 I--------3 3200 ------------------) 0.23 ----- ----------i i SR 1 1 144 1 - I - I I I I I - ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------I ' I EL 1 1 233 1 1 - I - I .09 * I - I .ON I--------) 3200 ------------------- 0.09 *-----•----- -------------- •---------•--I I ET 1 1 421 1 - I - I I - I I _____ ________ 1 ER I H.S. 1 I 23 I____________________________________________________________ WL 1 1 23 1 - I - 1 .02 *1 - 1 .02 k ' --------) 3200 ---------_--------) 0.02 *-----------------___-•------------_----•-•--'I i WT 1 I 32 I - I - I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... -------I ' ( WR I H.S. 1 1 421 1 - I - I I i___________________________________________________________________________________________l IEXISTING - 1 0.40 1 I ' 1--------------------------------•--------------------••--•--------------•--' I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 41 I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________I IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ---________•__•-___________10 _4 2.1 -------------------------------•------•--------------••-" IKI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. witl be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. witl be greeter than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement witt be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt ' be less than I.C.U. without project -------_---------------------------•_-_._____-------------------•-•-------'------_-•__'__ Description of system improvement: N/A ' McDonald's, Newport Beach PROJECT FORM 11 ' NE1310AM NE7310PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & 32ND STREET 1310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I I lCapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Votuae I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 1 1 44 1 0.03 * — I — 1 0.03* 1 — 10.031 1___________________________________________________________________________________________I NY . 1 1 ns 1 - 1 2 1 0. 25 1 40 10. 261 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.25 ----------------------------------- ----------I I NR 1 1 26 1 1 - I I I I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----I i SL 1 16001 1 651 0.041 - I 1 0.04 I 1 .041, 1----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------I I ST 1 1 1056 I 1 1 1 0 .42 1 40 10.44 4 ' 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.42 '---- ----------I I SR 1 1 295 I - I - I I I I I---------------------"'-------------------------------------------------------------------I I EL 1 1 226 1 1 - I - 1 0.08* 1 - 10.08# I--------) 3200 ------------------- 0-08 *- __-------- ----------I _ I ET I I " I I - I - I I I I ' I----------------------------------------------------------_-------------------------------I 8 I ER I N.S. 1 1 281 1 - I I I - I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________I I WL 1 1 35 I - I - 1 0.03* 1 - 10.03t I--------) 3200 ------"'---------) 0.03 ' -------------------------------_�__________I I WT 1 1 58 I - I - I I I I I_________ __________________________________________________________________________I ' I WR I H.S. 1 1 691 1 - I - I i - I I I________________________________________________________________________ _______________I 1EXISTING I 0.56 I ] i---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 5 6 I ______________ ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0 S8 ,I ---------'»--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ix1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement Will be ' less than or equat to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wiLL ' be Less than I.C.U. Without project -------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------____ Description of system improvement: N/A McDonald's, Newport Beach PROJECT FORM II NE1310PM I, II •.— I ' RE1415AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 14.15 1 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECT'IPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C- 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 I HT 1 -3200 1 I 1306 1 0.41 • - ' I I * I 5o_I 43 I----------------------------------------------- ------- 5 0:_4� . MR I H.S. I I 33I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I SL 1 3200 I 1 405 1 0.13 * _ I — 1 0. 13* 1 — 10. 13 k I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ST 1 32001 1 7521 0.241 — I — I 0. 24 1 50 10.26 __- __i________i________i_-___; _i______-_-________-____ i______-____-_______i_______ SR 5 I ----------------i-----------------I--------'--.-----------------------------------------I EL I ___________- L__________________________________ ______ _____________________________ __ _ _ ' I ET ER I I I 2 1 I - I - I — I ------------- I WL 1 1600 I 1 7 1 0.00 r _ I _ 1 0.01* 1 - 1 0.01 k ` i--------i--------i--------i-----------------i---_---i----_---i-------------------i-------II WT I - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------I 141 WR I ---- --- ----I FREE I I I _ I _ I 0. 14 I - 10.--- 1EXISTING -------- ____________________! 54-_-0- _-_______________________________ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.55 I i I___________________________________________________________________________________________ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.- 1 0.58.1 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ' IxI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: N/A MCDonald'si Newport Beach PROJECT FORM 11 NE1415AM a J 1 it NE141SPH 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 .. EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992-PM - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTiNGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI 1 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 Votune I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 I---------------------------------------------------------_--------------------------------I I HL I I I I I — I I I — I I i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NT 1 3200 1 1 1143 1 0.36 * — 1 2 1 0. 3.6* 1 40 10. 3711 --------'`'N-------------'-----3—'------------- ---------- ----I-----------I-------I-------I 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -----I 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 556 1 0.17 * I — 1 0. 17* I 10. 171 ST 1 3200 1 1 1389 1 0.45 1 — 1 3 1 0.45 1 40 10.461 ISR--- ---'.__-----'--------I----_4--1--------I-'-----I---------------------------!------I 1 I EL I I I I I — I — I I — I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-- -----I I ET 1 1600 1 1 1 1 — I — I I 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------- I I ER I 1 1 22 1 1 — I — I I — I I _______.__ _ -------------I I WL 1 16001 1 241 0.02 — I — 10.02* 1 — 10.021 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 - I WT I I I I I — I — I I — I I I--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------I 1 1 - - - --.._-469.----0-t5-----------------------------------------------I WR 1 320D FREE I I I I 1 0. 15 I 10. 151 1EXISTING 1 0.55 1 1 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.55 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10•5 61 1 Ix1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wiLL be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Pr,�jected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wiLL be Less than or equal to 0.90 1 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements will be Less then I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: N/A 1 McDonald's, Newport Beach PROJECT FORM II 1 NE1415PM } 1 � 1 05/31/94 11:37 C619 535 8944 MCD SD @JDD1 jMcllonae San Diego .Regional Ofxe Facsimile Cover Sheet Date: j 3 <- 94/ TO: J,Okv, Dbwklas Company: G`-F o-r 0� R Phone: Fax: 1 From: Company: McDonafai Corporatlon Phone: (619) 835-89M Fax: (619) 535-8944-- Pages Including this cover page: Comments: le i e Pam- a A C f 6& C f�✓�c�-t�c?�� u u,c�Q e�/ e.uessorMaa�aa.r,e�xcc+c ' ttnsRs uss p5/31/94 11:37 C819 535 8944 MCD SD 11002 r MAY 27 '94 14:16 CHB - /TECH P.2/3 JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL RIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 9263S TEL:(714)447-6070 r FAX:(114) 447.6080 May 18 1993 REC9IVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT -NTY OF NEWPORT BRACY Mr. John Douglas, MAY 2 5199:4 FM Principal Planner AN City of Newport Beach 71lal�tlll�i�i21�141�i6 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92668 Re. Drive-thru lane survey at two existing McDonald's In-the City of'Rancho Cucamonga and the City of La Verne Dear John: As per our conversation with Mr. Richard Edmonston and with Ms. Sharon Collins today, recommendations were made that the final traffic study should include data and analyses of McDonald's with similar drive-thru lane characteristics (the Face-to-Face approach). McDonald's representative indicated that the most comparable facilities are in Rancho Cucamonga and La,-Verne. SCOPE OF SERVICE We will visit the sites and a program of work—will-bWdeveloped in order to determine the number of vehicles that could be served at the drive•thru lanes , the service rate, the maximum number of cars, and queue frequency. Field surveyors (2 at each site) will be stationed at each site during the busiest hours of the day. - The data will be summarized in the revised Traffic and Parking study and analyses will be applied to the proposed McDonald's on 28th Street. FETE PROPOSAL. Ott) t�li"I We propose a lump sum of $1,170.00 This fee considers one site visit, one day survey I a at two McDonald's in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of La Verne during the busiest hours of operation, analyses of the subject data, and inclusion of data in the traffic and parking study. Should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to ratieet only tnat amount of wurk which waa neccooitated by the revition Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. A5/31/94 11:38 1&619 535 8944 DSCD SD 2003 MAY 27 194 14:18 CNB - W17tCH If tslis proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. if there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of-Transportation Planning SG!sf THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED kAC' >0,kJA1-P-'4 nl2 c�✓ or Company � Tltle Signature Name (Please type or Print Clearly) �1-27 O1fa VINO Address r Tel-aphone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINNFR5, INC rL � ; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U .x RO BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659.1768 C�<i FO RNA' / E.AX COVER SHEET DATE: �j a (q f TO: BUSINESS PHONE: / FAX NUMBER: &11 535— 0144 RE: THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT-BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 PHONE NO. : (714) 644- 3230 FAX NO. : (714)644-3250 NO. OF PAGES: + c""e-r SPECIAL At+ae-L� 15 f sue ( i a�Caei �m+T p INSTRUCTIONS: p °'f�O ` �fCC�tG ck'--Jysrs . Pease- ireytew ez�,iQ yp-J w is et'o cee-d. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach l ' 0 r JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 May 18 1993 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT "iTY OF NEWPORT BEACP Mr. John Douglas, MAY 2 51994 Principal Planner AM PM City of Newport Beach 7181911011104IA31415i6 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Drive-thru lane survey at two existing McDonald's in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of La Verne Dear John: As per our conversation with Mr. Richard Edmonston and with Ms. Sharon Collins today, recommendations were made that the final traffic study should include data and analyses of McDonald's with similar drive-thru lane characteristics (the Face-to-Face approach).. McDonald's representative indicated that the most comparable facilities are in Rancho Cucamonga.and La Verne. SCOPE OF SERVICE We will visit the sites and a program of work will be developed in order to determine the number of vehicles that could be served at the drive-thru lanes , the service rate, the maximum number of cars, and queue frequency. Field surveyors (2 at each site ) will be stationed at each site during the busiest hours of the day. The data will be summarized in the revised Traffic and Parking study and analyses will be applied to the proposed McDonald's on 28th Street. FEE PROPOSAL 1t�fl Ij We propose a lump sum of $1,170.00 This fee considers one site visit, one day surrey ( �81 at two McDonald's in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of La Verne during the busiest hours of operation, analyses of the subject data, and inclusion of data in the traffic and parking study. Should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTINN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. S' ( 0LIU14' - Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:sf THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Company Signature Title Date Name (Please type or Print Clearly) Address Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 Transmittal To: tAR . 7:315" Nnd(:, AS Date: 4 —S — 19c1.q- c i-r lr D F" Mr—;w t'n a:v 8-rz:*4[f-1 Proj. No.: -P(0 C14 19?Y90 IVY J PD(LT 3b1fLF-At'4 21'_ Re: Mr D�rn a t nl I S. War14W� i3�i}y�-1 C.4L1 0acyl A cc: Attn: We are sending you: ❑ Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover ❑ Personal Delivery Via N�—>o D�7"u►11ld L ❑ US Mail ❑ Delivery Service ❑ FAX ❑ The Following ❑ Reports ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ d'tahst� PcxPA ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ ❑ Prints ❑ Data ❑' If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. For: ❑ Your Use i0Your Files ❑ Review & Comment ❑ Use on Job ❑ Approval ❑ ❑ As Requested ❑ For Corrections ❑ Description: _10(40 , I, S /e wfiN r v 1s IDr 1 y sec! n1 /� 7!J ��� f m✓vi ,/ A� Sha ti�Y Remarks: Cease CA& hotW a wYi�f a Ixkgf� o v Yj Respectfully, S t-fA I-I't P, INTRODUCTION A proposal has been made to construct a new "CLASSIC" McDonald's Restaurant on a parcel of land north of 28th Street between the two Newport Boulevards, in Central Newport Beach. The site is currently vacant. The purpose of this report is to assess traffic and pedestrian impacts which may result from the project.The report will also comply with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. THE PROJECT The project will consist of constructing a small "CLASSIC" McDonald's drive-thru restaurant on the north side of 28th Street at Newport Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach (see Figure 1, Page 2 for Site Vicinity Map). Because of limited parcel size, the restaurant will have only 1366 square feet of building size with indoor seating of 503 square feet where customers sit and eat their meal. Figure 2, Page 3, illustrates the proposed Site Plan. Access to Newport Boulevard will be via three driveways, one onto the ONE-WAY Newport Boulevard couplet. Figure 2 indicates ingress and egress via one driveway to the northbound street while there will be two driveways on the southbound street segment. Parking is based upon the total square footage of both the 863 square foot of McDonald's Classic building and 503 square feet of indoor eating area; i.e.. 1. 863 S.F. building 503 S.F. outdoor eating 1366 S.F. @ 1 stall per 50 = 28 stalls 2. Employee Parking = 5 stall 33 stalls required 33 stalls provided Although it is recognized that on-street parking is not counted towards satisfying parking requirements, at-curb parking is permitted on the southbound couplet. Inasmuch as there will be nominal on-site seating the primary food preparation effort will be directed toward the drive-thru lane, thus increasing the efficiency of food service in that drive-thru lane. Figure 2, Page 3, indicated nine (9) cars total capacity in the drive-thru lane. JUSTIN F. FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. INTERNAL CIRCULATION Table 3, Page 15 lists the amount of traffic, both auto and pedestrian, expected to be generated by the project. For purposes of addressing the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, only peak AM and PM volumes are considered. However, to further assess circulation associated with the project, a forecast was prepared for the noon peak period. That peak occurs from 12:00 to 1:00 PM, during which it is expected that there may be a high of 98 autos entering the restaurant. As a check on the reasonableness of this forecast, data from other drive-thru restaurants were consulted. A comparison between the restaurant proposed herein and one with conventional seating was made.In the latter, drive-thru lanes can be expected to process 50- 60 vehicles at the peak noon period. That volume is usually twice the number of walk-in* customers. With respect to the McDonald's presented in this study, on-site seating is very limited (503 square feet total seating area) i.e., the number of drive-in/sit-down customers (walk-in)would be considerably lower than those of a conventional McDonald's.If walk-in customers are approximately 50%of drive-thru lane customers, then it would be reasonable to expect 90 cars (total) during the noon peak one-hour. The forecast herein is 98 vehicles. This comparison is for drive-thru and walk-in customers only. Walk-in customers are addressed on Pages 15, 21, 22 and 23 of this report. During this noon time period the maximum a drive-thru lane can accommodate approximately 70 vehicles in an hour if used to 100% of its capacity for the full 60 minutes: i.e., it can process a car in slightly under one minute (52 seconds), and it takes approximately 4 minutes to prepare a drive-thru order and deliver it to a customer. Therefore, a stacking distance of 4 cars between the menu board (ordering station) and the pick up window is deemed to be adequate. In the subject plans, space is provided for 6 such vehicles. If drive thru activity of the order of 60 vehicles per hour is anticipated, it is reasonable to request that there be stacking distance for approximately 3 to 4 cars in advance of the menu board. In the subject case, 4 cars are shown, including the one placing an order. If that queue were to be better channelized, there would be room for one more vehicle in the queue and a total of 10 cars could be accommodated. It appears, therefore, that circulation with respect to the drive-thru lane is adequate. DRIVEWAYS Inasmuch as Newport Boulevard is a ONE-WAY couplet, the site must have access to both streets, for entering and leaving. It is appropriate for the northwestern driveway to be an exit such that exiting drivers do not traverse any more of the parking area than is necessary. The same logic follows for the southwestern entrance driveway. Walk-in customers are customers that would drive-in and sit down to eat, or take their orders out (to go). ** Walk-up customers are customers that would walk to the restaurant and do not utilize a vehicle. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 Q� FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 May 3, 1993 RECOVE.l1 BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. John Douglas, -,1TY OF NEWPORT BEAC11 Principal Planner City of Newport Beach AM 9 1994 PIA 3300 Newport Blvd. 7tgtg11USll1]2111213i4t516 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Revision of Traffic Circulation and Parking Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic and parking study for the above referenced project. It is my understanding that the project site plan has been modified to include additional seating facilities, to increase the number of parking spaces and to reduce drive - thru lane length. It is also my understanding that McDonald's Corporation is now forecasting that 40% of the business would be associated with the walk-up operation (previously proposed as being 25% only). I have received April 7, 1994 Planning Commission minutes from Richard Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer. After careful review of these minutes, it appears that additional concerns have been raised by commissioners and citizens regarding the following issues: 1. Pedestrian volume 2. Vehicular queues onto Newport Boulevard 3. Parking turnover and capacity 4. Additional information regarding Santa Monica store 5. Bicycles accessibility 6. Additional analysis regarding pedestrian safety SCOPE OF SERVICE We will revise our Traffic and Parking study dated March 30, 1994 to include the new site plan and the changes presented above. We will also address the above referenced concerns and issues raised by The Planning Commission and the citizens and we will include additional analysis in our report. r VS4 , O do �fie, dwt`,rc�lu� /9 I?G• �-� � k �N - The new site plan Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention will be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility. We will prepare materials for presentation in the Planning Commission as appropriate. We will include the three study intersections. Revision will be made, if necessary, to the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We will utilize the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, assess cumulative projects, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. DELIVERABLES Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $3,600.00. This fee considers our analysis of the subject revised site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that Santa Monica Store data and PCH store data utalized in the original report will be used in this revision. The fee includes attendance at two meetings and preparation of additional materials for presentation, as appropriate. Should we be requested to attend additional meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. C5 Y.��G�ok Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Company Signature Title Date Name (Please type or Print Clearly) Address Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Y lbr J; a 3/1994 14:06 714-4471480 JUSTIN FARMER �' PAS$' „ JUSTIN V FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 LAST IMPERIAL. HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 s FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 lE[ (714) 447-6WO FAX 1'14) 44 7-60MO Transmittal io ,`{ 1 t i)k] �er, Via yn..iUSi.itf_ are, nn ij. N1 j n 1iv ,t.fv �5 c r , r Review & Comment z s; t: 411 & V M3l1994 14:06 714-447- 0 JUSTIN FRRhER P kVi JUSTIN F. F'ARMLR � z 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. t. \ t •� /' pi 223 EASI IILPERIAI HICiHI� �I , it 1rC is` j ji F'L•LLERroN, CALIFURh I ). 914W t A . ; %:4 i 44%(,Ubu Car n ei M:4,r 1 '993 ->'3 Mr Joi)r a Ra, Revtslon of 1 raftic Circulation tbnd Parking Study Proposed MCUOnaid a liastawti Y 281n Street at Newport Eou+euarwt l Newport beach, California t l et me Mani, 'yu_ for se,ec,in„ ,-s ral*i,. and parking study for the above referenced r�r.,)gw+ It is my :na, the project site plan has been modified to include aaamona; seatim tacr ne,s. ?c •ic rease the number of parking spaces ar:d tc reduce dr•ve tnru lane .enact. a' ,v understanding that McDonald's t..orporattor. ,s row ioroChiStir,q that 40" rt'- , r:ess would be associated with the -s warK-up c;peratiUr oreviewsiv r;•upose-o as ve£ i� enlvi I have received April f 1994 Planning rilriutes morn Richard Edmonston, City ratfic Priglneer After caratui eview of tr ese t appears that additional concerns nave bean raised by cor r,ssroners a', -�z , lioC,StrdIrlCG the following Issues: t VenIGU;ar aU%'.,P,5 Grt0 `YeVv ti 7 ,r ,r e' J Park ing Iurn(;ver riind cacmfCirV 4. Addiilonai irforrtlat,on regai vi '-i ";, Ca 5+ure •": 5 blcyrlAs access aj-ty 6 Addmonat analysis regaraing PE+r .c ir• o,v. r. q Y�` 4V: We will revise our Tramc and Parking Sludv dRl#4C +•nH;•cn 30, 1994 to include the new Site plan and the crianctes (:resented aacve we v- aiso address the above referenced concerns ana issues raised by l he E`lar lny C c :r-n,ssion and the citizens and we will include additional an8ivsrs in our fead'I. �,r+ iI+ QI03/1994 14:06 714-447-1EB0 JLISTIN FARMER '1 PAGE 03 ' i " F The new site plan Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention wil, be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility We will prepare materials for presentation in the Planning Commission as appropriate. We will include the three study intersections. Revision will be made, if necessary to the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and III would utilize the subject intersections We will utilize the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, assess cumulative projects, apply applicable regional growth, conajct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis it necessary. Data will be .ana!yzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be dei a .Aha a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with they DELIVERAB...eS Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCMEDIALE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your notice to proceed or signature on this proposal FEE PFIIOWO*IAL We propose a lump sum of $3,600.00 This fee considers our analysis of the subject revised site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the iee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. fy The fee assumes that Santa Monica Store data anc! PCH store data utalized in the original report will berused in this revii4fiSlr` Ihe fee rncGaes attendance at two meetings and preparation of additional materials for presentstion, as appropriate. Should we be requested to attend additional meetings. we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the rry person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting it the printed report f i> � :r IN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINF.FRs. IW : .. a: ��5; 03'i1994 14:06 714-447-980 TLI�TitI FARMER PAGE. 64 °i J +rtrs proposal s acce tr3C 3 'Neame+ y. ;, t; P ;ear e [�eov;dad on the rul;owiry page a"- ret:u fiarlK you ayo n 'i. . .: .,, urr r c; ,� `,: - t _ ;. w :•.,;« -o-ward vorkinq wily you un (nls oro;ect t tnere are ar,y gL;rr, _ io: tiN tyei !fe6 tc rlac t r'18 at your 4u5TA F FAF4Mrk ` "gt r � rrY Nome [Please type or pant C=ear d� Teiepnorle Number spy Number '4 ;a JUNIM t. kARMER TRANSPON"t:AT1UN ENGINEERS, tNC. { UU 'Uy : 'b / - 1-bbdU JUn I V1 ., • K I KAHb F' Ut UL 'JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447.6080 May 3, 1993 Mr. John Douglas, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Revision of Traffic Circulation and Parking Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic and parking study for the above referenced project. It is my understanding that the project site plan has been modified to include additional seating facilities, to Increase the number of parking spaces and to reduce drive - thru lane length. It is also my understanding that McDonald's Corporation is now forecasting that 40% of the business would be associated with the walk-up operation (previously proposed as being 25% only). I have received April 7, 1994 Planning Commission minutes from Richard Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer. After careful review of these minutes, It appears that additional concerns have been raised by commissioners and citizens regarding the following issues: 1. Pedestrian volume 2. Vehicular queues onto Newport Boulevard 3. Parking turnover and capacity 4. Additional information regarding Santa Monica store S. Bicycles accessibility 6. Additional analysis regarding pedestrian safety SCOPE OF SERVICE We will revise our Traffic and Parking study dated March 30, 1994 to include the new site plan and the changes presented above. We will also address the above referenced concerns and issues raised by The Planning Commission and the citizens and we will include additional analysis in our report. a3/1994 14:06 714-447-6080 JUSTIN FARMER TRANS PAGE 03 i • The new site plan Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention will be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility. We will prepare materials for presentation In the Planning Commission as appropriate. We will Include the three study intersections. Revision will be made, If necessary, to the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We will utilize the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, assess cumulative projects, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. DELIVERABLES Our study and its findings will be summarized In a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $3,600.00, This fee considers our analysis of the subject revised site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that Santa Monica Store data and PCH store data utalized in the original report will be used in this revision. The fee includes attendance at two meetings and preparation of additional materials for presentation, as appropriate. Should we be requested to attend additional meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 05/03/1994 14:06 714-4d*090 JUSTIN FARMERWANS PAGE 04 If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing In the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Company Signature Title Date Name (Please type or Print Clearly) Address Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. � 4 JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 1 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 Transmittal To: M IkSLA N1Z Date: 2 —23 — 19,n g c.1"Ty a ?1'EfjP6I!:T 'P>—ak . Proj. No.: :3AD w5ky J - B rnJ1-;e/A2,f) Re: N ck,✓PB I2;r 6 IF:1�_4- 2N t A- cc: Attn: We are sending you: ❑ Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover �rsonal Delivery Via ❑ US Mail ❑ Delivery Service ❑ FAX ❑ The Following t l�Heports ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ ❑ Prints ❑ Data ❑ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. For: ❑ Your Use ❑ Your Files t-8rl�eview & Comment ❑ Use on Job ❑ Approval ❑ Requested ❑ For Corrections ❑ Description: Remarks: \IF ' rt;\/ l pc A-NY r—cTlt�� 01YL PAEr�- AAD1-RURAL �{�l�n12tMIA�TIt�r�1 Respectfully, VICINITY MAP Traffic Study No. 93 �Yoo � � IL YAGCA 0 MD STT Ile � oo s� ooa 0 m O a 4 „ e Q3 �� o t�l nM 'a 2 0 O m 4 n x o � Proposed x O x O siteST r 0 � o � LIDD PENINSULA D o � 0 0 NEW o � 0 � Aqr 9 Y�TUL6cN ��+P O = Y RR/X+ P eR Planning Department Newport Info System January 24, 1994 0 6 November 16, 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/ Traffic Circulation and Parking Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED City of Newport Beach Company • M Qom_ Associate Planner 13-12-93 Signat a Title Date Aziz M. Aslami Name (Please type or Print Clearly) 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Address (714) 644-3225 644-3250 Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. LEAR OF TRANSMITTAL McDonald's Cor ation 3 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800 fmcm �o San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 535-8900 DATE i g- ,05, ^ 7, //� n. . / ,� L Q /'_ ATTENTION U O(� 10 TO 33oa tite�vr� ,O/vd, a 9d,il/Io0� &OCA, G� 9a159-��dB WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints 0 Plans ❑Samples ❑ Specifications ❑Copy of letter ❑Change order ❑ COPIES I DATE NO. DESCRIPTION Mad THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies forapproval ❑ For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution ❑As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS +" �Q T� G s A.5 0 e `11 COPY TO 0 aBRIEN BUDD,INC.-(312)584.9200 08 PRODUCT NO.4007878 SIGNED: llt�o,va 0 i •;vile IsodNON d0.�. r , JUSTIN F. FARMER —` TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 Transmittal To• c t" D F' Date: It F9 3 3300 ouawp$07 Pro'. No.: AJEWP207- 9S4eGh,. CA 9Zaos4 Re: &AZj.<g_ef R0,0o5c cc: Attn: A4Q Az.,-z 45LA-mZ' . We are sending you: ❑ Attached ❑ Under.Separate Cover ❑ Personal Delivery Via ❑ US Mail ❑ Delivery Service ❑ FAX ❑ 3250 The Following ❑ Reports ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ ��'�"i--, ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ ❑ Prints ❑ Data ❑ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. ' For: ❑ Your Use ❑ Your Files ❑ Review & Comment ❑ Use on Job \.OApproval ❑ ❑ As Requested ❑ For Corrections ❑ . ' Description: PA rpSA-( 602 T- F4—i o AND .c rz)..b V M.GDoGJdtli4� S ��"t�JP�� Remarks: C, Pro�osaQ. - BY PL:.NNING DEPARTMENT Respectfully, """r OF NFWPORT BEACH AM I\OV 18 1993 PM 71819110111112111213141516 JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 November 16 , 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/ Traffic Circulation and Parking Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic study for the above referenced project. As you are aware, we have conducted a number of such studies in the City of Newport Beach and are therefore familiar with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. By way of experience, we have conducted over 1015 projects during the last 10 years, approximately 650 of which have involved traffic and parking analysis. We have conducted approximately 50 studies of traffic and parking associated with fast food restaurants, including McDonalds, Carls Jr. , Taco Bell, Del Taco, and Tokyo Beef Bowl. We recently conducted a study similar to that being proposed at a Carls Jr. restaurant in a shopping center, immediately adjacent to a McDonalds, in Garden Grove. Most recently, we were retained to conduct similar Traffic/Parking study in the City of Cypress and in the City of Lawndale, California. I have spoken with Mr. Rich Edmonston, the City Traffic Engineer, and I believe I have an understanding of his concerns. We therefore offer the following scope of service. SCOPE OF SERVICES - We will visit the sites and inventory those street environmental features that will affect or be affected by the project on Newport Boulevard north and southbound. - Because the proposed McDonald's restaurant will be a unique fast-food restaurant and will be within walking distance from the beach and nearby commercial centers and offices, trip generation forecast should be determined based on fast food restaurants with similar characteristics to the McDonald's proposed herein. Trip generation survey will be conducted and existing data for similar McDonald's will be used, however special consideration will be given to seasonal variations. The proposed McDonald's trip generation forecast will be developed based on the actual collected data. - The City Traffic Engineer requested that the traffic study includes the following intersections: Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street Newport Boulevard at Via Lido Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue We will include the above three intersections in our analysis, and a forecast will be made of the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We ,will utilize the City of Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance, assess cumulative project, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention will be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility. JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , has surveyed numerous drive-thru restaurants, field enumerators were stationed at the surveyed facilities such that they could observe the order placing process, the pick-up operation and the length of queue. Most recently we have collected such data at an existing successful McDonald's in the City of Cypress. We will use our data to conduct specific assessments of the drive-thru lane operation and the impact upon on-site circulation. DELIVERABLES Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in three weeks after receipt of your signed notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $5,600.00. This fee considers our analysis of one site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that traffic counts will be taken by NSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , at two comparable facilities and that data will be collected by us regarding seasonal variations. The fee does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be requested to attend meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, NSTIN F. .FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 34. Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:dk JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC FEE SCHEDULE January 1993 EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATE Principal-In-Charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . .$ 130.00 - - Vice President. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100.00 Transportation Planning Manager. . . . .$ 95.00 Senior Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 95.00 Design Supervisor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 85.00 Transportation Designer. . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 78.00 Transportation Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . .$ 68.00 AutoCad/Intergraph operator. . . . . . . . .$ 52.50 Executive Secretary/Word Processor. .$ 42.00 Field Enumerator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 32.50 TRAVEL $ .35/MILE OR ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% EXPENSES ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% HOURLY RATE INCLUDES ALL NORMAL EXPENSES, ALL LABOR, PAYROLL BURDEN, OVERHEAD AND PROFIT. INVOICES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT. PAYMENT MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS MAY BE DISCOUNTED 1% OF LABOR COST. --- - UNPAID INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS WILL BE ASSESSED A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY OF 1% PER MONTH. JFF:dr JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. CITY OF NEWPORT F#ACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAX(714) 644-3250 (charge code#2718) Mailing Address: Street Address: P.O.BOX 1768 33W Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 Newport Beach,CA 92663 Advance Planning Division Current Planning Division (714)644-3225 (714) 644-32M ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fax Cover Sheet FROM: DATE: 12 / 10 / 93 , t Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner Title TO: Sharon L. Collins Business Phone 619 535-3900 FAX No. 6( 19 ) 535-8944 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant I No. of Pages (excluding cover sheet): 3 i t ; Special Instructions: -------------------- ` ________________________________________ J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAX(714) 644-3250 (charge code#2718) Mailing Address: Street Address: P.O.BOX 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 Newport Beach,CA 92663 Advance Planning Division Current Planning Division (714) 644-3225 (714)644-32M •------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fax Cover Sheet FROM: DATE: 11 22 93 Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner i Title TO: Sharon L. Collins Business Phone 619 535-8900 FAX No. 6( 19 ) 535-8944 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant No. of Pages (excluding cover sheet): g Special Instructions: JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC i ??: 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 November 15, 1993 "' "VVz0 67 Mr. John Douglas cif no: WPU�e"13EA:CF) Principal Planner City of Newport Beach PTV 1',t 1993 3300 Newport Blvd. AM PM Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 718AIUA12f1AM15i6 Re: Proposal for Data Collection and Parking Study AA Traffic Circulation Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic study for the above referenced project. As you are aware, we have conducted a number of such studies in the City of Newport Beach and are therefore familiar with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. By way of experience, we have conducted over 1015 projects during the last 10 years, approximately 650 of which have involved traffic and parking analysis. We have conducted approximately 50 studies of traffic and parking associated with fast food restaurants, including McDonalds, Carls Jr. , Taco Bell, Del Taco, and Tokyo Beef Bowl. We recently conducted a study similar to that being proposed at a Carls Jr. restaurant in a shopping center, immediately adjacent to a McDonalds, in Garden Grove. Most recently, we were retained to conduct similar Traffic/Parking study in the City of Cypress and in the City of Lawndale, California. I have spoken with Mr. Rich Edmonston, the City Traffic Engineer, and I believe I have an understanding of his concerns. We therefore offer the following scope of service. SCOPE OF SERVICES - We will visit the sites and inventory those street environmental features that will affect or be affected by the project on Newport Boulevard north and southbound. - Because the proposed McDonald's restaurant will be a unique fast-food restaurant and will be within walking distance from the beach and nearby commercial centers and offices, trip generation forecast should be determined based on fast food restaurants with similar characteristics to the McDonald's proposed herein. Trip generation survey will be conducted and existing data for similar McDonald's will be used, however special consideration will be given to seasonal variations. The proposed McDonald's trip generation forecast will be developed based on the actual collected data. The City Traffic Engineer requested that the traffic study includes the following intersections: Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street Newport Boulevard at Via Lido Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue We will include the above three intersections in our analysis, and a forecast will be made of the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We will utilize the City of Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance, assess cumulative project, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention will be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility. JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , has surveyed numerous drive-thru restaurants, field enumerators were stationed at the surveyed facilities such that they could observe the order placing process, the pick-up operation and the length of queue. Most recently we have collected such data at an existing successful McDonald's in the City of Cypress. We will use our data to conduct specific assessments of the drive-thru lane operation and the impact upon on-site circulation. DELIVERABLES our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in three weeks after receipt of your signed notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. JUSTIN R FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $5,600.00. This fee considers our analysis of one site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that traffic counts will be taken by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , for both Huntington Beach and Irvine sites. It also assumes that particulars pertaining to square footages, site plans, etc. . will be provided by Dahn Corporation in a timely manner. The fee does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be requested to attend meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 4 .� fin . Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:dk INEERS E JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION NG , INC , November 15, 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection and Parking Study Traffic Circulation Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Company Signature Title Date Name (Please type or Print Clearly) Address Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC FEE SCHEDULE January 1993 EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATE Principal-In-Charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130.00 Vice President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100 .00 Transportation Planning Manager. . . . .$ 95.00 Senior Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 95.00 Design Supervisor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 85.00 Transportation Designer. . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 78.00 Transportation Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . .$ 68 . 00 AutoCad/Intergraph Operator. . . . . . . . . $ 52.50 Executive Secretary/Word Processor. .$ 42.00 Field Enumerator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 32.50 TRAVEL $.35/MILE OR ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% EXPENSES ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% HOURLY RATE INCLUDES ALL NORMAL EXPENSES, ALL LABOR, PAYROLL BURDEN, OVERHEAD AND PROFIT. INVOICES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT. PAYMENT MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS MAY BE DISCOUNTED 1% OF LABOR COST. UNPAID INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS WILL BE ASSESSED A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY OF 1% PER MONTH. JFF:dr JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. NEWPORT EOM Ev RD ---" - T•-2. -- --� DIRPLTONAI.SIGN I w 0 25P HllN 25'HIGH I rp�'1 1L 5 4 POLE SIGN � 1 O O 6 5 Q - r - 9 Mcr,L-A9516r' FLAG POLES(5) I BLD6• 863 SGt.FT- 1pj(15tING G�cgTIP16 Y �n1swe-E 5t0 �a�SGt.FT. � P EXI5TNG _,,,y 1 •O 51NGLE 5T 'I 1W.L STOTLY 1 42-b' 4 �v Q 42'-b• W T�O NO E IT o � IS't• I IS'-0' S3'-ID• IS'-O• 9'-9' ' 200 507T. 15'HI6N DIR=OTIONAL SIGN DIREOTONAL SIGN 4 POLE SIGN NEWPORT BOULEVARD � • vib TRAFFIC STUDIES T 93 APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: NAME: PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: 1 0 DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE 6/13 128-7- , oo l! 7• / � ��� p 66 D, a �3� CrFr OF NEWPORT BEACH• e Building Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Q P.O. Box 1768 Cg41pc FIt��P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS �G4aap Received From Job s Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection. .....................................010-5008 b Reinspection B E H P.......... ..... ..............P�11@08 $ Temporary Electric.............. ..................DEC'i00191 $ TemporaryGas...........................................010-4616 $ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Grease Interceptor. .....................................010-4620 Planning Department Fees.... ............................010-5000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ • Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ OtherG - 3 did-Z S 6) 600 CA d/D-Sala 56a, RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ 6 NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. FEE RECEIPT NO. (f\feercpt9.93) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT u z NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 �[IFOPN' � � 3:_7'J:i RECEIVED HY:JMA CUSTOMER:MC•DONALDS MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0102300/TRAFFIC STUDY 010—�'300 $5, 600. 00 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 28 TH STREET 010-5010 $560. 00 TOTAL DUE $6, 160.00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID` CHEL!h PtCI" i ; TENDERED C:HANuE $. 00 $6, 160400 818b6 1,�5 S6, 160.or) V. 00 DATE Is'/13/S3 TIME — 16: 57.32 Y-- �EvavOar , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT x NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 Cq�IFOPNP 41275 RECEIVED 8Y: TJ CUSTOMER: MC:DONALDI5 CORP j MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 28TH ST NEWPORT BLVD 010-2300 $1, 170.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 010-5010 $117.00 d )) + TOTAL DUE $1 ,287. 00 CASH PAID CHECI; F'AIq Ci IEC.:JVO TENDERED CHANI3E it. 00 $,1 , 287.,00 881t0847 $1,267. 00 $.00 DATE — 0G/f /S4 TTSME" = >9:-41 :218 �' 6W pp�r • CITY OF NEWP,ORT BEACH p r Building Department ' \ S 3300 Newport Blvd. aK P.O. Box 1768 Cq<�FOR��P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK N0. FEE RECEIPTS rye-, Received From y Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P. ........ ....... .................010-5008 $ Temporary Electric......................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas.......................................... 04,)1�616 b tx GreaseInterceptor................................. ..010�4 Planning Department Fees............... ..............,V�10-500ul�� • ``�� Sale of Maps & Publications............................0&1�.112 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..............(A�.010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ Other TLGI/✓�.ry ([� / 6210 2301$ RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ �a $}• �� NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. / /,2— FEE RECEIPT NO. (f\feerept9.93) Mks ...�..•f_? CITY OF-NEWP9RT BEAC� ��EwaoRr p B� Building Department / \ 3300 Newport Blvd. C� '� e. P.O. Box 1768 • G��FORN�P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK N0. FEE RECEIPTS G Received From / Jo Address � Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection......................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P.... ............... ..............010-5008 $ Temporary Electric......................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...........................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor......................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees.......... ......................010-5000 $ • Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship.. ................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............. ...............010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure............ .... ....... 010-5021 $ r/t2�1 X other is C1,3 DI�J�131J7/$ �G LW. oD 6�P� o/O.5aJ0 360 00 RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ ° 00 NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. <__`�%_ � FEE RECEIPT NO. (fVeercpt9-93) t mwona1d•S0 29387297 No- 88181448 88181448 r i'e: 11 i • Ilv r•C•.� .C�-< 3f?igG]'U •7i 'Ate+- yAt '(�rri•1�yWr i_i�lat•f�Ml -074 9Tr6b913b3� 00042V 06169 0500 004 2188 2003099 3s960.00 ---- ------ TOTALAMOUNT D 3-9960s00 �gW PO \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 a.< PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 July 26, 1994 Sharon L. Collins McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant at 28th Street, Newport Beach, Additional Traffic Services. Dear Ms. Collins: As you know, the proposed McDonald's Restaurant is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 8, 1994. The City Traffic Engineer, Rich Edmonston, indicated that Mr. Justin F. Farmer will be attending said City Council Public Hearing. Based on the fee schedule,a copy attached, the professional representation by Mr.Farmer for today's meeting and August 8, 1994 City Council Public Hearing, is estimated at $1,000. The City's administrative fee is a 10 % charge. Please submit a check in the amount of$1,100,payable to the City of Newport Beach prior to August 5, 1994. Should you have any other questions regarding this matter, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Aziz . Aslami Associate Planner -- F.\WP51\...\Aziz-A\Tmfrtc\TP093\Collins.lt3 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach FEE SCHEDULE January 1, 1994 EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATE Principal-In-Charg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 135.00 Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 105.00 Transportation Planning Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100.00 Senior Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100.00 DesignSupervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 90.00 Transportation Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 80.00 Transportation Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 72.00 AutoCad/Intergraph Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 55.00 Executive Secretary/Word Processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 42.00 Field Enumerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 32.50 TRAVEL $.35/MILE OR ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% EXPENSES ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% HOURLY RATE INCLUDES ALL NORMAL EXPENSES, ALL LABOR, PAYROLL BURDEN, OVERHEAD AND PROFIT. INVOICES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT. PAYMENT MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS MAY BE DISCOUNTED 1% OF LABOR COST. UNPAID INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS WILL BE ASSESSED A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY OF 1% PER MONTH. JFF:dr JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 INVOICE City of Newport Beach July 6, 1994 3300 Newport Beach Blvd . Newport Beach, Ca 92658 INVOICE #2085 OUR. FILE #F1044-A RE: Data Collection, Traffic Circulation, and Parking Study for McDonald ' s Restaurant , located at 28th St ./Newport Blvd . /y/CS) Newport Beach - EXTRA WORK EFFORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revise project report analysis , updated data, conducted additional analysis , and attended s-taff meeting and planning commission meeting . FOR THE PERIOD OF: June 4, 1994 through July 1, 1994 LUMP SUM CONTRACT AMOUNT $4, 770. 00 Y , • 100% COMPLETION BILLING $4, 770. 00 O LESS PREVIOUSLY INVOICED: Amount Paid C. 0-30 Days 31-60 Days Over 60 Days . 00 0 ILL TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PER INVOICE $4, 770. 00 a to: Please make checks payable It' C c Cd JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. E� m Thank you, JV Justin F. Farmer, President • NET 30 DAYS AP `"` - PM 4 14.A41516 PURCIWE ORDER ! . PAGE o�aE�wPOR@ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 14401-1 1� 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD r,,,.,,..,,,,•„,,,,,, i 'P.O. BOX 1768 "fle, NEWPORT.BEACH, CALIFORNIA 926591-8915 rFOR"`� PHONE: (714) 644-3118 [ PURCH.ORDERDATEI DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION v01111LAII VENDOR SHIP Jljr ;Tllf C. rAIVIrr, TO CITY OF 11FOPORT BYACH :t"i:.ltl, kil ATIF+II 137' INFLUS INC. MIMINGII);P1rTTt}';11T 223 VAST 11,1PUP.YAL IITS . STE tau 33041 11LVWOT;T BLVD. rULU'.WI'bi3 CA ,r20k IM,PONT IiT'1r-It, C,1LI , 9Vt!0,l1 CONFIRM. I BLANKET FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE ERTENSION PROVIDL t1lPITIONAL TR.YrrIT: ANALYSIS rOr, THE P110TIOS-11ll ?1eUON LD'S RESTATI}T.ANT TO IRT? LOCATED AT 28TH STRU!"i' t 140itl"+3ET T1l.tP, AS PI:R 'k_QUft PROPOSAL DATES Tr4TAL d4,770.06 'i!}IS :Y1rLt1 !'Txl.ti 3;.h. S 3:,tt y 1,t3.tl2rllt fit\ 1 .00 0O'd-'j,0 41I to.DT}OF1 4 ,770.1st1 ITMI NO.1101 Yll.l lt- 1TIll .'ejtA:;SFp}tTA'I� e�'t',tta+;INCr}EINr' .I , T. r ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT 010 7:100 •10 7 im 1,141 TOTAL PURCHASE 0I0A Pv 4 .770:11/1 icc A:v,,".-ftht,prd.rb,--V ,w,ndprw,'I bebr.,ctnoN•dnement Or ty del,verylnwhab Or mpenal the don,telledfel hi-mundar /// A ey nn•,ndNtin,nrp^r the riLrtmrntlnrxnAnpwbJme that no h o read nnd"erm•.to ell term"nndaand,tlana,ntludlnq thaso filleted on the toy... ,it oNe,eCmm ,10-611,,QrJe The"IVr-,h,and coo,hdoes that will he aptirabe to me interpret menn of this Contract are tha[p 1,u,db the fife A"***AAAllllll•••5j- //{/ Gty nl bprrppn en„�h BY s*Il (r t f 1 Pd P O R T A N T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. Tho A4¢,.3 row rrd by tin.,Perch":o Order or Com¢cl must conform to appllsab'c Cal-OSHA Standard,,andlor other appropriate laws,regulations,rule:,and code of Fcdural Govarnmenl and the State of California.Show as a rcp.,rato item any refill s"Ic s toy,ueo tax or Fcdrral lax apple ablo to thL^.purchase.This order subject to California sales tax All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any s:deNun la.e on all purchases shipped from out-oFetate,All pnrcha,ca and tnmsponaVon charges are e.Cmpt from Federal excise tax.NOTE:All purchases are F O.B.destination unless of ionvao aulhoraed (;harge,for,hipmorl aro to Ito freight prop t,d and added to th•,Ini jehown o3 a coparato item)where so authorized Do not Include Federal transportation tax A Newport Beach business license may be resulted to conduct Weida-, In lho-8 ___ ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY CITY OF Memo NEWPORT BEACH FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: D13�� o � COPIES TO: SIGNAT e A . PURCHASE » CITY OF O�aEWPp e REQUISITION NE BEAACH G[1Fo Ft 4.0. No.: Date: ,tune 94, 1994 (if Reserved), v Dept: PLANNING Suggested Vendor. Ship To: FARMER, JUSTIN F. ._ . , ., _ . „ _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 East*Imperfef Hwv. , Suite 155 Fu l l edorr GV •9263'5 ..v = Attention: Phone.No: Quantity Description otArticles'or Services Required Unit Price Amount Budget# Provide additional, servi.oes. in 4770.00 010 2300 T—ra-f-fAc Study 3 - DiQT Comments: $1170 deposited into 010-2300 6-14-94 Sub Total' $3600 deposti ted into_010-230Q (57:24,-94 _ Tax . 4770 Total Date Required: F.O.R ' Terms, Code Amount PRO (Dep-artaentHeAdorpersoilauthorlwdtocxeaute requisitions) PURCHAMING MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding•$2,000) w • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 June 16, 1994 Sharon L. Collins McDonald's Corporation 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 Subject: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant at 28th Street, Newport Beach, Additional Traffic Services. Dear Ms Collins: The additional traffic study related services for the proposed McDonald's restaurant, which required as a result of the proposed site plan changes, was a lump sum of$3,600. The City, administrative fee is a 10%($360) charge. The required services have been provided by the Justin Farmer Transportation Engineering Inc. Please submit a check in the amount of $3,960, payable to the City of Newport Beach prior to June 23, 1994 to avoid further delay of this project. Should you have any other questions regarding this project, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By � . L� -- Aziz M. Asla Associate Planner F:\wrs i\...\.w:-A\Tarric\TPo93\Cou i ns3t2 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 05/03/1994 14:06 714-447 40 JUSTIN FARMER *S PAGE 02 JUSTIN F. FARMER �- TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 May 3, 1993 Mr. John Douglas, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Revision of Traffic Circulation and Parking Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear John: • First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic and parking study for the above referenced project. It is my understanding that the project site plan has been modified to include additional seating facilities, to increase the number of parking spaces and to reduce drive - thru lane length. It Is also my understanding that McDonald's Corporation is now forecasting that 40% of the business would be associated with the walk-up operation (previously proposed as being 25% only). I have received April 7, 1994 Planning Commission minutes from Richard Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer. After careful review of these minutes, it appears that additional concerns have been raised by commissioners and citizens regarding the following issues: 1, Pedestrian volume 2. Vehicular queues onto Newport Boulevard 3. Parking turnover and capacity 4. Additional Information regarding Santa Monica store 5. Bicycles accessibility 6. Additional analysis regarding pedestrian safety SCOPE OF SERVICE We will revise our Traffic and Parking study dated March 30, 1994 to include the new site • plan and the changes presented above. We will also address the above referenced concerns and issues raised by The Planning Commission and the citizens and we will include additional analysis in our report. f '05/03/1994 14:06 714-447 000 JUSTIN FARMER *S PAGE 03 • The new site plan Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention will be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility. We will prepare materials for presentation in the Planning Commission as appropriate. We will include the three study intersections. Revision will be made, if necessary, to the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We will utilize the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, assess cumulative projects, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be dev�p and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the DELIVERABLES • Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $3,600.00. This fee considers our analysis of the subject revised site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a 1 request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that Santa Monica Store data and PCH store data utalized in the original report will be used in this revision. The fee includes attendance at two meetings and preparation of additional materials for presentation, as appropriate. Should we be requested to attend additional meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. IN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS. INC. 05/03/1994 14:06 714-447-00 JUSTIN FARMER 0S PAGE 04 If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing In the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Y cok - I Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Company Signature Title Date Name (Please type or Print Clearly) Address Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. TO: .r . DATE Q MAYOR Q CITY COUNCIL Q CITY MANAGER ❑ FIRE ❑ DEPUTY CITY MGR. ❑ GENERAL SERVICES Q ATTORNEY Q LIBRARY ❑ BUILDING ❑ MARINE ❑ CITY CLERK ❑ PAR REC. ❑ FINANCE-ADMIN. ❑ ONNEL ❑ ACCOUNTING NO PLANNING ❑ DATA PROCESSING❑ POLICE ❑ DUPLICATING Q PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PAYROLL ❑TRAFFIC ❑ PURCHASING Q UTILITIES ❑ REVENUE ❑TELECOMM. FOR EffanoN&DISPOSITION AN NT REMARKS: i FROM: e. �"r • J PURC E ORDER ` • PAGE 1 — CITY OF NE PORT BEACH PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ; 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD 13302-01 u P.O. BOX 1768 c�e�rOnNxr NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659-8915 «~: I PHONE: (714) 644-3118 PU ORDER DATE" 'DATEREQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDO N0. DESCRIPTION 06/14/94 L342 CHANGE ORDER - 1 VENDOR FARMER, JUSTIN V. SHIPCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIY. STE 155 3300 NEWPORT BLVD, FULLERTON CA NEWPORT BEACH . CALIF. 92663 92635 CONFIRMa NET ,.FWAL' '„ ,PAYMENTTERMS-_ FREIGHT' N N NET 30 DAYS OUANTITY UNIT.'OF EASURE COMMODIT•Y,CODE UNITPRICE EXTENSION C H A N G E 0 R D E R No. 1 PROVIDE ADDITIONAL-, -URV1,CES, .IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRAFFIC STUDY. FOR `McDONALD"S. 6WORATION TS #93 AS PER YOUR. PROPOSAL,.'11A;T,�D-'5/18%;94. T9 AL $1 , 170 . 00 1 .00 STUD' } /' 0'6r `. 1 �;-R '; +� c l'70�0000 1 , 170 . 00 • ITEM NO.001 TRAFY' C STVDY.`A `fllE C 11B&D `;A$OVE TOTAL CHANGE ORDER a 1 , 170 , 00 _ ORG I ACCO NT'."- J. PROJECT' - :P.ROJECITACCOUNT AMOUNT 010 2300 J`c�ar - e„w,A,,,,� 1 , 170 .00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER & ` * M�� M �'p \�. 1 , 170 . 00 � -CCEPTANCE.Accoytemo of this order by sollerNendorwill be by acknowledgement or by doliverylowhole or In pan Of the items called for hereunder. / ��/� Off eellerNendor e,knowledge,tbut he has read and agrees to all terms and conditions Including those printed on the reverse /� �4 ,no of nrecWorchees Io or.Tha only terms and conditions that will be applluble to the Interpretation or this Contract ere those Issued by the p at n Beech. BY IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. no Ana ter;covered by this Purchase Order or Contract must conform to applicable Cal-OSHA Standards,and/or other appropriate laws.regulations rules,and code of Federal Government and the Slate of California Saw, is a separate item any retell sales lax,use lax or Federal tax applicable to this purchaso This order subject to California sales tax.All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any salesfuse tax on all purchases ahlppnd from outrof•stato.All purchases and transportation charges are exempt from Federal excise tax. NOTE:All purchases ate F O B dealt,auan unless otherwise authorized.Charges for shipments are to be frelyk ,,repaid and added to the Invoice(shown as a separate item)where so authorized.Do not Include Federal transportation tax.A Newport Beach buelnsea license may be required to conduct business In the Clty. 1 t Ihl r� �. .... eWpPURCPSE ORDER? • PAGE PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 13302-01 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD „ 114.1-1- ,-,x,- P.O. BOX 1768 d NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659.8915 raOR'' PHONE: (714) 644-3118 PURCH.ORDER DATE DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO, DESCRIPTION 09/14/94 1342 CHANGE ORDER - 1 VENDOR FARMER, JUSTIN F. SHIP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 223 CAST IMPERIAL HIY. STE 155 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. FULLERTON CA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663 92635 CONFIRM. BLANKET FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT N rI NET 30 DAPS QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE EXTENSION CHANGE ORDER NO. i PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVJCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRAFFIC STUDY -1'OA M-eDONALD'S CORPORATION TS #93 AS PER YOUR PROPOSAL 4.4 VD -5/13/R4. TOTAL $1 , 170.00 1 .0o STUDS' 1 , 170.0a ITEM NO.001 TRAFFIC STUDI AS DESC418W AIJOVE TOTAL CHANGE ORDER 1 , 170.00 ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECTACCOUNT AMOUNT 010 2300 1 ,170.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER 1 . 170,00 AC rAcr:pLmcn olthkgrda,bYanlM1.,vengorwlllbo byaoAnowladeamsntorbytlolivorylnwM1oloorinpan olthoitamscelledforM1erauntler. ) ay*lblvb�d�"thr xenderuAnpwtadpaa that he has read and agrees to all terms and conddmns lncledme tho"a prittedog the""arse aide olihn Ccnirnc<Parch a Order l he only terms and WndmonA that Wgl boappgcnble to the lntemrolotipn of this Contract am those l',.ad by the '4 V Of,of r:•Wpon Cw+h BY IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. Tho Articlea covnmd by this Purthaeo Order or Contract must conform to applicabla Cal-OSHA Standards,andror otbor approptlato laws,regulations,miss,and costs of Rectal Covornmont and tho Staev of California Show a^a ccpaata If=any total,ealus tOA,uco tax or Fcdoml lax applicablo to this purch rso.This ordar sublom to California calos tax.All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:tho CITY will pay any ealccJuao tax an all purchases chipped from OUW-alato.An punch-tcec and transportation charge=am o•empl from Fedoral oxelco tax NOTE All Purchases are F.O.S doslmmlon unloss othorw+so autharaed Chagos for shipmcnls are to bo freight propmd and added to ma levoko(shown us a captain item)whom so authorized.Do not lncludo Fedoral transportation tax.A Newport Bauch businoss lleenstl may be requlrod to conduct buolnoas In tho City. ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY 1 PURCHASE CITY OF aEWPo�, REQUISITION NEWPORT BEACH € ' • GticoaN`t P.O.No.: 13302 Date: June 13. 1994 Reserved) Dept: Suggested Vendor: Ship To: Justin F. Farmer PLANNING DEPARTMENT Transportation Engineers - 223 E Imperial Hwy. Ste 1FS Fullerton, CA 92635 Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles•or Services Required Unit Price Amount Budget I ** CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 $1170.00 $1170.00 ... 010 2300 TS 493. -94 • t Comments: Sub Total Tax Total Date Required: F.O.B. Terms Code Amount (D 1, PRO (Department H or person autho to executc 77 requisitions) i i, PUkbHA4lNG MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding$2,OOo) :. .. �uu. �y� r•.T J1 • Y aa.J. yUafl JJJ JJYY P•Z.J MAY 27 '54 14116 CNB - 1 AIEC4 ! • JUSTIN F. FARMER I J IRS INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEE 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIONWAY, SUITE 1$5 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 i - FAX:(114) 447.6080 May 18 1993 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT tTY OF NFWPORT BFACP Mr. John Douglas, AM MAY 2 5199:1 PM Principal Planner xt$t91101ll112t�12t�14i�t6 City of Newport Beach � 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92658 no: Drivo4hru lane survey at two existing McDonald's in-the city of•Rancho Cucamonga and the City of La Verne Dear John, As per our conversation with Mr. Richard Edmonston and with Ms. Sharon Collins today, recommendations were made that the final traffic study should include data and analyses • of McDonald's with similar ddve•thre approach). u lane characteristicsmostomatrabelQ fail Uessaare in Rancho McDonald,s representative indicated that the most comp Cucamonga and La:Verne. SCOPE OF SERVICE We will visit the sites and a program of work W11M developed in order to determine the number of vehicles that could be served at the drive-thru lanes , the service rate, the maximum number of cars, and queue frequency. Field surveyors (2 at each site) will be stationed at each site during the busiest hours of the day. b ata will be summarized led to the proposed in the revised on 2 th Traffic Street and Parking study and analyses will pp FEE PROPOSAL �0 survey t11 We propose a lump sum of t� $1,170.00 This fee considers one site visit, one day I a e l at two McDonald's In the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of La Veme during the busiest hours of operation, analyses of the subject data, and inclusion of data in the traffic and parking study. t fee l Should additional eff be ort �tt amendedtoettect only amount ur wu%1% whlch waa neccaed by the reisl be Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. • 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SMITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 INVOICE City of Newport Beach �� March 7, 1994 3300 Newport Beach Blvd . Newport Beach, Ca 92658 INVOICE #2046 JI OUR FILE #F1044 RE: Data Collection, Traffic Circulation, and Parking Study for McDonald ' s Restaurant , located at 28th St ./Newport Blvd . Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct traffic and circulation study for the proposed McDonald 's Restaurant at the above referenced location . FOR THE PERIOD OF: December 18, 1993 through February 25, 1994 • LUMP SUN CONTRACT AMOUNT $5, 600. 00 100% COMPLETION BILLING $5, 600. 00 LESS PREVIOUSLY INVOICED: Amount Paid 0-30 Days 31-60 Days Over 60 Days . 00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PER INVOICE $5, 600. 00 Please make checks payable to: TIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. T a you, ANP ROVED _ M Justin F. Farmer , President B': ,K • NET 30 DAYS_, e — Plana g U'. ::::ar ,6C'�1 , UN'" dv',O.: PO l 3 Oo2i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH wPO PA YMENT AUTHORIZATION Demand of: COUNTY CLERK Public ervices Division Old County Courthouse c9CIFOFLN�A Address: P.O. Box 838 Sant n. rn 927n9 Date: March 3, 1994 Amount: ,r nn * * SPECIAL * * Item of Expenditure Invoice No. Budget No. Amount County Clerk filing Negative Declaration Central Balboa- Please Note: This is a new fee, effective March 1 TOTAL Description/Special Instructions: Department Approval: Date: Acctg. Mgr. Approval: Date: � Fin. Dir. Approval: Date: F PURCH&E ORDER • PAGE 1 EWPpR,@ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768 p,rl•,l + ' a- "" NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659-8915 tl:oaN`� PHONE: (714) 644-3118 PORCH.ORDER DATE DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. I VENDOR NO, DESCRIPTION i '/2!a/;13 1342 ATTEIITIOT. : S1111IIR COBRAN VENDOR JUSTIN F. rAR1lIF.R ToP CITT OF NEWPORT AF4CH TR-1NsrORTaTIOT1 ENGINEERS INC. PLANNITIG DrPARTRIrI.T 223 E4+T IMPERI4L HIT. STE . 155 3300 NO"PORT BLVD. FULLERTON CA f12935 NEV?ITORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663 CONFIRM.I BLANKET FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT QUANTITY UNIT QF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE I UNIT PRICE I EXTENSION PROVIDE Tr4FFIC STUDY NNALYSIS 093) FOR rRorosm M01ONALD' S RFSTATIA.&NT TO BE LOCATED AT 28TIl "T'1"I rCT S NFIV'PORT BLVD. AS Pit. -'our PROPOSAL DATFD 1i/tf:/,r3. TOT,At e,5,600.00 C074TACT : JOHN D0fN7,T Aj = Pt0NING DFPAR71IENT . 4.714) 944-3725 141111 QO'q-,Scy ittUll.fiflflll i,11f117.U11 ITR`iI 110111111 TRkPFIC V111P TR.,N.;IrC+�I1hTT>3R 'IT1r",ITI RIIrC. '1 • I TOTAL PURCHM ORDER ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT 17110 z: frn 5,0,11n.afr TOT4L PURCHASE ORM ACCe�l1<e Ptanwnl tIn'rredrby.tl,wrdgq,urlhpN-n, d,,odprmenbton dvhw'ryinwnup,•rtm Paninjt temawted for heronves aynacpenp nl mein.(hne•p,d",Thr odnnwlrtlpe.thatrt M1a'twd end nemcstoell terms and<andieons In fall Co noepprimedanthe bytho sd r City vl ad Con li-ch che,n Old",Tee nnl,trrm.and cpndnipns ihn(w�li by appllwbin to the Interpretation of(hh C,ntrap prc thonu issued bythn r'� t '.� l-'!-, y 1 City of N�•npon Bmch BY XV IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Admloa covered by this PufchaGo Ordcr or Contract must conform to applicable Cal-05HA Snnoardc.and+ot other appropriate laws,regulations.,rates,and cod,of Ft dcml Govammcnt and the St,to of ColOom-a Show as of apamlo Item airy rdaJ sslas roe,use tax or Federal lox applicablo to this purchaso This order subject a Colif.mla sales bar ,All OUT•OFSTATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any salea/uso tax on all purchases shipped from out-of slob.All purchases and trdn:podotton charges aid exempt from Federal exorso lax.NOTE:All purchases are FO B.destination unles,othonw,.o authonxo Chirges for.hlpment,are to be freight propald and added to the Invoice(shown as a scparato dom)where so authorized Do not Includd Federal transportation tax.A Newport Beach business licence may be acquired to conduct buolnocs In the City. ____Y___ ORIGINATOR'S I DEPARTMENTAL COPY • • JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC, • 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 November 16, 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/ Traffic Circulation and Parking Study Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 28th Street at Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic study for the above referenced project. As you are aware,, we have conducted a number of such studies in the City of Newport Beach and are therefore familiar with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. By way of experience, we have conducted over 1015 • projects during the last 10 years, approximately 650 of which have involved traffic and parking analysis. We have conducted approximately 50 studies of traffic and parking associated with fast food restaurants, including 14cDonalds, Carls Jr. , Taco Bell , Del Taco, and Tokyo Beef Bowl. We recently conducted a study similar to that being proposed at a Carls Jr. restaurant in a shopping center, immediately adjacent to a McDonalds, in Garden Grove. Most recently, we were retained to conduct similar Traffic/Parking study in the City of Cypress and in the City of Lawndale, California. I have spoken with Mr. Rich Edmonston., the City Traffic Engineer, and I believe I have an understanding of his concerns. We therefore offer the following scope of service. SCOPE OF SERVICES - We will visit the sites and inventory those street environmental features that will affect or be affected by the project on Newport Boulevard north and southbound. - Because the proposed McDonald's restaurant will be a unique fast-food restaurant and will be within walking distance from the beach and nearby commercial centers and offices, trip generation forecast should be determined based on fast food restaurants with similar characteristics to the McDonald's proposed herein. Trip generation survey will be conducted and existing data for similar McDonald's will be used, however • special consideration will be given to seasonal variations. The proposed McDonald's trip generation forecast will be I • developed based on the actual collected data. The City Traffic Engineer requested that the traffic study includes the following intersections: Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street Newport Boulevard at Via Lido Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue We will include the above three intersections in our analysis, and a forecast will be made of the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We .will utilize the City of Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance, assess cumulative project, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. Internal circulation will be assessed insofar as vehicular • accessibility and on-site vehicular circulation. Specific attention will be directed to the location and function of driveways at the proposed facility. JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , has surveyed numerous drive-thru restaurants, field enumerators were stationed at the surveyed facilities such that they could observe the order placing process, the pick-up operation and the length of queue. Most recently we have collected such data at an existing successful McDonald's in the City of Cypress. We will use our data to conduct specific assessments of the drive-thru lane operation and the impact upon on-site circulation. DELIVERABLES our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in three weeks after receipt of your signed notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. I FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $5,600.00. This fee considers our analysis of one site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that traffic counts will be taken by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , at two comparable facilities and that data will be collected by us regarding seasonal variations. The fee does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be requested to attend meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. • Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. JI.FAARMME�R, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:dk • JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC.