Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS099 PLEASE SEE USE PERMIT FILE NO. 3517 FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS AND MINUTES AND CORRESPONDENCE. w C I TY IbF NEWPORT tEAC.H MINUTES ROLL XI-MM 0z CALL w 3 a = U0 0 O December 12,1994 INDEX Jean H.Wegener,2108 Vista Enhada,representing SP addressed the Council and stated that they have serving the community in need since 1989. They de primarily emergency services to seniors with . basic utility bill,and assistance to individuals substance abuse recovery as well as awc==to Hearing no others wishing to the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made by or Hedges to approve the proposed Citizen P on Plan and direct staff to prepare a draft Co 'dated Plan Document for Fiscal Year 1995-2000 to receive federal fiords from the United S Department of Housing and Urban Develapme (IillD),including the two corrections to the Citizen 'cipation Plan as enumerated by staff in the fore g. or Hedges also asked staff to look into possible use of CDBG funds for a low-interest loan program to assist merchant/owner in ficxdc/mrprovement rehabilitation in the local business districts. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried 26. Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing regarding City Council review of. USE PERMIT NO. 3517 - Request to permit the U/P 3 517 establishment of a 24 hour Taco Bell drive-througb, Taco Bell take-out restaurant facility, on property located at (8 B) 1400 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club, with indoor and outdoor ancillary seating, on property located in the RSC-H District. The proposal also includes: a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces;and an exception to the Sign Code so as to allow a restaurant logo on the special purpose directional signs, whereas the Sign Code prohibits such logos on directional signs;and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 99 - Request to approve a traffic study for a proposed 24 hour Taco Bell drive- through and take-out restaurant facility. Report from the Planning Department. Council Member Glover stated that she will be abstaining from voting on this matter,not because of concern she has regarding any legal or ethical conflict of interest in this decision,but because politically-charged allegations may have created the perception of bias and she did not want to saddle the Council with that perception. Volume 48-Page 480 C I TO OF NEWPORrA BEACH MINUTES • ROLL 3 � wmxoz CALL w 3 A = U U 'o December 12,1994 INDEX Housing and Urban Development and, 2) the receipt of HUD public comment regarding the nods of the community. The comments on community needs and Council's action to dad staff to Preps the Pig dint to receive these funds Will initiate the City's next pro year cycle.Priouto preparation of this document,the e ty is required to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan and public comment on community noels. W.Bluell discussed citizen participation in the p Citizen Participation Plan,and how it was diffident from previous years. Mr. Bluell requested that Council actio *include two corrections to the Citizen Participation P le,I)Item A, first P�gmPh the last sentence uld read: "The City shall furnish citizens,, public agencies and other irWosted parties with notice and information to encourage citizen participation as snows:'; and 2) the first sentence of the third paragrapyunder A should read: The City shall publish in the lq&l section of the local newspaper,a notice of the pro allocation.." Mr. BlueH stated that all cc made at this public hearing must be included m the Consolidated Plan Docwnent when submitted to HUD. Citizens must also have an opportunity to/review and comment on the document when it adopted The federal funds distributed by the f consolidated programs must be used to subsidize actiGities that primarily benefit low-and very low-income peiople. Chris Olson,D' r of Operations,South County Senior Services, the Council and stated they have been participating the CDBG program for a number of yam;they Ply receiving funding in the amount of $12,5Wfwhich provides for senior citizen meals through Oasis-Senior Center,the needs of the seniors in this r are very important as there are a number of low-rnomc seniors residing in Newport Beach;this past �k,giving Day, they provided over M meals in the Cmfer as well as,a number of meals to the lwmobound co/h'munity. He is hopeful that funding will continue in ho of the Orange County bankruptcy issue. Debbie O'Connor, Executive Director of FISH Harbor Area, addressed•the Council and expressed appreciation for the CDBG funding they have received in the past She stated they provide assistance to low and moderate income families in terms of housing•,they also see a need for low-income child care; they provide a mobile meal program to the elderly at home, and she hopes the City will continue to provide financial assistance for these marry worthwhile programs. Volume 48-Page 479 C I TY9 OF NEWPORT OBEACH v 0 In MINUTES - - ROLL ¢ � MAxwz CALL w 3 A = o necember12,1994 INDEX Council Member ONed stated that lice Council Member Taco Bell Glover,he also intends to abstain and take no part in this public hearing. One of his law partners,John Yeager,has appeared before the Planning Commission and submitted a written memorandum on behalf of himself and his brother and roster m law opposing the Taco Bell application on a number of grounds. Mr.Yeager received no consideration(legal fees)or otherwise for his advice or involvement in this matter and they did not personally discuss this rase at anytime. So, even though he has no legal or ethical conflict,he has been advised by the City Attorney and others to abstain in order to eliminate any perception of bias surrounding this,the first disputed land use matter coming before this new City Council. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Vincent and Loma Harris,2508 Cliff Drive,in opposition to the proposed Taco Bell. The Planning Director, in summarizing the staff report, noted as follows: "This particular pmject had three hearings before the Planning Commission, September 8, October 6, and November 10, 1994 at which meeting the project was approved on a vote of 4 ayes,I no and 2 absent,subject to the 49 conditions as set forth on pages 233 through 241 of the staff report Over the course of the three hearings, there were a substantial number of issues raised and discussers including the number of trips that would be generated by the project the proposed number of employees, on-site circulation, noise and loud-speakers, lights,signs,the retaining wall behind the project,on-site parking, security, and the most contentious being, hours Of Operation. "There was a lot of discussion regarding the hours of operation of the existing McDonalds Restaurant on Coast Highway and the desire of Taco Bell to maintain a 24- hour operation. The Planning Commission finally approved the Use Permit with the hours of 5:00 am. to 2:00 am.,with the dining room closing at ll p.m.nightly and the parking lot segued until 5:00 am.These are not the same hours as the existing McDonalds Restaurant The original approval for McDonalds was granted in June 1971 and there was an amendment to their Use Permit in December 1987 which allowed for the drive through facility.It was his understanding that at the time the Taco Bell application was proceeding d mugh the Planning Commission,that,the hours of operation being observed by McDonalds restaurant were hours of operation that were approved with their use permit However, it was brought to his attention today that the City in 1971 and again in 1987 did not impose hours of operation on ..• McDonalds Restaurant. He pointed out that in Section 20.72 of the Municipal Code, it provides that any extension of hours past 12:30 am. would require an amendment to the Use Permit Also,as a condition on Volume 49-Page 481 C I T)� OF NEWPORT*BEACH w MINUTES ROLL 3 � WAx > z CALL w 3 A = v cJa o-JI 1Jcrcmber12,199a INDEX McDonalds amendment to their Use Permit in 1987,there Taco Bell is a provision that would allow the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review to call up the use permit if their existing hours contribute a problem "An addendum to the staff report was distributed to the City Council this afternoon noting the hours of operation for the McDonalds restaurant as follows: During the Summer months,Sunday through Thursday 6:00 am.to 1:00 am,with dining room closing at 12 midnight;Friday and Saturday,6:00 am to 2:00 am,with dining room closing at 12 midnight;during the Winter months,Sunday through Thursday,6.00 am•to 12 midnight,with dining room closing at It p.m and Friday and Saturday, 6:00 am to 2:00 a.m., with dining room closing at 12 midnight.To the best of his knowledge, in the 22 years that McDonalds has been at that location,the City has not had any problems created by thebusinim." James Person, Attorney represcming the APplican, addressed the Council and stated the subject application was submitted one year ago. He discussed what has taken place since the original application and noted that the proposed structure is now at 1674 sq. 1; they have had several meetings with residents in the area to get their input as well as meetings with staff'and representatives of the Police Department;their original request was for a 24- hour operation, but the Planning Commission changed the hours to 5:00 am-2:00 am,with closing the dining room and parking lot at 11:00 p.m which is acceptable to the applicant; if the City Council were 4o modify the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, he would recommend that Taco Bell,be on an"even playing field"with McDonalds with inspect to hours of operation; Taco Bell is committed to being a good corporate citizen, and will respond to the concerns of its neighbors;they feel the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission are fair and reasonable and they are acceptable to the applicant Slop Leonid, representing Taco Bell, addressed the Council and stated it is estimated their proposed restaurant will generate S1.3 million in sales revenue;the proposed Taco Bell is approximately one-half the size of the Taco Bell on 17th Street in Costa Mesa;in selecting a location for a Taco Bell,they have a set of guidelines they adhere to which includes day time population, WAo mums eta In response to question raised by Council Member Edwards regarding temporary signs, the Planning Director noted that banners and temporary sipots are limited to 100 sq. I in area and not allowed to remain longer than 60 days in a calendaryear. Volume 48-Page 482 C I TYO OF NEWPORT BEACH v J in MINUTES ROLL 3 � MQxoz CALL WE 3 ; = o ; o December12,1994 INDEX The following persons addressed the Council in support of Taco Bell the proposed Taco Bell: Jacquie Ellis,404 Fullerton Avenue Tim Greenfield,Execdm Director ofHoagHospital Sid Soffer,900 Arbor Street,Costa Mesa It was noted by the above speakers that Taco Bell was named Business of the Year in Irvine last year,and as a result,they felt Newport Beach would be very fortunate m having Taco Bell; Taco Bell is a good corporate citizen and contributes to the local community as well as throughout Orange County; Taco Bell is in the proper zone for its use;if Taco Bell proves to be a bad neighbor, then the City can revoke the use permit; the City needs another restaurant that is open late night hours. The following persons addressed the Council in onoosition to the proposed Taco Bell: Kurt Yeager,1401 Icings Road Bill Dunlap,400 Snug Harbor,Cliff Haven Homeowners Association Chuck Daniels,1411 Kings Road Barbara Yeager,1401 Kings Road Wayne Zippie,(no address given) John Sturgess,601 Cliff Drive,President, Cliff Haven Homeowners Association William Bennett,3000 CliffDrive Brian Brooks,120 Kings Place It was indicated by the above speakers that if the subject application is approved,some of their concerns are:crime, traffic, noise and light impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, hours of operation, impact on Mariners We and the Balboa Bay Club area; the proposed use being within 45 feet from the closest home;Taco Bell will dramatically impact the livability of the area;the proposed site is not suitable for a drive through restaurant;there is another Taco Bell within three miles of the proposed site; Mariners Mae and what is allowed in that area should be studied further before action is taken on the subject application or the area will become a fast-food restaurant mw, this item should be tabled until the Specific Area Plan for this area has been completed. Ernie Usk% 503 32nd Street, addressed the Council and stated he was not going to speak for or against this projec however,he did feel that Conditions of Approval No. 23 and No.24 requiring the applicant to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for 12 feet of rigtLL-of-way for street and highway purposes without compensation should be deleted as he felt it was unfair. Volume 48-Page 483 C I TYY�OF NEWPORT OBEAQHHn, n z -i'l MINUTES ROLL. 3 w Q x ,o .z CALL w 3 Q = v 0 o December12,M4 INDEX Dave Wooten,President,Balboa Bay Club,addressed the Taco Bell Council and stated that the Bay Club has 144 apartments and 128 overnight rooms across from the proposed Taco Bell,and recommended that the City develop some type of uniform policy for the nighttime businesses in the area Slap Leonard, representing- Taco Bell, addressed the Council again and stated they will continue to try and dispel and resolve the problems that may arise as a result of their application if approved; he also felt there will always be resident concerns no matter what type of business comes into the community;they will decrease the hours of operation.ff slaying open late night hours does not prove beneficial; the Tam Bell at Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevard has only bad•one police incident and that was a tugger who was defacing their restroom;it Will be difficult to find another business.to locate at the proposed site because of the unusual size of the lot. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed Council Member Cox stated it was difficult to come to grips with some of the complaints raised because this section of the City has been a problem area for l5 to 20 years due to the various types of businesses that, have failed;to suggest that this item be tabled at•this time and notallow the property owner to proceed with his rights to develop the site is questionable,the City has a number of regulations and controls over businesses which makes it very difficult to establish in Newport Beach;the comment that Tam Bell will turn this area into a fast-food raww does not make sense inasmuch as the proposed application is the second•one in the circa in the last 15 years that is similar to MaDonalds; Newport Beach is a community that is concerned about "where it is going" and has demonstrated that over and over again;as to the hours of operation,he has stopped at McDonalds alter getting out of a late night City Council meeting for a rap of coffee and has never experienced any harmful problems;he also does not think it is fair to the applicant for the City to impose certain conditions just because someone may "pcmdW a problem beforeit actually oocum Motion x Following the above remarks, motion was made by Council Member Cox to sustain the action of the'Planning Commission based-on the Findings and Conditions for approval designated as Exhibit"A"of the stafd'report. Council Member.Waft stated she was not opposed to Council Member Co?es motion, but inasmuch as the subject property is in.a problem area of Mariners We, she would recommend that this item be deferred for three months in order for the City Council and others to give thought and vision as to what other type of businesses might be more compatible with the homeowners and Balboa Bay Club for this site. Volumo48-Page484 CITYOOF NEWPORT tEACH MINUTES CD to (n J ROLL 3 '� MAxoz CALL �w '3 A = .o - o December 12,1994 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem.Delay in speaking to this issue made the Taco Bell following comments: commercial property owners have rights as well as residential property owners, and the people who purchased property on the bluffs were aware of the commercial strip below their homes and she does not feel it is the CounciPs responsibility to step in and mediate those property rights;she opposes the request for a 24-hour operation as she felt it would set a precedent; the other higher priced restaurants along Mariners We are straggling and saturated,and it would be very difficult for the City to attract those types of businesses for the subject site because of the lot size, shape, 12 foot dedication requirement, and lack of padding; the vacant commercial buildings along that stretch of Mariners Mile are creating blight and affecting property rights there are also blighted areas in Lido Village and other areas of the Peninsula which is of concern to the City;the City is in need of some consistent revenue-producing businesses, and she felt that inasmuch as Taco Bell has established a successful and well managed corporate image,they are a good neighbor, and they have redesigned their project many times, they should be allowed to develop the property;Taco Bell is aware of the call-back provision if there is disturbance to the neighbors; there are 50 conditions being imposed with the proposed use lk and she is sorry there are so many conflicts between residential and commercial properties m the City. Council Member Edwards indicated be was familiar with the proposed project having reviewed it while serving on the Planning Commission,and be felt that if this request is approved, he would like to see the Council adopt a uniform policy at the same time for Mariners Mile as suggested earlier in the meeting. He stated the City owns the property where the Balboa Bay Club is located,and is in the process of commencing negotiations for a 50-year lease on the site,and based upon what he has seen as to the revenue flow, it could be potentially offset by a possible decrease in value in terms of negotiated price if the request b y Taco Bell is approved,and on that basis,he would like to ovemile the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the use permit Mayor Hedges asked the City Manager if there was any evidence that the underlying fee for the Balboa Bay Club would be affected. in any way if the subject request is approved The City Manager responded that the recently completed appraisal is directly related to surrounding land uses,and only determined the fair market rental value. Volume 48-Page 485 C I TA OF NEWPORTOBEACH MINUTES' ROLL a: a:0 z CALL of 3 m = 'v u o Ilcccmber12,M4 INDEX With respect to the howl of operation at McDorW4 the Taco Bell Planning Director stated there were no hours of operation established at the time McDonalds received their initial approval in 1971 or when they amended their use permit in 1987;however,they have established bows of operation in their course of business as enumerated earlier in the meeting. If those hours were to change or expand,they would be required to amend their use permit With regard to the 12-foot dedication requirement for Coast Highway, Skip Leonard, representing Taw Bell, staled that because of the subject*cipumment, they have redesigned their building should that"taking"ever occur. If that requirement is eliminated, they can go back to anotherplan. Mayor Hedges pointed out that:tlic,12-foot dedication issue along Coast Highway in the Mariners late area was an item that came up earlier in thoycar,and the Council made it clew at that time they did not want to get involved in dedications and compensation to property owners,and ho, therefore, did not understand wiry this requirement got included with the proposed Conditions of Approval. In response to question raised regarding the Traffic Analysis, the Planning Director and City Attorney noted that a traffic consultant was hired by the City to perform the Traffic Study with staff inputirom the Traffic Engineer and Planning Department. The trip generation rates selected for the proposed site use are designated for a fast- food restaurant with drive through service and am taken from the San Diego Association of Governments trip generation rates,October1993. Motion x Following discussion; substitute notion was made by Ayes x x Council Member Edwards to overmle the decision of the Noes x x x Planning Commission based on the Findings and Abstain x x Conditions for denial designated as Exhibit"B"in the staff report,which motion FAKED. Council Member Edwards asked Council Member Cox, maker of the original motion,if he would be agreeable to including in his motion some direction to staff regarding the development of a uniform policy with respect to hours of operation along Mariner's Mile, to which Council Member Cox stated he felt it was a separate issue. Council Member Watt requested that the motion on the floor be amended to change the lours of operation as follows: Summer months-6:00 am.to 1:00 am., Sunday through Thursday,and 6:00 am to 2:00 am.Friday and Saturday; Winter months- 6:00 a.m. to ll p,m., Sunday through Thursday, 6:00 am to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday,Barking lot and dining room to close at ll p.m.at all times. In response to the above, Council Member Cox slated he will adhere to his original motion Volume 48-Page 486 . C I TY*OF NEWPORT *BEACH MINUTES A to W J ROLL 3I- wAxoz CALL w mm HP MY u - o neeember 12,199a INDEX In view of the foregoing, Council Member Watt moved a substitute motion changing the hours of operation as set forth in the foregoing. Ayes x x x x Discussion ensued wherein it was milimted that inasmuch Noes x as the Council had disposed of the substitute motion made Abstain x x by Council Member Edwards and returned to the original motion made by Council Member Cox,as a point of order, that motion should be voted on at this time,which motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. Sid Suffer,900 Arbor Street Costa Mesa addresser the Council and discussed revenue derived from the food and beverage industry. CURRE BUSINESS 27. Reso 'on SUNSETTING VARIOUS COMMITTEES. (2 4) Val Sko 1601 Bayadere Terrace,and Don Harvey,2039 Port Weyb 'dge Place,members of the Bicycle Trails Citizens ry Committee,addressed the Council in opposition to and/or sunsetting the subject committee. indicated they felt their group"has performeda Of accomplishments from the standpoint of safety bike trails,and cited a few of the events they partici ' and co-sponsorwith the City. Motion x In view of the Councirs 'on at their afternoon All Ayes session and the above motion was made by Council Member O'Neil to the three citizen advisory committees(Bicycle Trails, En ' nmental Quality,and Harbor Quality)as separate oD ttees and to adopt Resolution No.94-107 with the del 'on ofItems 15,16,and Res 9 4—10 7 17. It was stated that appointments to the three committees would be made January 9,199 28. PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ESTABLIS G NEW (2 4) COUNCIL STANDING CONBOl1T1EES. With respect to the Legislative Committee,Mayor ges suggested thepmposW Resolution be amended tome the following duties: (0 Review proposed changes to the Council Policy Manual and make recommendations to the City Council. (g)Assume the duties of the Air Quality Management Plan Coordinating Committee. Volume 49-Page 487 C I TY*OF NEWPORT *BEACH MINUTES t!1 A n w J ROLL A' Qwooz CALL w a -A = U W o December INDEX Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Glover Res 94-108/10S All Ayes Resolutions No Is 94-108 through 94-113,establislilng the 110/111/112/ following Committees:Appointments,Finance,Harbor 113 Beaches,Legislative(as amended byNinyorHedges), Utilitieafthli'c Woda Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Mgcsto cuntirmthe All Ayes followingappointments:' E COUNCIL STANDING CO ES A.Airport Committee Council Member Glover Council Member Edwards B.Appointments Committ Mayor Pro Tem Debay Council Member O'Neil C.Finance Committ Council Member O' il Council Member GI er D.Harbor and ches Committee Council Membe Cox Council Mom r Watt E.Legisla ' e Committee Council rEdwards Council ember Cox F.II' ies/Public Works Committee Coun Member Watt May rPro Tem Debay H. UNCIL AND CITIZENS AD HOC OMMITTEES A.Aviation Committee Mayor Pro TemDebay Council Member Cox $.Economic Development Committee Council Member Cox Council Member Glover C.OId,Newport Boulevard Specific Area Plan Council Member Glover Mayor Hedges HL JOINT GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES A.City-School Liaison Committee City Manager Council Member Watt(Reporting) MayorProTemDebay Volume 48-Page 488 P 0 S ra D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED A� 0 51995 330o Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 JAN 0 5 1995 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 >p�,000U1y0�k ORRYI.aRANWILE.Clerk-Recorder GARYL.GRAO DENOTICE OF DETERMINATION eye DEPUTY To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach El Sacramento, Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) MXX Public Services Division P.O.Box838 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: Taco Bell Restaurant, Traffic Study No. 99, Use Permit No.3517 State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Ageney Contact Person: Telephone No.: John H. Douglas 714 / 644-3225 Project Location: 1400 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California Project Description: Construction of a restaurant facility with 68 indoor seats, outdoor seating and a drive-thru service window. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 12-12-94 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Dalo) 1. The project❑will M 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. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures Q 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 El were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for re%iew at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newp Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225 - -1995 Environmental Coordinator Signautr J hn H. Douglas, AICP Date 7i11e • CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FILED CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION JAN 0 5 1995 — 6RRYL.GRANVILLE,CIe�k•RUecordey EPUSY De Minimis Impact Finding Bye. -----'' t A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: 1342nee1Developmen teervices 6 9 Tustin, CA 92680 """ �� B. Project Description: construction of a restaurant facility with 68 indoor seating, outdoor seating area and a arive-tbru service window. C. Project Location: A00 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projeces 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 7535(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 7112 of the Fish and Game Code. January 5,1996 Date JokD u las, AICP E Coordinator City of Newport Beach F.\W P51\PUANt1`IGVOHN-D\FORMS\DFG-EXEM. STATE OF CAUFORNIA•THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEAH RECEIPT 4 215 4 • DFG 753.5e(B-Bi) Lead Agency: CITY OF NMIPORT BEACH Date: 1 j$5095 County/State Agency of Fling: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK—RECORDER Document No.: 64495 Project Title: TACO BELL RESTAURANT, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 99, USE PERMIT NO. 3517 Project Applicant Name: AZIZ M. ASLADII Phone Number: 644-3225 Project Applicant Address: 3300 NMMORT BLVD. , NENPORT BEACH, CA 92659 Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agency ❑ School District ❑ Ot,h1;e-r,Special District ❑ State Agency ❑ Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: O Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ O Application Fee Water Diversion(State WaterResouroes Control Board Only) $850.00 $ O Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ (K) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ U ( ) Project that is exempt from fees f,{ ,[ (�, �EIVED $ 25.00 Signature and title ofperson receiving payment: '� 4 FIRST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY•DFG/FASB THIRDOOPY•LEADki CY FOURTH COPYCOUNIY/STATE AGENCY OF RUNE 1tl ter; d- 101 1. n a tea' h C ,I C _ t ' ) GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTfNC AC ENERGY ENGINEERS 4 i j I i t - - � -:.ci.9 i�: _ . d3 �•;_�.� ..a•xd iZ :90. 46titi/L8/e0 .; r = '09/07/1994 0OC23 F;Ra" �6EVEL.OPMEtlT SEB'._% 0 6 Everbrite k 1 Remote Speaker Stand --°--,... -,aker �loustng Ase/noly ice Logo Pant 3 aj� ., (,;rill xV 5peake?r Xl-�Kfirft Lamps pop "Qider '130ket � ( t- 31 Rods 1p Suit AsSbr :tj f :, I N I e i .n,r ,.unii2Lon St�'ukCt ($u L?iherl . .. . uvt ►he, Gab et Ak SMr•vud 6erva.e ,ever I i4ps PAN HD. Nips PAN HD. .M _ o+ts — 5o uycie I* InstruckIns; fro � `i d;t7G Gtrcuit +t speaker hood {� yi `100d ')p lof il(.CiI.+SS to lalnp and ''A,4i°,n'� Inefructi(m ; i gri SUrtaCrIs With Mid detergert and wa -utlace w_:*,h clean water. •4Q`- DO -' Ot wlPe "It Ott i ciCt as ihis 'ndy.di;SQ static Nod-up. A11,lt.'r`,t CPO NOT uSF SOLVEN15 OR { 's ASRAS!VE t t.EANERS ON SURFACES j AWARNtNG Power SourC.e at ort-Aer panel befixe twrvi� r' .•;. : Evewe '89-07t14 a 08:22 FRPN F �RDEVELO°^:Err .ear. C 6 4 a �° 1 ii 1 fPi I AItR r 5 ��i tfr.F 3, :993 Don %jardy FD6 i i27 S .E . 2? .rh Poftlxsid; pR 97214 y'17. ? F L'Giw C $,lCi a.o s•,:e- otl the -, to �n F{,;, • ?r6, Oregon. f . -- =4, a�' i t./:a%_''1 x.a1:v +L�2;.vr:1-1 <'.,',3'P10I,�, ."iy$f.+r`1i?:J are lrt:'�oic 1-r,' %Qr.tr0 on they L tease i.L 1er �r; nlla a� '.i `:.': Vol1,;Me �.-tyA�.+Y.•� . Which is Day Nigh f::,r doe ig in ~r. a e day , r `c -: Jr•a�3a�e t„r. n� A . , ;:s� vcil{�:m: , fn tha nigh; .. .'.0 Sot1v" ''._ ..Li:T'c,a c.r .,y� :nTy .a.e er p;g faf.tary '..o gnat lids be€:n res a;,1:e i e ael for a c dr urs Rq itla day ()I;"e h sett^nr, GO d.� : ae dCCibeiS d br i� Jt*� 1 '�'v J :�F �) .c .. �f' •i". -b"I ias Litt: at ...Y vjherQ we l y 1 , r rF a- so d 7'a ,j` M1{.:il".$ :+ ?Sl :v�-.c•P1t.T.SrK �:dt a J$0url 1.�t1� . . :hr:.� �-it (3:GF>eX{.v I. :ihQ would t)V tIng and 47 decibels wl+:ri _.. �ci .n c:-)e A ;grt- c)sis _ 0', �. G` .�, .::it.Ct r.JT �':, •' ,: .e Lilixina hf� ,1 Vie r-,4� aft cf',: t24s`t. 96rt Soft ay „r.r fr5dB ;'•dFi 41dB 3�da -� A%tiF; �b� 30db _reO t_C CaJ. 1 m2 if t.:, - �•:heC 35� _;� d.SC Firad King ✓hector 004 sales Kntpitali+y Division kP.DM E ER DEt'E C.fj.F'I E T :.Ec. TO 644 ft p. r GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOU St ICAO.. snd ENERGY ENGINEERS i i i 's i + w r + S � n P P :. N ll x I i i I 1 i I i { i I Se�elteenth of reet.. `suit£ '.:. • .• 3i�fCi '.ia +r-7 r''. • Phone FAX 1714) 835 1957 f FROM F ER CEI-ELCFrc_ :EF TO 644 r O J O O O O O O O O O ® C O O wj T A l ; IjlA c i i � n I ca w _ r ' ill a X l I ' ku C I 1 j f < x V O W e. m b < M ID t+ ID b f {9 Q V J G co / r • p, ..- t .�._. ::, �F'UPt F 'GEF'. iZ 644 t fi �. I r411r _ I i 4�4 Ilk p a a W � . . I W Lu W J f• < 4c p o O O O o u o o O o O < Z V Q 1D !. ro m `O f M W rn 41 to Y !7 • • @: , . : t N+:=i 'Rp=1 FED F 'EL : - e , SEA io 64M # a. 4' O O J O O O O O O O O O H O O Q I I I I I I I I I I i H a I i , j a 0 -4�w. i � I I I { � r. I I I CL W rF = W 7— W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a t x U p m 1. to to It 0 ao N ap 40 v e7 � CI fR J m m O O FP >:. FE F' . ESE.. =. ,��.,• _,E G. TO 644f - P. 10 Ii+ 011 w v� A W -t1) IN IN LJ w ! N f— Y' Y O0 0�Cl- 2it IS7 0 7 ( X v '17M xw¢ iwf �w ` �•- UI- F s Qd 1 i � 0 L UD U lLJ IL �. �L LL ] 0 wr E-i . 110 u Lin LD Q W t a S 0.cn v H� O Lf: C7 N _,r,....: �T; -� r � rrrtt-�rrr r � : i f � -r-r-F-r• ' ; ! i i , �---'-r-rT-i i ��-.,_�_,-r- m U W m D IN((Ii�( �/ V Clll E f E IF rL ,e 4 1 P, m to Y 111111 i A I i o o till F l i j ! Q } a I i i ri i r N i i 1 w ILUIL to W a4ci i a < o Q 2 U D ar IQ O O O q t0. O pw G C "w 13 Ff'i,r� P Ec: �E E. � r:- �.EF. TO 641W s +ff 5� �li EXHIBIT 2 SITE PLAN N IIH 3A3Agit1 x �I L VV it I � � L �— r _ � �'• 1.. r I i a a � � i 1 1 L m ��¢"�� N 11• i x 8 � b^ M s UE': ! PR' fM E: CE 'EL :' l'c 7Ci 64 9 . k t �1 F EXHIBIT t SITE LOCATION MAP h a 4 ) i .♦R AM ��� i��a t ': 'S KL wr• Z N_! a R MORV ly ~ � �RIwWI • R - 'S I LL YRT ' u')f• ST gyyR fW w0, _•9- 4w/ J OYRM nu ARI�� `�"� \BOA p�i m u• [iu'�d 14 WWI � ,' - ♦ �`. p' i .. _ . 17 FFOM EF [ E IEL c .,E. . vEc. ..,1 E.4 IO i 0706 °. r � 94/404 ,night . The maximum levels . ited for speaketboard and cats range trout 36 to 62 dBA. Table ] allows A0 dBA in the day and 7v dBA at light . The maximum levels at «: :A •SBA less in the day and n dBA less at night than the allowed figures '.n fact, if the ambient: adjustments allowed by the p1 posed Noise Grdinan:.e were included, tnen the maximum levels would exfliiit even higher differences with the ambient adjusted levels. The average leveiN c:i' ­3 for the speak?rboard and cars wouid be ;10 dBA for the maxirium f.i_-w Late . Table 1 allows 60 dBA in the day and 50 dBA at night . T`,e average :Levels are i(i dPA less is tkie day than these figures and Equal at night . In fact ; it the ambient adjustments allowed by the proposed Noise ordinance were included then, the average ievela would exhibit even higher differences with the proposed Noise ordinance as adjusted fol- the ambient levels . The conclusion is that the proposed Taco Bell. will comply with the terms of the proposed Noir<e ordinance. 5 . 0 MTIG� ON Certain assumptions are contained in the analysis which need to be formalized as conditions : 1 . Post a sign oii the approach t:) the speakerboard requestilig radios be lowered so a patron may be heard at the speakerboard . 2 _ Instal ; a speak:erboard soand system that produces no m >re Chan 38 dBA a the east property line. r .qp i 0� 15 FROM 1 EQ DE-"EL-19"E '. . -F<. TC b4 0 {: 94/404 it r 5 . Passenger side windows may be open which would vary the leve : radiated out of a vehicle . 6 . Usually the vehicle will provide some shielding of the speakerboard sound to the opposite side, of the driveway sicce the vehicle is interposed between the speakerboard an.a the property line . This is not true for motorcycles and may lye only partially true for pickups . It also would not be true for locations above the speakerboard sucY. ar, the nearest. hcuses . A typical time recor3ing of the ordering cycle adjusted to a print 70 feet from a speaikerb;,ard is shown c:; Exhibit 4 _ The key feature is the auto relatf,d em pt:sions. The speakerboard used for this site will not be the same as the one for the measured site . The results are summarized ;n Table 3 . TABLE 3 DLQ-I—SE LEVELS :?VPQ$La SPEAKER BOAR _EAS7`_ PROPERTY_LINE 70 FEET FROM THE: SPEARERBOARb $kW,{deA) Cu6tomer Ordering : Lmax Auto 48-55 Motorcycle 61-62 Vehicle: Auto 52-61 Motorcycle 61 -67 ': ii The Leq for this period is 50 dSA. The actual ordering "change is very short for each {: uastvmer. The auto noise is prolor.yed during the busy hour since cars are lined up . Thus, when one examines the le•rels of the autos and the fact autos are presecit a greater percentage of the time than the actual ordering secBrFnce, .' t is clear that the auto j portion of the drive-thru is ' he m,-re significant :.:ontributor to the sound level . 'p Taco Bell provided s,. und test data for the proposed -�peakerrboazd at this site . The inf_rmation is contained ir. Appendix 1 . -fte proposed bo*rrl has a day/night setting. The setting is manually operated by the store employee . Therefor , two k. values are possible at any distance . This information suggests that the level at the property line 70 feet from the proposed speakerboard location will be 38 dBA in the day and 33 ' dBA at . ;`4 08: 15 FROM 70HEQ DELJEL!�- TO 641W � sa Y; 94/404 G :A13iFs„_ 2 COMPAR,�SQN Ck AMBIFN AND ALLOWED VALUES Pax _-___ NIGHT LtMD USE. _ rAC_"I' R TAB" AMBIENT TABLE AMBIENT Residential Leq 60 64-6b 50 F0-64 Lmax 80 72-90 70 68-72 Commetcial Leq 6b 64-66 60 50-64 Lmax 85 72 90 80 68-72 rnspection of Tai'.: 2 inaicates that the ambient noise lfveis, in general , axe hig::Fr than, specified in the proposes Noise Ordinance . Under the terms ,f the Ordinance , the 41owed levels would be equal to the alRbierit . 4 . 0 PROJECT EVALUATION Basically, the assessment rlust consider what could occur in the worst 15 minute pf.rjod during the period of cperaticn. Usually, the hiahest vehicle thru-put will occur on Friday in the 12 :00 Noon to 1 : 0C P .M. time slot . In that hour, there will be about 60 cars, ;r one car per minute. The arrival cycle consists of vehicles moving past the speaKerboard at the rate of one per minute . Each car stops at the speakerboard. An inquiry is made over the speaker from the inside . Tne vehicle driver announces the odE:r. The order taker verifies the under over the speaker. The v-h.cle: than pru-_ucds forward. Several types of r,u 'Lse of f�:cts car, QC:. .r in thin :Ycle, which dre as follows : . I - The speakerboard will be activated at least twice by the restaurant . 2 . The vehicle m ine will vary from idle to something greater than idle . 3 . Persons other than the driver will announce orders Lc the driver. Usually, passengers are inside a vehicle, -although this would not be true for persons riding in the back of pickup trucks . 4 ,•.;• Radio*,' adios. be playing . Jsually the radio volume his to be reduced during ordering if it is too high. 0 P F 6 e u . . 09/07f 19=4 08215 FROM 'li.ER DEVELOP"1Evr "F 71 64 jr 94/404 i'ABLE 1 PROPOSED E}i ERIvt yG:.`, RDI- IJ L_Mt:TSS (1) Al., jw:,�_ LLMIT LAND USE AY NIGHT SYMBOL ,r Residential 60 50 Leq Commercial 65 60 Leq Industrial 70 70 Leq i Residential 80 70 !max Commercial AS 80 i,max industrial 9.) 9D !,max (1) a, Day = 7 : 00 A.M. to lo : . .; P . M. b. Night = 10 : 00 P.M . to JJ A.M. c . If the ami)ient et<<eeda .h ncise standazd, the maximum allowed will be the 8'11i , unt . d. Measurement period is = - minutes . e . Ieq is the avera,e not s level :aver a 15 minute period. f . I,max is the si.nale high�.-st level in a 15 minute period. 3 . 0 MEASUREL_�T JN✓ LL'v_i.LS Measurements were c�,nduci .=d at the site at a location I10 feet from, the cent. r l ine ,>f Par.if is Gast Highway. This u _e(back is at the bottom A _!:e si•,.)e Oust below (tile nearest residence . The property 1 ,n,_ s A, - het •i8 feett to the east . The levels measured at the iC:o f�. r po can be adjusted to the 7; property line by subtia tiny ",I A short term and a -4 h . . arasurernent were cnnductsd. The, short-term chart is show:: ,rn 3 . The resulting values Were 64 dBA Leq, and 80 dRA ',wax a ; iiSt.ad to the i,rcperty line . measurement was taken a.-ound I : 00 P.M. The 24 hourly mews . ement values are plotted on Exhibit 4 . The Leq values range from 50 to 64 dBA at night , and 64 to 66 '. iBA in the day. The maximum levels varied from 66 to 73 dEA at night and 74 to 90 dBA in the day. r " A comparison of the ambie:.t and allowed values given in ' :able 1. are listed in Table " on the `ollowing page . r s •' F �4 3 f' 94/404 1 GORDON BRICKEN & .ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1 . 0 TNTRODUCT1Q& The propvsAa pr ' acr Bel: restaurant L,_-; ace- i a an, ca'..ic,.i at ment ail ti . ii. 14G0 West f i-Ii ]::Wa .� :SC:W t ' ist e..:h. sI'� An4at iyf: noted On Pacific :.� ast 3 Y f hr11 on the east side of the site . The drive tn­uaa_id, e:lt tc, the `ul Laing. a I . in<; wa: . ar the b n. t_um of the nurth ::'. :;pc . TWo 1:0uses a a` ab '+e t ':e F10poswd c_te - The . ..Able cuLd�: '1 area zii g tl>i Y: a;: 3iffrLE CiC Cl::`� d �'='::� t.�E'Cai1S•.: ::t S.i.„pe _: lci'. . . .t' F•']T .1 of a�5ses8ment, the pyrUt�k''i:�' ii[lE Vr: l '- t)e ,� -: iitie is w': t'1 the `nW .M . This lcit also nas a W,)Jdeli Pe iCP "aio"j ti The property line lS iOCated 4S fept horizor.ra enter tine c;i :he drive-thru and 43 Le et, RO:" IC rA :3 Y',st.,i . e_ .,,(i the nea2 pC' .il of t:1F. parkiing 1'J - The drive Lhr,, bbea}L:, .. ' ar the south ]de. of _?/e ctrive -thru dr ,vewar f: _ . v. C. . I t is 10cated 70 f-=.et fr>;r, th east prc ,axt.y line T e City cf Newp l:r,ise reculatio(is at Ai k onditioning noise : s limiLed to 55 dSA tul r. ,ativr.o nthe. noi. 1imi.ts are, established on a rase by �,i to A proposed Noise DIdina e is present Y hefore tiie plaruling C'ommission . As it cx ' .c7 that th.Ls Grdinance will be aduilted in its propcseO form wits, , i ,tle ,n(_,Jiii eticn, the pr:.lpo5ed Noise Ordinance will he use•.i for a� ^°sling t :e -`Pact c this project . Tile prc posed liroi ' s ar en in Tab:F 1 cn the following i page . t i ! Cass Seventeenth Street, Suite K • > `.a Ar.a CaAorma 92701 • Prione '714) 835 0l49 FAX J14j 835.1957 y : qw%MW RMENT h'ERl�5 �'0 '6iak f. GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUS"IICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 7, 9 I !! c_ 1 aJ.: bF--et_ analyzed for 3 i , r C,:d. ..nance . Measurements noise levels as w :ron is :1L operation . The findings ! JQ,,a with the prvposea n, wi`li Nr :iuce sound !evels r . re h-ist property line wall. ;we alder the proposed Noise, l e a ores ar--1 a:; L QI ,, Qws i . P� n _ : pproa: to the speai`erbc and so a patron may be system that 3 itch ",'Ian 38 ,1PA at the east s ! proper+-v li-n e w3 d it I ; xc it,, i,Be' 'made k: tr;mia 927Jt • Phon6't7?4J $35-Q249 a FAX (714) 835 1957 1 ,4 Ii h a s [iu •07 1'?C4 43: 14 FF'OM F,$HEF DEVELOPMENT 44---E+ P.02 ii404 I i I 1 i I i I i - j i f I i I I � I �......"' ^.,y..,_.1-•->^�^'xi'G�'�nsny..r;w�.t-.•ms*agT,7`a7.+T^.n.,�iw-"�'^4vt^'.�+.ua,Ck�^'aa'war�•i,..*•.�.-..a.�.�.^s���:�'u�^�� i PoRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UT P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 e+ C"9<1 F01% PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 June 15, 1994 Taco Bell Mr. Scott Duffner 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-K Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Taco Bell Restaurant at 1400 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Duffner: The site plan submitted for the proposed Taco Bell Use Permit indicates the site address as 1550 Coast Highway. The application of Faucher Development Services Inc. for a Taco Bell Restaurant designates the project address at 1400 West Coast Highway, in Newport Beach. The City records also indicate that the subject site has been using 1400 West Coast Highway address for different businesses in the past. Please make certain that future plans and documentation submitted to the City reflect the correct property address(1400 West Coast Highway). Because of the sensitivity of the bluff location, the proposed new retaining wall would also be reviewed in greater detail. Therefore it is necessary to provide the Planning Department with an elevation plan indicating the elevation of the existing retaining wall and the proposed new wall so the staff could address the impacts of the proposed new wall and make appropriate recommendation regarding this project. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HIEWICKER, Director By CI6� - Aziz M. Aslaml Associate Planner F:\WF51\...\Aziz-a\Traffic\TS99\1ettcrl 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1 n+ p GARY L..GRAbVILLE COUNTY CLERK 4 631FRa.N NTY O F PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE:7141834-2248 CITY OF t��:1A�1: ORT BEACH OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 211 W.SANTA ANA BLVD. 2 1 P.O.BOX 22013 s G:E (� AUG 111994 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-2013 OFFICE-OF THE C(1s(, F0I12I1i2I3i4i5i6 8 Memorandum AUG o:s >g9a TO: © /✓mac/ P�fC7£!3 DATE: _ SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports Amendment of "Public Resources Code, Section 21092 . 3 "'. The attached Negative Declaration was received,, filed, and a copy was posted. on JUN 29 1994 It remained posted for 20 (twenty) calendar days. , Gary Lt., Granville: Count CLer of:. t e. State, of: California for e County of Orange:. By. Deputy NORMA DOEVE Public Resource Code 2109Z.3 The notices required pursuant to Sections, 21080 .4 and 2.1092. for an evironmental impact report shall be posted in then 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 sha1L_ be so posted for a period of 20 days unless otherwise- reauired. bv law to be posted for 30 days The County Clerk shall post notices within 24- hours- of receipt. Public Resourse Code 21152-(c) All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt 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 lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months . Addition or changes by underline; deletions by *** . y� , Ap { ViPAM iWBFlT E RECEInj PT �4 ` r Icl°' i"7 1�4J'�rlc i /c.�H .� .. , ,?e � F4 a, a'•, WH�VUM" .VFP�F.9• � � 1f eL'�> � , IRbleer Vie: 7- is r a' ff by r• bBo Agency Q SCnwl pipet State AgeM E 1 �wa�an(55�e►YrFtesoumesC�c+»tro+8oard�tyl ffi � �* �;,, t ► Rr�ulatory#ra�ma ' '^�ffi �" a �r*.M� vk_. . sdltNa ermfe Ofpe/Bo+7 iNg�y4a7BAt.; _ . t`„ '•�. ^ '4' y 4FL TMi� FILED CITAF NF'i TORT BEACH 7 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 ,IUN 2 9 1994 - ILA Newport Beach CA 92659.1768 h- rhRYLAPNVILLE,CoantycierNEGATIVE DECLARATION JUN 29'1994 T . �� From: City of Newport B r ORA It E COun Clerk �y--�'C 'iZe o Plaaning and Research Planning Department ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boe =1= DEW Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange j XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public reviewperiod June 29, 1994 thru July 20, 1994 Name of Project: Taco Bell Restaurant, Traffic Study No. 99, Use Permit No. 3517 Project Location: 1400 :J. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California Construction of a full restaurant facility with 68 inside seats, Project Description: outdoor Seating area and a drive-thru service 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 his evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the enr4diment. 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 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. , , Ifyou wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be sµbmitted 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. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. �M,��t nl tw1� Date June 29 1994 hn H.DouglasDouglas,AI� Environmental Coordinator Revised 4/92 BNVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHEMIST127994 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C ' I E D I. BACKGROUND J U N 2 9 1994 1. Application No: Use Permit No 3517, Traffic Study No. 9$Wyl enemyu:s• C06*08f 2. Project name: Taco Bell Restaurant By -- DEPUTY 3. Project locations 1400 1-1 Coast Hiohway. Newport Beach 4. Applicant: Francher Development Services II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (see attached explanations) S=Significant P.S.=Potentially N.S.=Hot S P.S. N.S. Significant Significant 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? J� b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ a 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? E 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ Environmental_Mna'lysis Conecklist - Page 2 t a $ P.S• N.S. 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? 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 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, v 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? _ X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ i Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 $ P.S. N_S, 5. 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? _ 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 habitat? 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? — — 8. 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. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? _ TX 12. Housing. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4 Sy P.S. N. 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking. Would the proposal result in: a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X 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 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? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ f. Other governmental services? 15. Enerev. 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 require the development of new sources of energy? 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? _ ' Envir'onmental Analysis Checkliu - Page 6 $ P.S. N.S. 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: ( J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ] I find that although the proposed project could have a 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. [ 1 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Aziz M. Aslard ( Associate Planner Date: 6/9/1994 Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations f:\...\FORMS\CHECKLST.IS Revised 12/93 Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 5 $ P.S. N.S. 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)? 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? 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, v 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 pre-history? _ J� 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 EXPLANATIONS Taco Bell Restaurant Traffic Study No. 99 Use Permit No. 3517 Project Description The proposed project is a full restaurant facility with 68 inside seats, outdoor seating area and a drive-thru service window. The site is located at 1400 West Coast Highway,•across from the Balboa Bay Club (see Vicinity Map). Currently the site is a vacant restaurant. The proposed Taco Bell Restaurant will involve demolition of the existing vacant structure, a portion of the existing concrete block retaining wall and parking lot. The new construction will include a new building with size and height of approximately 1,990 sq.ft. and 18 ft. respectively. There would be a new drive-thru lane with a capacity to accommodate ten (10) cars at any one time. It is also proposed that the existing concrete block wall be replaced'by a new retaining wall, further moved into the bluff area in order to create an additional parking area. The proposed building is estimated at 1,989 sq.ft. which includes the kitchen and inside seating area. The outdoor patio is approximately 540 sq.ft. of usable seating area. The subject site is composed of 10 consecutive lots for a total area of 0.82 acre. Analy is 1. Earth The developed area of the property is on a leveled ground and the remainder of the site contains a bluff area. Newport Height Bluffs is located to the rear portion of the site. An existing concrete block wall with varying height between 4 ft. and 15 ft. separates the bluff area of the site. The project's site plan indicates that a significant portion of the existing wall would be removed and a new retaining wall will encroach up to 18 feet into the bluff area. The height of the proposed new wall would vary with a maximum of fifteen (15) ft. Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. has prepared a geotechnical report indicating that the construction of the new retaining wall will increase the safety factor of the existing slope. It is estimated that less than 500 yards of soil will be exported during the grading operation. There would be some soil disruption in the demolition of existing structure,parking lot and a portion of the existing retaining wall as well as during the construction of the new restaurant, parking and the new retaining wall. There are no known active faults in the vicinity of this project. The City Excavation and Grading Code (NB Section 15.04.140) contains requirements for geotechnical evaluation and appropriate erosion control 1 Initial Study-Taco Hell Restaurant I` 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 pollutants from machinery, delivery trucks, and workers' vehicles would be released. In addition, dust would be generated by earthmoving and construction operations. The following mitigation measures are required in order to reduce these impacts below the level of significance. Mitigation Measures 1. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 2. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low-emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low-sulfur fuel for stationary construction equip- ment f) Use of on-site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 2 Initial Study Tam Bell•ltestaurant ' rr � • Operational Impacts Cooking odors will be treated via an appropriate filtration system on mechanical exhaust devices. After completion the project would generate an estimated 167 average daily trips (ADT) during traffic morning and evening 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 characteris- tics of the project such as hazardous or toxic materials that could adversely affect air quality. 3. Water Although the cliff formation at the rear portion of the site has the potential to adversely affect the area's drainage system, proper erosion control methods would reduce the water drainage impact to a minimum acceptable level. Other potential sources of water contaminants include soil erosion, spillage or leakage of fuel and oil from construction equipment, and construction debris which could be washed into Newport Bay via the storm drain system during storms. In addition, pollutants from parking areas, streets, and driveways (such as coolant, oil and grease drippings), and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas could be washed into surface waters. Surface drainage is provided by a catch basin located west of the site on the northerly side of West Coast Highway to an existing 24" RCP storm drain system which drains into Newport Bay. The proposed improvement would not significantly increase water runoff or affect any drainage pattern. All grading activities are required to comply with the erosion control provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code, as well as the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Any construction would also be required to provide adequate drainage facilities as required by the City's building code. As a result of these existing requirements, no significant effects would be expected. 4. Plant Life The project area is presently urbanized, and there are no varieties of native plant life which will be affected by the proposed project. 5. Animal Life The project area is presently urbanized, and there is no native wildlife which would be affected by the proposed project. 3 Initial Study-Taco Bell Restaurant 6. Noise Construction Impacts Existing ambient noise levels would be increased during construction period. Any construction activity would be required to comply with the noise limitations in the City's Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28) and would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am. 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,would reduce construction noise impacts below the level of significance. Operational Impacts Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. The project would generate about 1,392 daily trips to the Coast Highway and vicinity streets network at full operation. These trips would be distributed in various directions as shown in Exhibit C in the traffic study. According to accepted rules of thumb for noise impact analysis, a 25% increase in traffic volume is necessary to cause a 1 Db increase in ambient noise. Since project-related traffic increases would be substantially less than 259o' of existing and projected future volumes, no new significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Residential properties located above the bluff to the rear of the site(along the south side of Kings Road) and Balboa Bay Club and Bayshore Residential to the east of the site which are noise sensitive land uses, could be impacted due to close proximity of the proposed project. It is conceivable that the proposed Taco Bell operation would exceed allowable noise limits in the adjacent residential neighborhood if no mitigation were incorporated into the design of the project, but through proper design (e.g., orientation and enclosure of the drive-thru menu ordering board), equipment(e.g., menu-order speakers), and restrictions on hours of operation, the noise level could be reduced to comply with County standards. In order to ensure that the proposed project would be designed and equipped so that noise levels are not increased, the following mitigation measures are recommended. The adoption of these requirements as conditions of approval on the project would ensure that no significant noise impacts are generated. Mitigation Measure #3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed noise analysis report shall be prepared describing the noise generation potential for the project based on the detailed project design, 4 Initial Study-Taro Bcll Restaurant noise attenuation features, and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate that the project will not exceed allowable noise levels as described in the County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance with respect to the residential proper- ties adjacent to the project site. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 7. Light and Glare The proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect nearby residential properties. The primary external light would consist of decorative lighting features around the new building, directional signs and security lighting as required. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that potential impacts from nuisance glare would not be significant. Mitigation Measure #4 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 located in Statistical Area H4 and designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The site has been the location of several restaurants in its history. To the west of the site is Far Pavilion, a restaurant serving cuisine of India, and to the east of the property is an automobile sale/service business. The proposed restaurant land use is compatible to the area's surrounding and it would be in compliance with the General Plan provisions. The zoning designation for the property is RSC-H. Restaurants are allowed in this district. The current zoning designation permits restaurant operations subject to the securing of a use permit. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is not required. 5 Initial Study Taco Bell Restaurant 9. Natural Resources The proposed project would not significantly affect any natural resources in the area. Potential impacts associated with the alteration of the coastal bluff are discussed in the Aesthetics section below. 10. Risk of Accident No major toxic or hazardous materials would be used or stored on this site. This project would not affect human health in the event of an accident, nor would it interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. 11. Population The proposed project would generate a minor increase in employment, however no significant population increase would result from the project. 12. Housing The project would result in minor employment increase, but it is not expected to increase the demand for new housing in the area. 13. Transportation/Parking Circulation system impact: Presently the subject site is a vacant building that was used as a restaurant called The Grinder. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is necessary under the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The results of the traffic study are summarized below. The full study is available for review in the Planning Department. The traffic study determined that of the six intersections that could be significantly affected by the proposed project, one intersection exceeded the one percent volume threshold for Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis: Coast Highway West @ Tustin Avenue. ICU analysis was performed for both a.m. and p.m.peak hours and determined that the ICU values of this intersection would remain within acceptable levels with the addition of the proposed project (a.m. = 0.87 and p.m. = 0.73) therefore, no further ICU analysis is required. As the traffic study report indicates, the addition of the project the intersection of Coast Highway West at Tustin Avenue would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during traffic peak hours. The project would generate a negligible increase in traffic during the a.m. peak,period. Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed project would have no significant impact on the existing circulation system. Initial StudpTaco Bell Restaurant Based on the proposed design of the building and the location of the drive-thm lane it is anticipated that the drive-thru lane has sufficient capacity to provide for adequate circulation. Access to the site is provided directly from West Coast Highway via two driveways, one at each end of the parking area. Based on the access and circulation design, it is anticipated that, an infrequent higher order queue demand would be satisfied without backing vehicles onto West Coast Highway. Parkin . The parking requirement for the proposed development is one parking space per 50 square feet of gross floor area contained within a building and in any outdoor area capable of being used for the purpose of serving food or beverages. The proposed site plan indicates 1,989 sq.ft. of indoor eating area and 540 sq.ft of outdoor usable area, a total of 2,529 sq.ft.(1,989 + 540 = 2,529), requiring 51 spaces (2,529/50 = 50.58 = 51). The proposed site plan indicates 36 regular, 2 handicapped and 10 driveway lane spaces thus providing a total of 48 parking spaces(36 + 2 + 10 = 48) thus creating a deficiency of 3 parking spaces. Taco Bell is requesting a waiver for the 3 parking spaces required per the Zoning Code. The waiver of 3 parking spaces would not be considered a significant impact. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serves the area and the project would not increase the need for additional services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities No significant alteration or expansion of the existing utility system is anticipated as a result of the proposed development.17. Human Health The proposed project is a food serving operation, therefore it is not anticipated to utilize hazardous materials on the site. No adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 7 Initial Study-Taco Bell Restaurant 18. Aesthetics The project site is located at the base of a coastal bluff, which is considered a sensitive scenic resource. The developable area of the site is severely constrained by the required 12-foot highway setback and the curvature of the bluff, which extends out toward Coast Highway at this location. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes a policy statement requiring that development be designed to minimise the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs (Policy D.2). In order to create sufficient space for required parking and to stabilize the bluff the proposed project would require excavation of the base of the bluff approximately 18 feet back from the existing retaining wall and construction of a new retaining wall ranging from approximately 5 feet to 15 feet in height. Although there is an existing 15-foot retaining wall along the eastern 30 feet of the site, the new proposed retaining wall could have a significant adverse effect on the aesthetics of the bluff unless mitigated with landscaping to soften its appearance. The following requirement would reduce this potential impact below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure #5 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a detailed landscap- ing and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to partially obscure the retaining wall from view and blend visually with the natural slope. Examples of appropri- ate plant materials may include bougainvillea (planted above the wall so as to cascade down the wall face) and creeping fig (planted at the base of the wall). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan. 19. Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activity would not be impacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The likelihood of any archaeological and paleontological resources existing in the proposed site is considered minimal due to prior development activities, therefore no significant impact would result. 8 Initial Study Taco Bell Restaurant 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the environment, nor does it have the potential to endanger or decrease any plant or animal species. 2. There will be no detriment to long-term environmental goals established by the City. 3. There will be no significant cumulative impacts on the area. 4. There will be no substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings due to the proposed project. f.\...\aziz\traffic\tpo99\nc0ec 9 Initial Study-Taco Bell Restaurant Vicinity Map Proposed Taco Bell Traffic Study No. 99 I J s J FT v Q d �Jv J 5�P s PP rP�� s S9 Jv 5j ✓AMES Q J o R � 0 3`� 9q Sf v h a W 0 h � N a a h � DR/VE 1 h 'f ROAO Propose West Coast Hi hway Project LINDA ISLE c'yq tiv Advance Planning June S. 1994 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Taco Bell Restaurant Traffic Study No. 99 Use Permit No. 3517 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\...\aziza\tmfflc\"99\mm-cover. i MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Taco Bell Restaurant(TPO#99) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action M e t h o d o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. All grading activities shall comply Condition of Approval Plan Check; Feld During Construction Building Department with the dust suppression provisions Inspection inspector of the Citys Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 2. Construction operations shall utilize Condition of Approval Plan Check; Field During Construction Planning and Building methods to reduce pollutant Inspection Department plan checkers emissions to the greatest extent and inspectors feasible. Such methods include the following. a) Use of low emission construction equipment. b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low-sulfur fuel for stationaryconstructionequipment f) Use of onsite power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 1 3. Prior to issuance of a building Condition of Approval Plan Check Prior to the issuance of a Building Department plan permit, a detailed noise analysis building permit checker report shall be prepared describing the noise generation potential for the project based on the detailed project design, noise attenuation features, and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate that the project will not exceed allowable noise levels as described in the County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance with respect to the residential properties adjacent to the project site. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building Condition of Approval Plan Check Prior to the issuance of a Planning Department plan permit the applicant shall building permit checker,Buildinginspector 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 plan 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. S. Prior to issuance of a grading or Condition of Approval Plan Check Prior to the issuance of a Planning Department plan • building permit, a detailed building permit chmker,Buildinginspector landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to obscure the 2 proposed new retaining wall from view and blend visually with the natural slope. Examples of appropriate plant materials may include Bougainvillea(planted above the wall so as to cascade down the wall face) and creeping fig(planted at the base of the wall). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigiation shall be installed accorrding to the approve plan. R\...\aziz-a\tpo94\mm-table • • 3 NACE OF PUBLIC HEARING • Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Taco Bell Corp:for Use Permit No 3517 and Traffic Study No. 99 on property located at 1400 West Coast Highway. Request to .permit the establishment of a Taco Bell drive-through take-out restaurant facility, with indoor and outdoor ancillary seating on property located in the RSC-H District. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking• a modification to the Sign Code so as to allow two free standing pole or ¢round signs where the Sign Code permits only one free standing sign per building site; and an exception to the Sign Code so as to allow the restaurant logo on the special 1urpose directional signs where the Sign Code prohibits such logos_on directional signs• 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, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because certain mitigation measures have been incorporated into the subject project which would reduce the environmental impacts below the level of significance. 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 21st day of July 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. FANCHER DEVELOPMEA,OSERVICES INC. Lend Development Consultants LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Newport Beach DATE: June 1, 1994 JOB#: TB174 RE: Proposed Taco Bell- ATTN: Mr. Aziz M. Aslami Newport Beach,Ca. WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING VIA: U.S.MAIL: EXPRESS MAIL: CERTIFIED MAIL: U.P.S.: I MESSENGER:Kristine OTHER: DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS: Mr. Aslami- Please find enclosed the following: 1 Environmental Information form, 1 Check in the amount of $928.00, 2 Checks in the amount of $25.00 each. ..For processing of the traffic study, and CEQA. Any questions or comments, contact Scott Duffner. Thank You- RECEIVED BY: SINC�ERELYj; Kristine Mott r 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-1Y. but/n, California 92680. (714)258-1808.FAX(714)258-2401 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM- Supplement Page 1 of 4 C. Potential Environmental Effects 1. Earth Proposed earthwork will include demolition of a majority of the existing 5± foot retaining wall and construction of a new retaining wall of variable height(maximum of 15± feet) along the north property line. Computer aided slope stability analyses have been performed for the existing condition,the temporary excavation condition during construction,and the final proposed condition with the new wall constructed. the results of these analyses along with information obtained during surficial geological mapping indicate that the factor of safety of the existing slope will be increased by the construction of the new retaining wall and removal and recompaction of the surficial failure. See enclosed Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Report from Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. dated February 24, 1994. Initial estimate of import or export as a result of grading operations indicates export estimated at less than 500 yards. 2. Air Construction emissions will be limited to vehicular emissions and dust. All construction equipment will be required to have installed and functioning such emission control devices as required by applicable Federal and State regulations. Dust control measures will be required during all grading activities. The only significant emissions or odors associated with the operation of the proposed Taco Bell restaurant will be limited to vehicular emissions by patrons. Emissions from patrons' vehicles are effectively limited by a speed of service considered to be among the best in the industry. Food preparation for the proposed Taco Bell does not require any open flame broiling and only limited amounts of frying,. Accordingly, there is little if food odor attendant to the operation of the proposed restaurant. 3. Water Existing site drainage is predominantly sheet flow of slope run-off across the parking lot and into the street. Slope run-off is more or less accommodated through "weep holes" in the existing retaining wall with obvious problems of blockage associated with siltation.There exists some "home made" drainage facilities at or near the top of the subject slope contributing to the slope associated run-off. The proposed replacement of the retaining wall will not only improve subject slope stability,but improve slope drainage as well with improved facilities for collecting the run-off, minimizing erosion, and better separating silt content from the run-off reaching the storm drain system. The subject property is not located within a designated flood hazard zone. 4. Biological Resources The site is already developed with a commercial building that has been over the years, several different restaurants. There appear to be no significant biological resources affected by the proposed development. FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM- Supplement Page 2 of 4 5. Noise The only significant noise sources would be those associated with the drive-thru facilities.These facilities, consisting primarily of the menu board and speaker, have been situated so as to point away from the residences located above the bluff. The secondary source of noise is the pick-up window, where noise levels are relatively low and situated some 40+ feet below and at least 60+ feet back from the closest residence above. Accordingly,it is doubtful that proposed operations will contribute significantly to existing noise levels. 6. LLi ht and Glare Site lighting will be designed so as to provide a minimum of 1 foot candle of illumination per square foot across the site. Taco Bell utilizes high-pressure sodium fixtures with shielding to direct light onto the site and avoid spill-over onto adjacent properties. Fixtures are to be mounted atop conventional 20 foot poles and attractively finished.Given the configuration of the site relative to the adjacent properties and the right- of-way, use of fixture shielding, and site design, light and glare impacts should be negligible. 7. Land Use a) The site is currently developed with a single story block building of approximately 5,250 square feet situated on a tract of land having a total area of 35,825 square feet, of which approximately one-half is given up to a steep bluff. The balance of the site is improved with a parking lot, a retaining wall located at the rear and running the entire length of the site. The building served as a restaurant (Malee's La Oriental Cuisine, Grinders). The property to the west is also a restaurant (Far Pavillions). The property to the east consists of a used car dealership's sales lot. b) The subject conforms to all applicable design ordinance with the exception of only parking. Parking was revised, after the applicant's meeting with planning to review preliminary plans for the proposed site development,to reflect the minimum required stall width of 8.5' (900)and a drive-aisle width of 26' (both per code). This results in on-site parking of 38 full size spaces which when added to the drive-thru queue of seven (7) spaces from the menu board provides a total number of 45 spaces. Given the total area of building and outside dining, upon which the parking is calculated under the code requirement of 1 space per 50 square feet, 49 spaces are required. This plan results in a deficiency of only 4 spaces. (Note: The plan provides a total queue of ten(10)cars from the pick-up window)Accordingly,the Applicant is seeking a waiver of only 4 spaces or 8% of the total required per code.Precedence for such a waiver may be found in the grant of waiver to MacDonald's in their 1987 Use Permit No. 1534. c) The existing and surrounding land uses have been restaurant/retail service oriented for over twenty+ years. The proposed use would serve to not only bring the subject site up to current development standards but significantly improve the slope stability of that portion of the bluff included within the site. The residential development located behind the site is separated by 60+ feet of distance as well as some 40+ feet of steep garde differential. Accordingly, it would appear that the proposed use is in fact compatible with surrounding S. Public Health and Safety The neither proposed improvements nor their normal operation should pose any risk health or general welfare of the public. Site and geotechnical investigations to date show no signs of contamination. FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM- Supplement Page 2 of 3 9. Population/Housing/Emolovment a) Not Applicable b) The proposed use would be that of a restaurant with drive-thru.Depending upon the hours of operation granted, the restaurant would employ between Thirty (30) and Thirty-five (35) full and part-time employees. 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The subject conforms to all applicable design ordinance with the exception of only parking. Parking was revised, after the applicant's meeting with planning to review preliminary plans for the proposed site development, to reflect the minimum required stall width of 8.5' (90°)and a drive-aisle width of 26'(both per code). This results in on-site parking of 38 full size spaces which when added to the drive-thru queue of seven (7) spaces from the menu board provides a total number of 45 spaces. Given the total-area of building and outside dining, upon which the parking is calculated under the code requirement of 1 space per 50 square feet, 49 spaces are required. This plan results in a deficiency of only 4 spaces. (Note: The plan provides a total queue of ten(10)cars from the pick-up window)Accordingly,the Applicant is seeking a waiver of only 4 spaces or 8% of the total required per code. Precedence for such a waiver may be found in the grant of waiver to MacDonald's in their 1987 Use Permit No. 1534. On-site circulation and drive-thru queuing have been reviewed by Kahn-Kain and Associates and submitted to the city's traffic engineer for review. 11. Public Services/Utilities The following is a summary of the availability/adequacy of applicable public services/utilities: Communications-Adequate telephone service to the property exists from Pacific Bell Telephone Electrical Power-Southern California Edison confirms that subject to on-site installation of a transformer, adequate electrical service to the property is available Fire Protection- Per Inspector Haskel of the NBFD, existing fire service to the site is adequate Natural Gas - Per Southern California Gas, adequate gas service exists to the property Parks/Recreation Facilities-Not Applicable Police Protection-Subject to review of plans,NBPD indicates there should be no significant problem with adequate police protection Schools - Not Applicable Sewer/Septic - The proposed improvements represent a reduction in sewer/septic demands over the previous use. Solid Waste- The proposed improvements represent a reduction in solid waste disposal demands over the previous use. Storm Drain- The proposed improvements represent a reduction as well as improvement in storm drain output over the previous use. 12. Aesthetics The proposed improvements have been designed in accordance with Taco Bell's "mission style" theme, consistent with a majority of the architecture throughout southern California. The site is proposed to attractively landscaped with effective screening of drive-thru Given the location of the site relative to the bluff and surrounding improvements the proposed improvements should not pose an obstruction of view, public or private. FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM -Supplement Page 2 of 4 13. Cultural and Historic Resources There are no known archeological or paleontological resources located on site. Given the fact the site has long been developed, it is doubtful that any such resources may exist. FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. FANCHER DEVELOPMEl�0 SERVICES. INC. lend Development Consultants LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Newport Beach-Planning DATE: January 10, 1994 JOB#: RE: Taco Bell @ PCH, Newport ATTN: Bill Ward Beach, Ca. WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING VIA: U.S.MAIL: EXPRESS MAIL: CERTIFIED MAIL: U.P.S.: MESSENGER:Kristine OTHER: DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS: Mr. Ward- Please find 20 copies of the profile of the retaining wall, for proposed Taco Bell, located at 1550 Pacific Coast Hwy. in Newport Beach. This is supplemental information to be included in the package( containing Exhibits, and Sign documents) for submittal for plan check. Any questions or comments, contact Scott Duffner. Thank You, RECEIVED BY- SINCERELY vi)fihill q& Krist ne Motter 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-X. Tustin, California 92680. (714)258-1808.FAX(714)258-2401 ' VIAfIr— LINE r- WWI SA cr �� �►� ,� 'OUT cJ •_-•!•:.�._c:?.:t 3=i:. - -� •.r..- �.�,:s:_ 4 �,•'.�,`:. ..'ii��•:�.. ,•.ia-�-`�h•••���i��_ _ _ _ _ ^J+'�GF'+S � �"JI�t�.�, �,�'j-yam �•�k �'� t+�+'�!` - tit O N O f 2. • Rv $fl ba 50 �o ti0 a 3oxtst 3e =r, • 1Nu�1 ,• Zo ' 2� 10 t6 t A St�te 20 r ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORH { q City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3225 ; A. General Information rl • ,r 1. Applicant/Agent: FAMCW61Z DEV Lr7PN1�NT SEIZVIC85 Phone:�'il4> 25$`/BO'g � d Address: SEW AVE Su TuST/A! eA 9Ve-80 - 2. Property Owner: LryoAl AV0 ZAR oGhH/ 60&A.5/AN Phone:�L}� 760�025f/ Address: 17 910bEG/NE DR. AlEWPORT 8EAdi/ e+A- 9�26 0 B. Project Description Please attach the following materials for the project: • Vicinity map I • Plans drawn to scale ) • Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted 4. and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map P rikpe:rz notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and" direction of view ' . 1. Project name: T4W OEu' 2. Project location: /'PDD WEST COAST N14'NWAY 3. Assessor's parcel #: 041-200-75 J 77 4. • permit application f: 5a. Proposed use: R1651-AURA•A/T W lTF/. DRIVE-7NRu SERVICE G 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc.) 1,969 SQUA#Q PEE.T so. Site size: 54 817 4A-FT Sd. Building height% /Br I r 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: 947WI. k 96":Gr- COM -EWhkoning: Lr 1 Specific Plan: LCP: } 1 7. Previous governmental approvals: N/R S. other governmental approvals required: i Federal: N/A States Eniy1R0A/MEAf7h}t } Regional: N/ Local: W;f P RMrr + S1jJbD/V/S/Onf 9. Begin construction: AusrusT l r 1"4- Estimated occupancy: S,EP7-. 30t y- (date) (date) 1 C. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or "None". 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 i conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. j 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 an pr event revent 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 flood hazard zone? 4. Biological Resources Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. 5, Noise Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generating 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. LiAt and Glare Describe exterior llighting ,that is proposed £or 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 an& 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 1 due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? 4 f 9., Population/Housing/Employment 'i 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 household size'expected.- ; , If the project is commercial, 'industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. i 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parkil2g ` 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 t, 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 ihe .project block any private views? 11. 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 ­V certify. that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and Lcomplete 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. 0- 6�i� s ; Print name of own€r or representative Signature ` Date Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: f:\...\JD1fORMS\ENV-INFO. I ( 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM MAY Z 0 1,. It PM TACO BELL 7►$►yl�llll�11,213141516 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS Newport Beach, California __�, •� 11w.Wp 4"'"E �.• N�yYe�T fU•+Ti / 2 4 4 I c 1 7 1 13 9 ,10 IN /3 1/f 4 is f7 O!r 20 2/ ` . r.....�• T- w N !' �o• gn sr.�cs m P.'�:.._.._.______—�, u� M70 k bCLL ` 90,-•0_�'r�'n' 13 erase. 1•a' 'fen' * en'•n' n avr mom` II ar 1 f io T n� rO1wnew' �. 'a T 3!97 9��C5 '33 92 9/ .70IZf 120 I 26 I24 --`i�1•��`S-�i ._T yam'-.TIx - —4•A'wMN.IM1 ,�I.V F±H , P�waT�N�9Y;If LDR of 9WfT rCM1 N9LY.,WaRG p� PYAMi•bTC•ID•4 _.._. warn c.-cr Wv.lrny Robert Kahn, John Kain do Associates, Inc. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering May 19, 1994 Mr. John Douglas Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Taco Bell Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis Dear Mr. Douglas: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 'is pleased to submit the Taco Bell Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis. This report provides a summary of the findings, analysis procedures and evaluation of the proposed project, for peak period and peak hour conditions, including site access, on-site circulation and parking demands pursuant to CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH requirements. Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation system, without off-site improvements. In addition, the site access and on-site circulation are adequate for the project site. Parking at the site should be sufficient based'on site surveys at comparable facilities in the Orange County coastal area. If you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAI SOCIATES, INC. QRovessroMa CAN �---16u �o RT !� — 5 � y Robert Kahn, P.E. a NO.055 9 Lee Royalty, P.E. Principal EXP. 12/31/97 Associate RK:LR:kgd/4093 Pjgr gFflei Nip E JN:559-94-001 OF CAIIFOQ 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach,California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714)474-0902 K TACO BELL TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared by: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Lee Royalty, P.E. May 19, 1994 JN:559-94-001 r ; TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE i. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Ii. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6' A. Project Trip Generation B. Project Trip Distribution IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects B. Regional Traffic Growth C. Study Intersections D. Determination of Impacted Intersections V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 VI. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A. Site Access B. On-site Circulation C. Parking Requirements VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 APPENDICES ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ICUWORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . B TACO BELL SITE SURVEY DATA SHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 13(p r K LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE A LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 D STUDY INTERSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 V-135 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8 DANA POINT SITE SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9 COSTA MESA SITE SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13� � TACO BELL TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Taco Bell fast food restaurant located on Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. As required in Newport Beach for all new development projects exceeding 10,000 square feet or generating greater than 130 daily vehicle trips, the traffic analysis conforms to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis procedures specified by the City. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance study format requires that project traffic impacts be presented in progressive analysis steps. Following a description of the project location and site plan, the trip generation and distribution for the proposed project are presented. Traffic impacts at intersections are then determined for AM and PM 2 1/2 hour peak periods and AM and PM peak hours. The traffic analysis is conducted at a time frame one year after the proposed completion of the project. This time frame is selected because traffic from the project is assumed to have reached a stabilized flow condition that is typical of project traffic conditions. Traffic from other projects, which have been previously approved by the City of Newport Beach (committed projects) but which are not completed or currently generating traffic, is included in the analysis. Information on committed projects and their traffic is furnished by the City. Arterial roadways in the City which carry a regional traffic component are also identified by the City. Because the traffic volume which represents the regional traffic component increases without regard to the approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be 1 13� r , accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, the yearly regional growth rate for each roadway is specified by the City. With the completion of this project contemplated in the Fall of 1994, assuming approval by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 1995. Project traffic is then combined with existing, committed project and regional growth traffic to simulate traffic conditions,during the analysis year. Project traffic volumes are first subjected to a one-percent test at study intersection locations. Project traffic on each intersection approach during an A.M. and P.M. two and one-half hour period is compared to one percent of the traffic projected to exist in the analysis year without the project, if the project traffic volume is greater than or equal to one percent of the intersection approach volume, further analysis must be completed at this intersection location during the peak hour. Intersection analysis during the peak hour is performed using.the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU •methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of the intersection. An intersection which is operating with an ICU of 1 .00 is said to be operating at capacity. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that intersections operate at an ICU of 0.90 or less during A.M. and P.M. peak hours. If the 'ICU with project traffic is projected to exceed 0.90, a mitigation improvement must be proposed which will cause the ICU during that time period to be reduced to at an acceptable level. For the purposes of the analysis, the incremental increase in intersection capacity due to the improvement must be limited to 70 percent of it's value to insure some reserve capacity. In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a,review of on-site traffic circulation and parking,and site access from the adjoining street system. in particular for this project, the performance of the drive-thru service facility will reviewed for queuing storage adequacy, 2 1y0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is proposed for development as a Taco Bell fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service window. The site is located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive. The site location with respect to the surrounding area is shown in Exhibit A. The site plan for the project is shown in Exhibit B. The project will be located on a relatively narrow, rectangular parcel of land which backs up directly to a cliff formation on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. Access to the site is taken directly from Pacific Coast Highway at two driveway locations, one at each end of the parking area. The restaurant structure is located at the east end of the parcel, with the drive-thru order/pickup activities serviced through a queue which wraps around the building in the counter-clockwise direction. The drive-thru queue provides three vehicle spaces between the pickup window and the menu/order board and seven vehicles spaces behind the menu/order board. A total of 38 parking spaces are provided, two of which are handicapped and located directly in front of the patio area. In addition, the drive-thru aisle includes stacking for ten (10) vehicles. The interior of the restaurant will cover a floor space of 1,989 square feet which includes the kitchen and indoor seating area, but does not include the outdoor patio seating. The outdoor patio area is approximately 540 square feet of usable seating area, excluding walking areas to the building entrance. 3 r LOCATION MAP sr y ao Sp e o,AO'�` c w °O4sr SITE Z o� f+cam' 4 CODO NWy, ISLE 4 BALBOA ISLAND TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY 'ort Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT A a Robert Kahn, John Kain do Associates, Inc. ,�� n SITE PLAN .-rvcrro- as w.c�•w ev.r�v-.a Mr/yn{,K�• T ..Mw IE?rl•Y. n•�.- V.n`P•1 IO+'E �� �-'� 1�r.-•p'.• YW V11 l'hi PI..TG �J I_C rO-r�-}f��l. � �•r•_�._�:._ I�.'•_�=M tad Ml z 3 t 3 c 7 E 7 ro /i /D it n /c n /e rc ?n x/ .,rm.. Y n....,r• r; IY n.. nl•. 9' a -j- P.•_________ M7P•k n 7 7d•e_.'v e:n' A era.n�_.:.' __ •1:n'ri 7n'm' �f' Lo' I a. i' i.•I , Mr �- .T �W. + • 'n r 2I 77 9aK��3 77 3/ 3n?T 7I Q)I2C Q/ f •�' �1`y.-___.:•• y.___.r�/S�� r � y •Lwo KnrpiY — �'• �v o�o`n,aNw - r�unn ce+st Hwviy NQ b.00 TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY ViortIVNewport Beach, California EXHIBIT B 5 Robert Kahn, John Kain k Associates, Inc. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION This section of the report discusses project trip generation and trip distribution. Trip generation rates which are appropriate for the project are identified and the resulting trip generation is determined, The distribution patterns that project trips will then use for routing through the roadway network are identified and depicted graphically. Project Trip Generation The trip generation rates selected for the proposed site use are shown in Table 1. These rates are designated for a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service and are taken from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation rates, October 1993. These rates were selected because they were judged to be representative of the trip making patterns during morning and evening peak hours at this type of fast-food facility, with the P.M. peak hour exceeding the A.M. peak hour. No reduction in trips has been made to reflect the effect of evening period "pass-by trips", which is .sometimes assumed for this type of use. By not incorporating this assumption,the traffic analysis may reflecta conservative assessment of intersections impacted by the site use. The rates have been reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer for use in this study. The peak hour trip generation rates shown in Table 1 define the trip generation for the project during one-hour A.M. and P.M. time periods. Peak hour trip generation is used to assess the project's traffic impacts using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, before the ICU calculations are performed, determination of impact to an'intersection is first assessed through a One Percent Test. The One Percent Test reviews traffic flows during a two and one-half hour time period both in the morning and evening peak periods. Project 6 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' _ PEAK-HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Fast-Food w/Drive-Thru TSF 17.00 11.00 28.00 28.00 700 ' Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Trip Generation, October 1993. ' TSF = thousand square feet 7 TABLE 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK-HOUR AM PM LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' :IN OUT IN OUT JDAILYFast-Food w/Drive-Thru 1.989 TSF 33 22 56 56 TSF thousand square feet 9 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 wf�� y "ESp 10 eye5 2 5 0� 10 .� 10 moy " 6o SITE c � 15 40 r° re 10 z o�. CO r ISLE UDO 5ISLE °R 5 10 ISLAND A 6UND LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT TACO BELL. TRAFFIC STUDY °rt Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT C 10 Robert Kahn, John Kain `4� & Assocloles, Inc. a ¢ , TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This section of the report discusses the impact of project traffic determined in the previous report section. Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection, Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects One of the components of future traffic is committed projects traffic. Committed projects are projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Because these projects are potentially under construction or are in their one-year maturity period, they are either not currently or are only partially generating traffic. As such, their traffic impacts are not reflected in the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City. To account for this traffic component, the City maintains a database which tracks the committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic consultant preparing the report. The projects comprising the committed projects list, along with their degree of occupancy are listed in Table 3. The committed projects traffic volume is tabulated separately on each analysis worksheet. 11 f TABLE 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 001 Hughes Aircraft 11 100% Occupancy 002 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 003 Far West Savings and Loan 100%Occupancy 004 Superseded 100% Occupancy 005 Aeronulronic Ford 100% Occupancy 006 Back Bay Office 100% Occupancy 007 Boyle Engineering 100% Occupancy 008 Cal Canadian Bank 100% Occupancy 009 Civic Plaza 096% Occupancy 010 Corporate Plaza 030% Occupancy Ott Kell Center Newport 100% Occupancy 012 Macarthur Court 100% Occupancy 013 Superseded 100% Occupancy 014 Superseded 100% Occupancy 015 Orchard Office 100%Occupancy Ole Pacific Mutual Plaza 100% Occupancy 017 3701 Birch Office 100% Occupancy Ole Newport Place 096% Occupancy 019 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 020 Bank of Newport 100%Occupancy 021 Bayside Square 100% Occupancy 022 Sear(stand 100%Occupancy 023 Saywood Apartments 100%Occupancy 024 Harbor Point Homes 100% Occupancy 025 Roger's Gardens 100%Occupancy 026 Seaviow Lutheran Plaza 100%Occupancy 027 Rudy Baron 100%Occupancy 028 Quail Business Center 100%Occupancy 029 441 Newport Blvd. 100%Occupancy 12 ��q TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 030 Martha's Vineyard 100% Occupancy 031 Valdez 040%Occupancy 032 Coast Business,Center 100% Occupancy 033 Kell Center Npt No. 1 TPP 000% Occupancy 034 'Sae Projects 340 to 343 000%Occupancy 035 Rosa Mallard 100% Occupancy 036 Sunsatted 1000A Occupancy 039 Hughes Aircraft 12 100% Occupancy 040 Superseded 100% Occupancy 041 Flagship Hospital 100% Occupancy, 042 Big Canyon 10 100% Occupancy 043• Fun Zone 100% Occupancy 044 Marriott Hotel 100% Occupancy 045 St.Andrews Church 100% Occupancy 045 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 047 Allred.Condos 100% Occupancy 048 Morgan Devolopmant 100%Occupancy 049 Four Seasons Hotel 100% Occupancy 050 Univ Ath Club TPPA Emksy 100%Occupancy 051 Block 400 Medical 100%Occupancy 053 See Projects 530 to 533 000%Occupancy 054 Amend No 1 McAthur Court, 100%Occupancy 056 Amendment No 2 Ford Aaro 100% Occupancy 057 Carver Granville Offics 100%Occupancy O58 Corona Del Mar Homes 100%Occupancy 059 Big Canyon Villa Apts. 100% Occupancy 060 1400 Dovs Street 080% Occupancy 061 1100 Ousil Street 100%Occupancy 13 VS O TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 062 Superseded 100% Occupancy 063 Kell Center TPP Amend.4A 000% Occupancy 064 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 065 Rosan's Development 065% Occupancy O66 Block 500 Npt Ctr Proj 100% Occupancy 068 Newport Aquatics Center 100% Occupancy 069 2600 E Coast Hwy 100% Occupancy 070 Jasmine Park 100% Occupancy 071 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 072 Newport Inn Expansion 100% Occupancy 073 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 074 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 075 Fashion Is Renaissance 100%Occupancy 078 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 077 CDM Senior Project 100% Occupancy 078 Point Del Mar 100% Occupancy 079 Pecific Old* 100%Occupancy 080 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 081 Newport Seecrest Apt 100% Occupancy 083 38DO Campus Or(M-Storage) 100%Occupancy 084 Hoeg Cancer Center 100% Occupancy O85 Edwards Newport Center 100% Occupancy 086 Seaside Apte (Mesa II) 100%Occupancy 087 Victoria Station (Office) 100% Occupancy 088 3760 Campus Dr (M•Storaga) 100% Occupancy 089 Newport Imports 100% Occupancy '090 Superseded 100% Occupancy 092 Mariners'Mile Marino Ctr 100%Occupancy 093 15th Street Apartments 100% Occupancy 14 TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 094 Seaside Apartments III 100% Occupancy 09S Npt,Bay Retirement Inn 100% Occupancy 096 Newport Classic inn 100% Occupancy 097 Mariners Church Expansion _ 100%Occupancy 098 McLachlan•Nowport PI 100% Occupancy 099 1501 Superior Medical 100%Occupancy 100 Fashion Island 12 000%Occupancy 101 Newporter Resort Expand. 000% Occupancy 102 Sunsettod 100% Occupancy 103 Newport Lido Mod Center 100% Occupancy 104 Villa Point 100% Occupancy 105 Sunsatted 100%Occupancy 106 1Sth St Apts 100%Occupancy 107 Sunsettod 100% Occupancy 108 Andrew Restaurant 100% Occupancy 109 BalboaMashington 100% Occupancy 110 Newport imports Rest. 100% Occupancy 111 28th St.Marina Project OSO%Occupancy 112 Ambrosia Restaurant 100% Occupancy 113 Caltyrroyote Expansion 100%Occupancy 114 Our Lady Queen of Angels 100%Occupancy 115 Yonta Club Residential 100% Occupancy 116 Sunsettod 100% Occupancy 117 Villa Point 11 100%Occupancy 118 Taco Bell(Fast Food) 100% Occupancy 119 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 120 Pacific Ball site 000%Occupancy 121 Newport Village 000%Occupancy 122 Castaways Marine 000% Occupancy 4 15 t s ' Y i TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 123 Koli Center Carl's Jr. 052% Occupancy 124 Civic Plaza 000% Occupancy 125 Corporate Plaza &West 000% Occupancy 127 Burgess Commercial Center 100% Occupancy 128 Harbor Paciric Plaza 000% Occupancy 129 Hoag Hospital Extension 000% Occupancy 130 Corporate Plaza West 11 000% Occupancy 134 Interpretive Center 000% Occupancy 135 Pacific Mutual 1601 Avoca 000% Occupancy 138 Newport Diagnostic #85 000% Occupancy 137 Alamo or Rental 000% Occupancy 139 Pao Tel Mini Storage 000% Occupancy 140 Four Seasons Addition 000% Occupancy 141 Family Fitness Center 000% Occupancy 340 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 100% Occupancy 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000% Occupancy 342 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000% Occupancy 343 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero 000% Occupancy 530 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy 631 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy $32 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy SSS CIOSA•Irvine Project 000% Occupancy 910 Newport Dunes 000% Occupancy 920 Bayview 000% Occupancy 930 City of Irvine Dev. 000% Occupancy 16 1 Regional Traffic rowth Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic component represents traffic which essentially passes through the city on roadways within the City of Newport Beach. r This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project approvals by the City of Newport Beach. The amount of annual growth is Identified by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. The regional growth amounts are shown in Table 4. Study Intersections Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on the impacts,to intersections during peak periods, the study intersections define the specific analysis locations within the city circulation system. The six intersections which are analyzed for this report are shown on Exhibit D. These intersections have been designated by the City Traffic Engineer and are: 1 . Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road 2. Newport Boulevard'and Via Lido 3. Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway 4. Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway 5. Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive and Coast Highway 6. Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 17 TABLE 4 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES' PERCENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANNUAL GROWTH COAST HIGHWAY East city limit to MacArthur Boulevard 2 MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 2 Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 2 Newport Boulevard to west city limit 4 IRVINE AVENUE All 2 JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 3 San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison 2 Bison to Bristol t Bristol to Campus 1 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 6 San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit 3 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Coast Highway to north city limit 1 ' Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. 18 \ems y 4 , STUDY INTERSECTIONS S� °P yJ HOSP OG�, ?K OR P o, SITE P ¢ P P rYz O Or r? OASi UDO ISLE 9 BALBOA SLMD LEGEND: • = STUDY INTERSECTIONS TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY ort Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT D 19 Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. ��(p , NI Determination of Impacted Intersections The first assessment of the project's traffic is made to determine if the project significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection leg approach volumes at study intersections during the A.M. and P.M. two and one- half hour peak traffic periods. This assessment is referred to as the "One Percent Test". During these peak periods, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared to the total non-project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than one percent of the non-project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time ° period is concluded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one percent threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be impacted by the project, and a peak hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine the level of capacity utilization at the intersection. The results of the One Percent Test are shown in Table 5. Analysis worksheets for each intersection are included in Appendix A. The results of the analysis indicate that project volumes will exceed the one percent threshold at one intersection for both A.M. and P.M peak periods. This intersection is Tustin Avenue/Coast Highway. All other five intersections will not require further analysis during peak hours. 20 Sri TABLE 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROJECT VOLUME GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT OF 2.5 HOUR PROJECTED VOLUME INTERSECTION AM PM Newport Blvd./Hospital Road No No Newport BI'vd.Nia Lido No No Riverside Ave./Coast Hwy. No No Tustin Ave./Coast Hwy. Yes Yes Dover Dr./Coast Hwy. No No Bayside Dr,/Coast Hwy. No No 21 S� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the peak hour intersection analysis for the one intersection which exceeded the one percent threshold. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology is utilized for this analysis as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is expressed as a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio in decimal percent for each approach lane group. Critical lane groups, whose movements conflict with each other (i.e., must move independently under the control of a unique signal phase) and have the highest V/C ratios, are then identified. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turn lanes and do not include a factor for yellow clearance time. ICU calculations are presented rounded to two decimal places. To operate an acceptable level of service, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution of project traffic. In situations where the ICU will exceed 0.90, the project must propose an improvement which will restore an acceptable level of service. The results of the ICU calculations for the intersection of Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway are presented in Table 6. The ICU worksheets are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 6, the ICU for both A.M. and P.M. peak hours (A.M. = 0.87 and P.M. = 0.73) in the analysis year with project traffic will not exceed 0.90. Consequently, no further ICU analysis is required for this project. 22 ` -) TABLE 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' ICU, NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- WITHOUT WITH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND PROJECT PROJECT INTERSECTION L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Tustin Ave. (N$)at: Coast Highway(EW) 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0.87 0.72 0.87 0.73 ' When a.right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstripad. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L - Left;T - Through; R - Right Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 199S with regional growth and committed projects traffic. 23 t SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE ISSUES This section of the report presents a discussion of issues related to vehicle movement at the site including site access, on-site circulation and parking. For this proposed site use, the discussion of on-site circulation includes the operation of the drive-thru service lane. Parking issues are discussed relative to the City's planning code and comparable site uses in the coastal area. Site Access As shown on the site plan (Exhibit B), the project will be located on a relatively narrow, rectangular parcel of land which backs up directly to a cliff formation on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. Access to the site is taken directly from Pacific Coast Highway via two 30-foot wide driveways at each end of the parking area. The west driveway is at the extreme end of parcel, flush with the west property line; the east driveway is in approximately the middle of the site directly opposite the trash storage/pickup compartment and at the west end of the restaurant structure. The two driveways provide redundant access to the site: vehicles bound for the drive- thru service queue may enter the east driveway, circle the restaurant building and, except for the handicapped parking located directly in front of the building, exit the site without traversing the parking area; vehicles bound for the on-site parking may enter and exit either driveway generally without interfering with the drive-thru traffic. The median area of Pacific Coast Highway is currently configured with a striped median which allows left-turn traffic to exit the through traffic stream before executing a turn. Traffic entering the site from the west at both driveways may use the striped median as a refuge and queuing area. Traffic exiting the site to the east 24 lbl may also use the median area to ease the entry into the eastbound traffic flow on Coast Highway. On-site Circulation Vehicle circulation within the site is related to three primary activities: site access, customer parking quantity and maneuvers, and operations related to the drive-thru service lane. As discussed in the previous section, site access is quite good. To provide data to make a quantitative assessment of the other two activities, site surveys were conducted at three existing Taco Bell sites.in the Orange County coastal area. The sites selected are located in Huntington Beach (Boisa 'Chica Street at Heil Avenue), Dana Point (Coast Highway at Del Prado Avenue), and Costa Mesa (17th Street at Newport'Boulevard). Data was collected during three time periods at each site: weekday noon period (11:30 A.M to 1:00 P.M.), weekday evening period (5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) and weekend noon period (11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P,M.). Observations were made at five- minute time intervals during each sample period. Information was collected on drive- thru service queue operations and parking demand. Four parameters were measured for the drive-thru queue: number of vehicles at or behind the menu/order board, number of vehicles behind the pickup window, queue free-flow conditions (did vehicles waiting in the pickup window queue prevent vehicles from leaving the menu/order board so that another vehicle could not order), and service time (the time between leaving .the menu/order board and receiving food at the pickup window for a randomly selected vehicle). The data collection sheets for each facility are included in Appendix C. A summary of each site is provided in Tables 7, 8 and 9. 25 TABLE 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE SURVEY SUMMARY LOCATION: BOLSA CHICA ST. & HEIL AVE. SATURDAY WEEKDAY WEEKDAY NOON NOON EVENING FF---:]ORDER BOARD (# of Vehicles) Average 2.7 2.5 1.4 Maximum 5.0 4.0 4.0 85th Percentile 4.0 4.0 2.3 PICKUP WINDOW (# of Vehicles) Average 1.9 2.4 2.4 Maximum 4.0 3.0 4.0 85th Percentile 3.0 3.0 4.0 PARKIN V of Vehicles) Available 37.0 37.0 37.0 Average 15.5 18.2 12.2 Maximum 23.0 26.0 16.0 85th Percentile 19.0 23.0 15.0 QUEUE FREE FLOW Average yes yes yes Maximum yes no no SERVICE TIME (sec.) Average 126.4 104.8 165.3 Maximum 214.0 185.0 272.0 85th Percentile 177.0 132.0 185.0 26 yK J TABLE 8 DANA POINT SITE SURVEY SUMMARY LOCATION: DEL PRADO AVE. & COAST HIGHWAY SATURDAY WEEKDAY WEEKDAY NOON NOON EVENING ORDER BOARD V of Vehicles) Average 1.0 2.0 1.6 Maximum 3.0 5.0 8.0 85th Percentile 2.0 3.3 3.0 PICKUP WINDOW (N of Vehicles) Average 1.5 1.9 1.8 Maximum 4.0 4.0 4.0 85th Percentile 3.0 3.3 3.0 PARKIN (N of Vehicles) Available 29.0 29.0 29.0 Average 14.7 13.9 8.6 Maximum 21.0 19.0 14.0 85th Percentile 19.0 17.0 12.0 QUEUE FREE FLOW Average yes yes yes Maximum no no no SERVICE TIME (sec.) Average 161.1 120.2 183.1 Maximum 293.0 210.0 300.0 85th Percentile 197.0 175.6 246.6 27 TABLE 9 COSTA MESA SITE SURVEY SUMMARY LOCATION: 17TH ST. & NEWPORT BLVD. SATURDAY WEEKDAY WEEKDAY NOON NOON EVENING ORDER BOARD (# of Vehicles) Average 3.3 5.3 2.4 Maximum 7.0 9.0 6.0 85th Percentile 5.3 8.0 4.3 PICKUP WINDOW (# of Vehicles) Average 4.4 3.6 2.5 Maximum 6.0 7.0 5.0 85th Percentile 6.0 5.0 4.0 PARKIN (# of Vehicles) Available 57.0 57.0 57.0 Average 24.6 31.4 21.3 Maximum 33.0 49.0 30.0 85th Percentile 28.0 43.0 25.0 QUEUE FREE FLOW Average yes yes yes Maximum no yes no SERVICE TIME (sec.) Average 252.4 211.1 235.2 Maximum 347.0 456.0 408.0 85th Percentile 302.0 266.0 341.0 28 q 4� The results of the site surveys indicate that there is a significant variation of observed parameters which appears to be related to facility size (building area), and ,proximity to other commercial areas, especially offices. The largest facility, (2,796 square feet) located in Costa Mesa, exhibited the highest demand for drive-thru service and parking and is located in the most active commercial area. The medium sized facility, (2,528 square feet) located in Huntington Beach, exhibited less demand for both drive-thru service and parking and is in a less commercial area. The smallest facility, (2,240 square feet) located in Dana Point exhibited the least demand for both drive-thru service and parking, All three of the survey sites are larger than the proposed project in Newport Beach (1,989 square feet of indoor floor area). Demand at the Newport Beach site may also be influenced by the relatively close site in Costa Mesa, limiting the market area of the proposed facility to the beach area and "pass-by" traffic on Coast Highway. The facility in Dana Point may be most representative of operations at the proposed site. Using the site survey information, it would appear that the key parameters for the drive-thru lane (order queue length) and parking demand at the Newport Beach site would be a ,maximum of 7 to 8 vehicles in the order queue and approximately 35 parking spaces. The site plan for Newport Beach proposes an order queue storage of 7 vehicles and 38 parking spaces which should satisfy the projected demand. Because of the access and circulation design at the proposed site, an infrequent higher order queue demand could be satisfied without backing vehicles onto Coast Highway or impeding-site access. The striped median on Coast Highway could also mitigate momentary peak demand for the order queue if it occurred. In addition, the two proposed driveways to the site would further potential queuing conflicts. At the project site, vehicles enter the driveway to the inenulorder board and pickup window directly to the right of the east driveway and circulates counter-clockwise 29 f bye around the building. The driveways are well located relative to the ar p kmg stalls such that there are no dead-end parking areas. With the previous observations on access, and order queue and parking demand, on-site circulation for the site would appear to be adequate as proposed, and is probably as good as can be achieved at this site. Parking Requirements Parking demand at the proposed facility has been evaluated using the site survey data collected at the three similar Taco Bell locations. As discussed in the previous section, parking demand and drive-thru queue storage have been surveyed independently. Results of the site surveys indicate a significant variation in parking demand based on restaurant size and surrounding commercial activity. The maximum parking demand of 49 vehicles occurred at the Costa Mesa location on a weekday at noontime. The demand at this .location reflected the larger indoor square footage of the facility (2,796 square feet) relative to the other sites. The other locations produced maximum demands of 26 vehicles (Huntington Beach, 2,528 square feet) and 21 vehicles (Dana Point, 2,240 square feet), both at noontimes but on different days. Based on the gross building area of the proposed project (1,989 square feet), the peak demand is estimated not to exceed 35 spaces. On this basis, the 38 spaces (including 2 handicapped spaces) proposed at the project site would appear to be adequate to meet peak demands. 30 1 eel SUMMARY The proposed Taco Bell site in Newport Beach is a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service. The project would be located on Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive. The 1,989 square foot building floor plan will generate 55 A.M. peak hour trips, 112 P.M. peak'hour trips and 1,392 daily trips. During the two and one-half'hour peak A.M. and P.M. periods, one of the six study area intersections is impacted by project traffic with a project impact of greater than one percent. This intersection, Tustin Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, will operate with an acceptable level of service (Intersection Capacity Utilization of below 0.90) for both the A.M. and P.M, peak hours. Site access, on-site circulation and parking are adequate for the site as proposed. Site surveys at three Taco Bell Orange County coastal facilities indicate that a maximum order queue length of 7 to 8 vehicles and parking for 35 vehicles should satisfy demands at the site for the proposed project. 31 I� 1 N♦ I APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 1 � \ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93)AM Peak 2y Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour GroMth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Votu^.e Northbound 9019 81 105 4205 4 5orthbound 2844 57 372 3273 33 � Eastbound 1157 0 50 1207 12 b'estbound 766 0 20 786 8 0 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.M.) Analysis is required. DATE- 5/16/94 trio PROJECT: Taco Bell n, 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 _ PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1`: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3908 79 211 4198 42 I 11 3outhbound 4496 90 215 4801 48 j 11 Eastbound 1696 0 144 1840 j 18 0 Kestbound 863 0 0 863 9 p a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Taco Bell DATE. 5/16/94 `'1 ` 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 22 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3023 0 19 3042 30 10 Southbound 2745 0 9 2754 28 j 7 Eastbound16 p 0 16 0 0 Westbound 1001 0 0 1061 11 ' 0 D Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilisation (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE• 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 92 PM Peak 2$ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2983 0 21 3004 30 17 southbound 4524 0 27 4551 46 j 17 Eastbound 41 0 0 41 0 0 !Westbound i 1181 0 0 1181 12 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Ina DATE• 5/16/94 PP,OJECT- Taco Bell i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes Daseo on Average inter pring 199 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved FDP, ach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project tion Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour 'Peak 2y Hour Peak 23 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 0 0 12 12 0 i 0 Southbound 794 0 41 835 8 3 Eastbound 4873 197 729 5799 58 i 34 Westbound 130 541 3883 39 23® 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 Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE. 5/16/94 tr�� PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 Southbound 1307 0 16 1323 13 6 IEastbound 4969 201 662 5832 58 56 i Westbound 224 806 1 6585 66 ' 62 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume El Peak Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• 5/16/94 19S PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21% Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Northbound 4 0 0 4 0 Southbound11 124 0 1 24 148 1 i 3 Eastbound 4533 277 820 5630 56 37 Westbound 3227 535 198 3960 40 ! 25 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 4 DATE• 5/16/94 PROJECT: Tac: Bell , M, 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 92)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hou• Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Yolume Northbound 6 0 0 6 0 southbound 301 0 8 309 3 6 Eastbound 4108 251 655 5014 50 62 Westbound 5106 313 812 6231 62 68 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. DATE• 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell .l a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Vol—um—e—s—Fa—sed on AVerage Winter/Spring 19 93 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume volume volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 297 0 4 301 3 i 0 southbound 2280 0 260 2540 25 7 Eastbound 4164 168 852 5184 52 17 Westbound 4392 177 588 5157 52 { 20 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection, Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/1-6/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast x / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average inter pring g3 pM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected M of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 29 Hcur Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 277 0 10 287 3 0 Southbound 2910 0 169 3079 31 11 ffWestboulnd 4230 171 681 5082 i 51 45 i 6757 273 991 8021 80 ' 34 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis Is required. DATE• 5/16/94 1� 1 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volume's' based on Average Winter/Spring 92 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hcur Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 965 0 26 991 10 3 Southbound 208 0 153 361 4 0 Eastbound 5900 361 638 6899 69 i 13 i Westbound 3856 236 331 4423 44 17 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization I.C.U. Ana i( ) Analysis -is s •is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 92 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1374 0 2 1376 14 ! 6 Southbound 179 0 249 428 • 4 0 Eastbound 6446 395 480 7321 73 34 i Westbound 6338 388 591 7317 73 28 ® 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 [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell i APPENDIX B ICU WORKSHEETS CH263SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY L TUSTIH AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AK ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGI REGIONAL ICOKMITTEOI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio JVolune I V/C I -•.•-.-.ICapacttyICapacttyl-Votune.I.Ratio-.I-Volune.l•Yolume.-Iw/V iumeeeet'-'--•..I•Ratio - i RL ) I 1 0 ) 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I. ....... ................... ........................................•--- .I I HT ) 1600 1 1 0 ) 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 I 010.001 I. .....-- ................... ............................................. .I I NR ) 1 1 0 ) 1 0 1 0 1 1 of I I. ....................................................................................... .I I SL ) 1 1 47 ) 1 0 1 8 1 1 21 1 1. ------- ................... ............................................_ .I I ST ) 1600 1 1 0 ) 0.04 * 0 1 0 1 0.05*1 01 0.05µ' I--------- ................... ------.........................................I I SR ) 1 1 13 ) 1 01 4 1 1 01 1 I...............................................................................•-----------I I EL 1 16001 1 371 0.021 21 11 0.03 1 01 1 I ET 1 1 2076 1 127 1 410 1 0.82*1 1810.82M 1--------) 3200 ..................) 0.65 *..............................................I i ER I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 I . ....................................................................................... .I I WL I I I II 1 01 01 1 01 1 . .............•-----............------..................--------------------------.---- -I 1 WT 1 48001 1 13281 0.281 81 1 264 1 0.35 1 1210.351 . .............................•------•--••-•••-•••-•..........................--•---•-- •i 1 WR 1 16001 1 401 0.031 21 21 0.03 1 110.031 I. ................................------------------------------------------------.--.... .I (EXISTING 1 0.69 1 1 1. .......................................................................... i [EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED V/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.87 1 i (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0 .871 ............................................................................................. 1� Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic t.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems iaprovement wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: Taco Sell 5/16/94 PROJECT FORK it CH2635AK CH2635PX INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIIATION,ANALYSiS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PH ............................................................................................. I IEXISTiNGIPROPOSEDIEXiSTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOKKITTEDI, PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolumo I V/C I I lCapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volune 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I 1 I I I Volume I I I I. ....................................................................................... .I I NL I I II 1 01 01 1 01 I I........) .................. ...............................................I MT 16001 1 1 0.001 01 01 0.00 1 010.0d 1. .... .) .................. ...................................I...........I I NR I I I 1 01 01 1 01 1 1. ....................................................................................... .I I SL 1 1 85 1 0 1 4 1 1 31 I 1........) ...I..............) ...............................................I l ST 1600 1 1 1 0.08 • 0 1 0 1 0.08*1 01 0.0d* 1 •-- .) ................ .) ...............................................I I SR 1 1 36 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I • .................................................................•.........---•• .I I EL 1 16001 1 621 0•041 41 21 0.04 1 010.04 1..,...................................................................................... .I i ET 1 1 1621 1 991 323 1 0.64*1 3110.69* I........) 3200 ..................) 0.51 *...................................... i ER 1 1 6 1 0, 1 0 1 1 01 I I. .......................................................................................-.I I VL I 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 01, 1 I. ....................................................................................... .I I VT 1 48001 1 21851 0.461 134 1 4011 0.57 1 3110.57 I. ..........................................................•--•-........................ .I I WR 1 1600 1. I n 1 0.05 1 4 1 4 1 0.05 1 31 0.o� 1. ... ............................................................................... 9 (EXISTING 1 0.59 1' - 1 I. .......................................................................... I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.72 1 I I. ....................................................................................... .I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.73 ....•.................J.................................................. . ..•............. I1 Projected + project traffic wilt be less than or equal to 0:90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater then 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will' be, less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system Improvement: U Taco Bell 5/16/94 `$ PROJECT APPENDIX C TACO BELL SITE SURVEY DATA SHEETS TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/30/94 Street: Bolsa'Chica St. City: Huntington Beach Cross Street: Heil Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,528,180 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 37 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 3 2 14 Yes 150 11:35 AM 3 1 13 Yes 120 11:40 AM 1 1 12 Yes 137 11:45 AM 0 1 12 Yes N/A 11:50 AM 2 2 12 Yes 91 11:55 AM 2 2 13 Yes 105 12:00 PM 4 2 14 Yes 144 12:05 PM 4 2 15 Yes 125 12:10 PM 2 3 12 Yes 160 12:15 PM 4 2 15 Yes 214 12:20 PM 3 1 13 Yes 123 12:25 PM 5 2 14 Yes 198 12:30 PM 4 2 is Yes 120 12:35 PM 1 3 23 Yes 55 12:40 PM 5 2 19 Yes 204 12:45 PM 1 4 18 Yes 98 12:50 PM 4 1 17 Yes 83 12:55 PM 2 3 21 Yes 93 1:00 PM 1 0 19 Yes 55 Average 2.7 1.9 15.5 126.4 Maximum 5 4 23 214 85th Percentile 4 3 19 177 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board'and leaving pickup window. 1g TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4127/94 Street: Bolsa Chica St. City: Huntington Beach Cross Street: Heil Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,528 / 80 Job Number: 559-94.001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 37 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 1 1:30 AM 3 3 14 Yes 185 11:35 AM 2 3 15 Yes 160 11:40 AM 4 2 16 Yes- 62 11:45 AM 1 2 14 Yes 59 11:50 AM 4 2 15 Yes 115 11:55 AM 1 2 12 Yes 85 12:00 PM 4 2 14 Yes 85 12:05 PM 3 2 15 Yes 79 12:10 PM 4 3 18 Yes 135 12:15 PM 0 3 18 Yes N/A 12:20 PM 1 3 21 Yes 125 12:25 PM 3 2 20 Yes 90 12:30 PM 4 3 24 Yes 129 12:35 PM 3 2 24 No 102 12:40 PM 2 3 26 No 95 12:45 PM 1 2 3 23 Yes 97 12:50 PM 2 1 20 Yes 126 12:55 PM 2 2 1 18 Yes 90 1:00 PM 2 3 19 Yes 68 Average 2.5 2.4 •18.2 104.8 Maximum 4 3 26 185 85th Percentile 4 3 23 182 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. ,M r TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Boise Chica St. City: Huntington Beach Cross Street: Heil Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,528 / 80 Job Number: 559.94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 37 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 5:00 PM 0 0 9 Yes N/A 5:05 PM 1 1 9 Yes 91 5:10 PM 1 3 9 Yes 168 5:15 PM 2 4 9 No 119 5:20 PM 1 3 11 Yes 114 5:25 PM 1 0 12 Yes 179 5:30 PM 1 2 10 Yes 177 5:35 PM 3 3 15 Yes 183 5:40 PM 1 2 13 Yes 134 5:45 PM 2 4 16 No 166 6:50 PM 4 2 16 Yes 272 5:55 P.M 1 3 13 Yes 168 6:00 PM 0 1 11 Yes N/A 6:05 PM 2 4 11 No 186 6:10'PM 3 4 12' No 161 6:15 PM 1 3 14 Yes 130 6:20 PM 1 0 13 Yes 136 6:25 PM 0 3 12 Yes N/A 6:30 PM 1 3 16 Yes 260 Average 1.4 2.4 '12.2 165.3 Maximum 4 4 16 272 85th Percentile 2.3 4 15 185 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time In seconds for one vehicle between leaving order'board and leaving pickup window. \ g V TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/30/94 Street: 17th St. City: Costa Mesa Cross Street: Newport Blvd. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,796 / 80 *5l o.,d-A:or rc-xt-S Job Number: 559-94.001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 52 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 1 6 20 Yes 222 11:35 AM 1 3 26 Yes 180 11:40 AM 1 2 20 Yes 99 11:45 AM 3 3 16 Yes 232 11:50 AM 4 5 16 Yes 293 1 1:55 AM 1 6 20 No 274 12:00 PM 3 3 27 Yes 229 12:05 PM 2 4 26 Yes 296 12:10 PM 1 5 27 Yes 315 12:15 PM 3 6 26 No 291 12:20 PM 5 4 29 Yes 215 12:25 PM 3 4 28 Yes 283 12:30 PM 2 4 26 Yes 248 12:35 PM 6 2 23 Yes 187 12:40 PM 6 4 25 Yes 209 12:45 PM 4 5 24 Yes 263 12:50 PM 5 6 22 No 347 12:55 PM 7 6 31 No 330 1:00 PM 4 1 6 1 33 1 No 283 Average 3.3 4.4 24.5 252.4 Maximum 7 6 33 347 85th Percentile 5.3 6 28 302 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/28/94 Street: 17th St. City: Costa Mesa Cross Street: Newport Blvd. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,796 /80 a SI nKi-Jaar se„ka Job Number: 559.94.001 NUMBER'OF VEHICLES SPACES - 52 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED ,CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 2 4 14 Yes 165 11:35 AM 0 1 14 Yes N/A 11:40 AM 2 3 16 Yes 120 11:45 AM 8 1 18 Yes 173 11:50 AM 6 4 18 Yes 183 11:55 AM 6 3 22 Yes 363 12:00 PM 8 4 29 Yes 2504 12:05 PM 6 4 43 Yes 232 12:10 PM 4 4 44 Yes 208 12:15 PM 7 3 41 Yes 108 12:20 PM 5 3 44 Yes 142 12:25 PM 8 4 40 Yes 130 12:30 PM 8 1 49 Yes 156 12:35 PM 8 5 42 Yes 240 12.40 PM 9 3 38 Yes 234 12:45 PM 6 4 28 Yes 137 12:50 PM 4 5 31 Yes 217 12:55 PM 3 5 35 Yes 285 1:00 PM 1 7 31 Yes 456 Average 5.3 3.6 31.4 211.1 Maximum 9 7 49 456 85th Percentile 8 5 43 268 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. \qU TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4128/94 Street: 17th St. City: Costa Mesa Cross Street: Newport Blvd. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,796 / 80 + SI vu+ stk+•j Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 52 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 5:00 PM 0 0 12 Yes N/A 5:05 PM 2 2 13 Yes 320 5:10 PM 1 3 18 Yes 324 5:15 PM 3 5 19 Yes 291 5:20 PM 3 4 21 No 389 5:25 PM 2 4 22 Yes 219 5:30 PM 0 3 21 Yes N/A 5:35 PM 0 2 19 Yes N/A 5:40 PM 2 3 23 Yes 137 5:45 PM 0 0 26 Yes N/A 5:50 PM 3 2 23 Yes 86 5:55 PM 5 1 24 Yes 120 6:00 PM 4 4 26 Yes 190 6:05 PM 1 4 2 23 Yes 151 6:10 PM 5 2 30 Yes 222 6:15 PM 3 2 22 Yes 130 6:20 PM 6 0 22 Yes 198 6:25 PM 2 4 20 Yes 343 6:30 PM 1 5 20 Yes 408 Average 2.4 2.5 21.3 235.2 Maximum 6 5 30 408 85th Percentile 4.3 4 25 341 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. 1G TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/30/94 Street: Coast Hwy. City: Dana Point Cross Street: Del Prado Ave. Bldg. sq. ft.,/Seats: 2,240 / 60 Job.Number: 559-94.001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 29 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 0 1 11 Yes 154 11.35 AM 0 2 11 Yes 121 11:40 AM 1 0 12 Yes 134 11:45 AM 1 1 13 Yes 157 11:50 AM 0 1 12 Yes 135 11:55 AM 0 3 13 Yes 146 12:00 PM 0 0 11 Yes 215 12:05 PM 0 2 12 Yes 189 12:10 PM 1 1 13 Yes 150 12:15 PM 1 2 15 Yes 137 12:20 PM 2 0 21 Yes 127 12:25 PM 0 0 16 Yes NIA 12:30 PM 1 3 20 Yes 130 12:35 PM 3 4 21 No 153 12:40 PM 2 3 18 Yes 293 12:45 PM 2 4 19 No 167 12:50 PM 2 1 15 Yes 122 12:55 PM 0 0 12 Yes 164 1:00 PM 3 1 14 Yes 206 Average 1.0 1.5 14.7 161.1 Maximum 3 4 21 293 85th Percentile 2 3 19 197 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. t TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Coast Hwy. City: Dana Point Cross Street: Del Prado Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,240 / 60 Job Number: 559-94.001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 29 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 1 1 8 Yes 120 11:35 AM 0 0 9 Yes N/A 11:40 AM 2 1 9 Yes 120 11:45 AM 2 0 11 Yes 60 11:50 AM 5 0 8 Yes 60 11:55 AM 4 3 8 Yes 55 12:00 PM 3 2 19 No 82 12:05 PM 3 3 17 Yes 115 12:10 PM 0 4 16 Yes 72 12:15 PM 3 2 15 Yes 100 12:20 PM 0 3 16 Yes 107 12:25 PM 2 1 14 Yes 104 12:30 PM 1 4 18 Yes 210 12:35 PM 2 4 18 No 180 12:40 PM 2 2 17 Yes 130 12:45 PM 2 2 17 Yes 170 12:50 PM 0 1 15 Yes 116 12:55 PM 2 2 14 Yes 193 1:00 PM 4 2 1 16 Yes 170 Average 2.0 1.9 • 13.9 120.2 Maximum 5 4 19 210 85th Percentile 3.3 3.3 17 175 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Coast Hwy. City: Dana Point Cross Street: Del Prado Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,240 /60 Job Number: 559-94.001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 29 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 5:00 PM 1 2 8 Yes 152 5:05 PM 1 2 9 Yes 205 5:10 PM 1 3 11 No 247 5:15 PM 3 3 12 No N/A 5:20 PM 0 3 12 Yes ' 122 5:25 PM 2 3 9 Yes 183 6 5:30 PM 0 2 8 Yes 171 5:35 PM 0 0 4 Yes 92 5:40 PM 1 1 5 Yes 159 5:45 PM 0 1 5 Yes 150 5;50 PM' 1 0 6 Yes 144 5:55 PM 0 0 7 Yes 145 6:00 PM 1 1 6 Yes 249 6:05 PM 1 1 6 Yes 197 600 PM 1 2 7 Yes 197 6:15 PM 1 2 10 Yes 154 6:20 PM 8 2 13 Yes 254 6:25 PM 3 3 12 No 300 6:30 PM 5 4 14 No NIA Average 1.6 1.8 8.6 183.1 Maximum 8 4 14 300 85th Percentile 3 3 12 246 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2, Service time is elapsed time in seconds,for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. 1 q� i _ . PoRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH p m Building Department ' \ i 3300 Newport Blvd. e. P.O. Box 1768 �c/Fofl `P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS Received From 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...........................................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 $ Other RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. FEE RECEIPT NO. (fVeerept9-93) AY `, MEMORANDUM To: City of Newport Beach Attn. Aziz M. Asiami From. Scott Duffner Date. January 10, 1995 Re: Taco Bell, 1400 West Coast Hwy, Newport Beach Pursuant to your letter of January 6, 1995, 1 am forwarding herewith a check in the amount of $25.00, reimbursing the City of Newport Beach for payment of the required NOD filing fee on Taco Bell's behalf. Thank you very much, Scott F. Duffner Encl. Aqq 77��:{{w� G/—I� lry' cr) BAY#}nt/ PLANT'ING 7EPPR fii(lE[8T ,{ OF PlrWPOP`r BE D JAN 16 1995 PM FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. AM 7181911UIll112111213141516 Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DATE 5119/94 3300 Newport Boulevard JOB NO. 559-94-001 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT Taco Bell Traffic ATTN Mr. John Douglas Planning Dept. Phasing Ordin. Anal. WE ARE FORWARDING: X BY MESSENGER BY MAIL BY BLUEPRINTER BY OTHER NUMBER OF COPIES DESCRIPTION 2 Bound copies of report for your use 1 Unbound copy of report for your reproduction purposes SENT FOR YOUR: STATUS: PLEASE NOTE: APPROVAL PRELIMINARY REVISIONS SIGNATURE REVISED ADDITIONS X USE APPROVED OMISSIONS FILE RELEASED CORRECTIONS REMARKS BY1 � � 1L Robert )Kahn, P.E. COPIES TO Principal 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714)474-0902 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT -4t 9R CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM MAY 2 01994 PM TACO BELL 718ALUOU41A3 AIS a TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS Newport Beach, California --.Trnsx McIOGYM1! — +�Fewnu+c wu- r tMgx�:one 11'!L MWs Y+°e �T NI 4c+T MUT4 tom_....- uir'nu 3 4 8 G 7 0 9 /n // 4113111 2 /3 /4/3 /i/7 /1 H 10 2/ wrasw ,y Jur-•NE, T••11 2z�" T/GO hew I�t Od•o' t la er�.e�a�'•a' �In'�+' sn'•n' +' sd '.r' :'_ i' i L 1AS* 7.96 65 9J 91 9/ $o f 0 27 2i r� ^— -11Y'nVWWID u �1.D 4LN D�rMpTlinM.9�f �-r LIX6 nr�JIWIi fM NDLIG WgWG 0 Y P4YlMI�iTC•IC.L r^"a u T Hwn y Robert Kahn, John Kae & Associates, Inc. Robert Kahn , John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering May 19, 1994 Mr. John Douglas Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Taco Bell Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis Dear Mr. Douglas: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit the Taco Bell, Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis. This report provides a summary of the findings, analysis procedures and evaluation of the proposed project, for peak period and peak hour conditions, including site access, on-site circulation and parking demands pursuant to CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH requirements. Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation system, without off-site improvements. In addition, the site access and on-site circulation are adequate for the project site. Parking at the site should be sufficient based on site surveys at comparable facilities in the Orange County coastal area. If you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, RROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAI E..Q.,SOCIATES, INC. VE Q y Robert Kahn, P.E. &Z N0. 00 p Lee Royalty, P.E. Principal DfP.12/31197 Associate RK:LR:kgd/4093 4lf OF CAL1F JN:559-94-001 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX(714) 474-0902 TACO BELL TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared by: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Lee Royalty, P.E. May 19, 1994 JN:559-94-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ill. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. Project Trip Generation B. Project Trip Distribution IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects B. Regional Traffic Growth C. Study Intersections D. Determination of Impacted Intersections V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 VI. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A. Site Access B. On-site Circulation C. Parking Requirements VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 APPENDICES ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ICU WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B TACO BELL SITE SURVEY DATA SHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE A LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 BSITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 D STUDY INTERSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8 DANA POINT SITE SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9 COSTA MESA SITE SURVEY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 TACO BELL TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Taco Bell fast food restaurant located on Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. As required in Newport Beach for all new development projects exceeding 10,000 square feet or generating greater than 130 daily vehicle trips, the traffic analysis conforms to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis procedures specified by the City. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance study format requires that project traffic impacts be presented in progressive analysis steps. Following a description of the project location and site plan, the trip generation and distribution for the proposed project are presented. Traffic impacts at intersections are then determined for AM and PM 2 1/2 hour peak periods and AM and PM peak hours. The traffic analysis is conducted at a time frame one year after the proposed completion of the project. This time frame is selected because traffic from the project is assumed to have reached a stabilized flow condition that is typical of project traffic conditions. Traffic from other projects, which have been previously approved by the City of Newport Beach (committed projects) but which are not completed or currently generating traffic, is included in the analysis. Information on committed projects and their traffic is furnished by the City. Arterial roadways in the City which carry a regional traffic component are also identified by the City. Because the traffic volume which represents the regional traffic component increases without regard to the approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be 1 accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, the yearly regional growth rate for each roadway is specified by the City. With the completion of this project contemplated in the Fall of 1994, assuming approval by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 1995. Project traffic is then combined with existing, committed project and regional growth traffic to simulate traffic conditions during the analysis year. Project traffic volumes are first subjected to a one-percenttest at study intersection locations. Project traffic on each intersection approach during an A.M. and P.M. two and one-half hour period is compared to one percent of the traffic projected to exist in the analysis year without the project. If the project traffic volume is greater than or equal to one percent of the intersection approach volume, further analysis must be completed at this intersection location during the peak hour. Intersection analysis duringthe peak hour is performed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of the intersection. An intersection which is operating with an ICU of 1 .00 is said to be operating at capacity. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that intersections operate at an ICU of 0.90 or less during A.M. and P.M. peak hours. If the ICU with project traffic is projected to exceed 0.90, a mitigation improvement must be proposed which will cause the ICU during that time period to be reduced to at an acceptable level. For the purposes of the analysis, the incremental increase in intersection capacity due to the improvement must be limited to 70 percent of it's value to insure some reserve capacity. In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a review of on-site traffic circulation and parking, and site access from the adjoining street system. In particular for this project, the performance of the drive-thru service facility will reviewed for queuing storage adequacy. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is proposed for development as a Taco Bell fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service window. The site is located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive. The site location with respect to the surrounding area is shown in Exhibit A. The site plan for the project is shown in Exhibit B. The project will be located on a relatively narrow, rectangular parcel of land which backs up directly to a cliff formation on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. Access to the site is taken directly from Pacific Coast Highway at two driveway locations, one at each end of the parking area. The restaurant structure is located at the east end of the parcel, with the drive-thru order/pickup activities serviced through a queue which wraps around the building in the counter-clockwise direction. The drive-thru queue provides three vehicle spaces between the pickup window and the menu/order board and seven vehicles spaces behind the menu/order board. A total of 38 parking spaces are provided, two of which are handicapped and located directly in front of the patio area. In addition, the drive-thru aisle includes stacking for ten (10) vehicles. The interior of the restaurant will cover a floor space of 1,989 square feet which includes the kitchen and indoor seating area, but does not include the outdoor patio seating. The outdoor patio area is approximately 540 square feet of usable seating area, excluding walking areas to the building entrance. 3 LOCATION MAP F sr Pam 5 HCSPRAC R °�? OAl o� A9 SITE e! ¢ Go qsr,H o O Q a o 0 T z mQ op . COAST MW1; LIDO ° ISLE R ISLAND ISLAND TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY ort Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT A 4 Robert Kahn , John Win) Associates, Inc. SITE PLAN O•rNwwO_ �G oNM rnwerriewru—in I-r L Mci.00 /IYllflr L"!�• 'T •+11M HLMniNi r� LMgx1 TOM _,�./� 11.L nWr WK` • NII YL+i P'WTc - I Y 1� I-/_-r� Z__� • e / 2 3 f 3 C 7 O 7 /n// 4 /3 T/.b0 bgW-/A749-It 9� p -"y - --__— •°dirt"'' __ I�O'I 5.'' .i},i nmY b"v _ fd•O 4'>''f•n �6•U•!•I►'•cr IWe' vn•n a' !a� jl ln' ,. rnlr M Our i Tin T n �n- nfII 0/ //J 111147 IIG rlf '�' ' I-' ��V9 W� A� W4fMW.•W1�/ —?Vy'pJYLLyy 40 cuN GN1iTI.Hw.� LINT nO 9YO1t ry•NALb•YWO6 QY C~W0 OOW-10-i rAGrIG Gu+iT HKM MA'( 946.00 L TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY ort Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT B 5 Robert Kahn, John Kai) & Associates, Inc. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION This section of the report discusses project trip generation and trip distribution. Trip generation rates which are appropriate for the project are identified and the resulting trip generation is determined. The distribution patterns that project trips will then use for routing through the roadway network are identified and depicted graphically. Project Trio Generation The trip generation rates selected for the proposed site use are shown in Table 1. These rates are designated for a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service and are taken from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation rates, October 1993. These rates were selected because they were judged to be representative of the trip making patterns during morning and evening peak hours at this type of fast-food facility, with the P.M. peak hour exceeding the A.M. peak hour. No reduction in trips has been made to reflect the effect of evening period "pass-by trips", which is sometimes assumed for this type of use. By not incorporating this assumption,the traffic analysis may reflect a conservative assessment of intersections impacted by the site use. The rates have been reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer for use in this study. The peak hour trip generation rates shown in Table 1 define the trip generation for the project during one-hour A.M. and P.M. time periods. Peak hour trip generation is used to assess the project's traffic impacts using the Intersection Capacity Utilization " methodology as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However, before the ICU calculations are performed, determination of impact to an intersection is first assessed through a One Percent Test. The One Percent Test reviews traffic flows during a two and one-half hour time period both in the morning and evening peak periods. Project 6 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' PEAK-HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Fast-Food w/Drive-Thru TSF 17.00 11.00 28.00 28.00 700 Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Trip Generation, October 1993. 2 TSF = thousand square feet 7 trip generation during the two and one-half hour time periods is assumed to be equivalent to twice the one-hour trip generation values. Trip generation for the project is shown in Table 2. For the 1,989 square foot floor plan, the project will generate 55 trips in the A.M. peak hour (33 inbound/22 outbound), 112 trips in the P.M. peak hour (56 inbound/56 outbound) and 1,392 trips daily. Project Trip Distribution The trip distribution for the site is shown in Exhibit C. Due to the fact that the Balboa Peninsula access (Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard) is to the west of the site, approximately 60 percent of the trips are oriented to the west and 40 percent are oriented to the east. Twenty-five percent of project trips are oriented to the beach areas of the peninsula, 15 percent of trips are oriented to the northern commercial areas along Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, 10 percent of trips are oriented to the commercial/residential area of Mariners' Mile, 10 percent of trips are oriented to the northern commercial/residential area west of Dover Drive, 10 percent of trips are oriented to the area of Balboa Island, 10 percent of trips are oriented to the area north of Coast Highway along Jamboree Road, and 20 percent of trips are oriented along Coast Highway, 10 percent west of Balboa Boulevard and 10 percent east of Jamboree Road. 8 TABLE 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK-HOUR AM PM LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Fast-Food w/Drive-Thru 1.989 TSF 33 22 56 56 1,392 ' TSF = thousand square feet 9 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION F P O� 10 �OV� g {/OSPIT� O� 10 5 QeS/ 2 0 10 5 10 m°9 w 60 SITE m� c S 15 z 40 f'.roo 10 LIDO 5 ° q ISLE 5 10 BALBOA ISLAND LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY urt Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT C io Robert Kahn, John Kai) & Associates, Inc. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This section of the report discusses the impact of project traffic determined in the previous report section. Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects One of the components of future traffic is committed projects traffic. Committed projects are projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Because these projects are potentially under construction or are in their one-year maturity period, they are either not currently or are only partially generating traffic. As such, their traffic impacts are not reflected in the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City. To account for this traffic component, the City maintains a database which tracks the committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic consultant preparing the report. The projects comprising the committed projects list, along with their degree of occupancy are listed in Table 3. The committed projects traffic volume is tabulated separately on each analysis worksheet. 11 TABLE 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST tNU OJECT PERCENT OF MBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 001 Hughes Aircraft N1 100%Occupancy 002 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 003 Far West Savings and Loan 100%Occupancy 004 Superseded 100% Occupancy 005 Aeronutronic Ford 100% Occupancy 006 Back Bay Office 100% Occupancy 007 Boyle Engineering 100%Occupancy 008 Cal Canadian Bank 100% Occupancy 009 Civic Plaza 096% Occupancy 010 Corporate Plaza 030% Occupancy 011 Kell Center Newport 100% Occupancy 012 Macarthur Court 100% Occupancy 013 Superseded 100%Occupancy 014 Superseded 100%Occupancy 015 Orchard Office 100% Occupancy 016 Pacific Mutual Plaza 100% Occupancy 017 3701 Birch Office 10Q% Occupancy 018 Newport Place 096% Occupancy 019 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 020 Bank of Newport 100%Occupancy 021 Sayside Square 100% Occupancy 022 Sear Island 100% Occupancy 023 Baywood Apartments 100%Occupancy 024 Harbor Point Homes 100% Occupancy 025 Roger's Gardens 100% Occupancy 026 Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100%Occupancy 027 Rudy Baron 100%Occupancy 028 Quail Business Center 100% Occupancy 029 441 Newport Blvd. 100% Occupancy 12 TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 030 Martha's Vineyard 100% Occupancy 031 Valdez 040% Occupancy 032 Coast Business Center 100%Occupancy 033 Kell Center Npt No. 1 TPP 000% Occupancy 034 See Projects 340 to 343 000% Occupancy 035 Ross Mallard 100% Occupancy 036 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 039 Hughes Aircraft X2 100% Occupancy 040 Superseded 100% Occupancy 041 Flagship Hospital 100%Occupancy 042 Big Canyon 10 100%Occupancy 043 Fun Zone 100% Occupanoy 044 Marriott Hotel 100% Occupancy 045 St.Andrews Church 100%Occupancy 046 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 047 Allred Condos 100%Occupancy 048 Morgan Development 100%Occupancy 049 Four Seasons Hotel 100% Occupancy 050 Univ Ath Club TPP 4 Emkay 100% Occupancy 051 Block 400 Medical 100% Occupancy 053 See Projects 530 to 533 000% Occupancy 054 Amend No 1 McAthur Court 100% Occupancy 058 Amendment No 2 Ford Aare 100% Occupancy 057 Carver Granville Office 100% Occupancy 058 Corona Del Mar Homes 100% Occupancy 059 Big Canyon Ville Apts. 100%Occupancy 080 1400 Dove Street 080% Occupancy O61 1100 Quail Street 100% Occupancy 13 TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 062 Superseded 1000/6 Occupancy 063 Koll Center TPP Amend.4A 0000/6 Occupancy 064 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy O65 Rosen's Development 065% Occupancy 066 Block 500 Npt Ctr Proj 100% Occupancy 068 Newport Aquatics Center 100% Occupancy 069 2600 E Coast Hwy 100%Occupancy 070 Jasmine Park 100% Occupancy 071 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 072 Newport Inn Expansion 100%Occupancy 073 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 074 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 075 Fashion Is Renaissance 100%Occupancy 076 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 077 CDM Senior Project 100% Occupancy 078 Point Del Me r 100% Occupancy 079 Pacific Olde 100%Occupancy 080 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 081 Newport Seacrest Apt 100% Occupancy 083 3800 Campus Or(M-Storage) 100%Occupancy 084 Hoag Cancer Center 100% Occupancy 085 Edwards Newport Center 100%Occupancy 086 Seaside Apts(Mesa 11) 100%Occupancy 087 Victoria Station (Office) 100% Occupancy 088 3760 Campus Dr(M•Storage) 100% Occupancy 089 Newport Imports 100% Occupancy 090 Superseded 100% Occupancy 092 Mariners'Mile Marine Ctr 100% Occupancy 093 15th Street Apartments _ 100% Occupancy 14 TABLE 3 ICONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 094 Seaside Apartments III 100% Occupancy 095 Npt Bay Retirement Inn 100% Occupancy 096 Newport Classic Inn 100% Occupancy 097 Mariners Church Expansion 100% Occupancy 098 McLachlan-Newport PI 100% Occupancy 099 1501 Superior Medical 100% Occupancy 100 Fashion Island #2 000% Occupancy 101 Newporter Resort Expand. 000% Occupancy 102 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 103 Newport Lido Mad Center 1000/6 Occupancy 104 Villa Point 100% Occupancy 106 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 106 15th St Apts 100% Occupancy 107 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 108 Andrew Restaurant 100% Occupancy 109 Balboa/Washington 100%Occupancy 110 Newport Imports Rest. 100% Occupancy 111 28th St. Marina Project 050% Occupancy 112 Ambrosia Restaurant 100%Occupancy 113 Celty/Toyota Expansion 100% Occupancy 114 Our Lady Queen of Angels 100% Occupancy 115 Zonta Club Residential 100% Occupancy 116 Sunsetted 100%Occupancy 117 Ville Point II 100% Occupancy 118 Taco Ball (Fast Food) 100% Occupancy 119 Sunsetted 100% Occupancy 120 Pacific Bell Site 000%Occupancy 121 Newport Village 000%Occupancy 122 Castaways Marina 000% Occupancy 15 TABLE 3 (CONT'D) COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 123 Kell Center Carl's Jr. 052%Occupancy 124 Civic Plaza 000% Occupancy 125 Corporate Plaza&West 000% Occupancy 127 Burgess Commercial Center 100% Occupancy 128 Harbor Pacific Plaza 000% Occupancy 129 Hoag Hospital Extension 000% Occupancy 130 Corporate Plaza West II 000%Occupancy 134 Interpretive Center 000%Occupancy 135 Pacific Mutual 1601 Avoca 000% Occupancy 136 Newport Diagnostic #85 000% Occupancy 137 Alamo Car Rental 000% Occupancy 139 Pao Tel Mini Storage 000% Occupancy 140 Four Seasons Addition 0000/6 Occupancy 141 Family Fitness Center 000% Occupancy 340 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aare 100% Occupancy 341 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aare 000% Occupancy 342 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aare 000% Occupancy 343 Amendment No. 1 Ford Acre 000% Occupancy 530 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy S31 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy 532 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100% Occupancy 533 Amendment No. 1 North Ford 100%Occupancy 655 CIOSA-Irvine Project 000% Occupancy 910 Newport Dunes 000% Occupancy 920 Beyview 000%Occupancy 930 City of Irvine Day. 000% Occupancy 16 Regional Traffic Growth Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic component represents traffic which essentially passes through the city on roadways within the City of Newport Beach. This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project approvals by the City of Newport Beach. The amount of annual growth is identified by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. The regional growth amounts are shown in Table 4. Study Intersections Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on the impacts to intersections during peak periods, the study intersections define the specific analysis locations within the city circulation system. The six intersections which are analyzed for this report are shown on Exhibit D. These intersections have been designated by the City Traffic Engineer and are: 1. Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road 2. Newport Boulevard and Via Lido 3. Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway 4. Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway 5. Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive and Coast Highway 6. Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 17 TABLE 4 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES' PERCENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANNUAL GROWTH COAST HIGHWAY East city limit to MacArthur Boulevard 2 MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 2 Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 2 Newport Boulevard to west city limit 4 IRVINE AVENUE All 2 JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 3 San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison 2 Bison to Bristol t Bristol to Campus 1 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 6 San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit 3 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Coast Highway to north city limit 1 ' Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. 18 STUDY INTERSECTIONS -7 hJe�QH �STpG Sp2� R p� 4r O� P A9 gyp, p0 SITE 2 COAST HWy LIDO pP ISLE BALBOA ISLAND LEGEND: • = STUDY INTERSECTIONS TACO BELL TRAFFIC STUDY Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT D 19 Robert Kahn, John Rain & Associates, Inc. Determination of Impacted Intersections The first assessment of the project's traffic is made to determine if the project significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection leg approach volumes at study intersections during the A.M. and P.M. two and one- half hour peak traffic periods. This assessment is referred to as the "One Percent Test". During these peak periods, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared to the total non-project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than one percent of the non-project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time period is concluded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one percent threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be impacted by the project, and a peak hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine the level of capacity utilization at the intersection. The results of the One Percent Test are shown in Table 5. Analysis worksheets for each intersection are included in Appendix A. The results of the analysis indicate that project volumes will exceed the one percent threshold at one intersection for both A.M. and P.M peak periods. This intersection is Tustin Avenue/Coast Highway. All other five intersections will not require further analysis during peak hours. 20 TABLE 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROJECT VOLUME GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT OF 2.5 HOUR PROJECTED VOLUME INTERSECTION AM PM Newport Blvd./Hospital Road No No Newport Blvd./Via Lido No No Riverside Ave./Coast Hwy. No No Tustin Ave./Coast Hwy. Yes Yes Dover Dr./Coast Hwy. No No Bayside Dr./Coast Hwy. No No 21 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the peak hour intersection analysis for the one intersection which exceeded the one percent threshold. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology is utilized for this analysis as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is expressed as a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio in decimal percent for each approach lane group. Critical lane groups, whose movements conflict with each other (i.e., must move independently under the control of a unique signal phase) and have the highest V/C ratios, are then identified. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turn lanes and do not include a factor for yellow clearance time. ICU calculations are presented rounded to two decimal places. To operate an acceptable level of service, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution of project traffic. In situations where the ICU will exceed 0.90, the project must propose an improvement which will restore an acceptable level of service. The results of the ICU calculations for the intersection of Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway are presented in Table 6. The ICU worksheets are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 6, the ICU for both A.M. and P.M. peak hours (A.M. = 0.87 and P.M. = 0.73) in the analysis year with project traffic will not exceed 0.90. Consequently, no further ICU analysis is required for this project. 22 TABLE 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' ICU' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- WITHOUT WITH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND PROJECT PROJECT INTERSECTION L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM Tustin Ave.INS)at: Coast Highway(EW) 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0.87 0.72 0.87 0.73 ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left;T = Through; R = Right P Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 1995 with regional growth and committed projects traffic. 23 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE ISSUES This section of the report presents a discussion of issues related to vehicle movement at the site including site access, on-site circulation and parking. For this proposed site use, the discussion of on-site circulation includes the operation of the drive-thru service lane. Parking issues are discussed relative to the City's planning code and comparable site uses in the coastal area. Site Access As shown on the site plan (Exhibit B), the project will be located on a relatively narrow, rectangular parcel of land which backs up directly to a cliff formation on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. Access to the site is taken directly from Pacific Coast Highway via two 30-foot wide driveways at each end of the parking area. The west driveway is at the extreme end of parcel, flush with the west property line; the east driveway is in approximately the middle of the site directly opposite the trash storage/pickup compartment and at the west end of the restaurant structure. The two driveways provide redundant access to the site: vehicles bound for the drive- thru service queue may enter the east driveway, circle the restaurant building and, except for the handicapped parking located directly in front of the building, exit the site without traversing the parking area; vehicles bound for the on-site parking may enter and exit either driveway generally without interfering with the drive-thru traffic. The median area of Pacific Coast Highway is currently configured with a striped median which allows left-turn traffic to exit the through traffic stream before executing a turn. Traffic entering the site from the west at both driveways may use the striped median as a refuge and queuing area. Traffic exiting the site to the east 24 may also use the median area to ease the entry into the eastbound traffic flow on Coast Highway. On-site Circulation Vehicle circulation within the site is related to three primary activities: site access, customer parking quantity and maneuvers, and operations related to the drive-thru service lane. As discussed in the previous section, site access is quite good. To provide data to make a quantitative assessment of the other two activities, site surveys were conducted at three existing Taco Bell sites in the Orange County coastal area. The sites selected are located in Huntington Beach (Bolsa Chica Street at Heil Avenue), Dana Point (Coast Highway at Del Prado Avenue), and Costa Mesa (17th Street at Newport Boulevard). Data was collected during three time periods at each site: weekday noon period (11:30 A.M to 1:00 P.M.), weekday evening period (5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) and weekend noon period (11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.). Observations were made at five- minute time intervals during each sample period. Information was collected on drive- thru service queue operations and parking demand. Four parameters were measured for the drive-thru queue: number of vehicles at or behind the menu/order board, number of vehicles behind the pickup window, queue free-flow conditions (did vehicles waiting in the pickup window queue prevent vehicles from leaving the menu/order board so that another vehicle could not order), and service time (the time between leaving the menu/order board and receiving food at the pickup window for a randomly selected vehicle). The data collection sheets for each facility are included in Appendix C. A summary of each site is provided in Tables 7, 8 and 9. 25 TABLE 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE SURVEY SUMMARY LOCATION: BOLSA CHICA ST. & HEIL AVE. SATURDAY WEEKDAY WEEKDAY NOON NOON EVENING ORDER BOARD (# of Vehicles) Average 2.7 2.5 1.4 Maximum 5.0 4.0 4.0 85th Percentile 4.0 4.0 2.3 PICKUP WINDOW (# of Vehicles) Average 1.9 2.4 2.4 Maximum 4.0 3.0 4.0 85th Percentile 3.0 3.0 4.0 PARKIN (# of Vehicles) Available 37.0 37.0 37.0 Average 15.5 18.2 12.2 Maximum 23.0 26.0 16.0 85th Percentile 19.0 23.0 15.0 QUEUE FREE FLOW Average yes yes yes Maximum yes no no SERVICE TIME (sec.) Average 126.4 104.8 165.3 Maximum 214.0 185.0 272.0 85th Percentile 177.0 132.0 185.0 26 TABLE 8 DANA POINT SITE SURVEY SUMMARY LOCATION: DEL PRADO AVE. & COAST HIGHWAY SATURDAY WEEKDAY WEEKDAY NOON NOON EVENING ORDER BOARD (#of Vehicles) Average 1.0 2.0 1.6 Maximum 3.0 5.0 8.0 85th Percentile 2.0 3.3 3.0 PICKUP WINDOW (# of Vehicles) Average 1.5 1.9 1.8 Maximum 4.0 4.0 4.0 85th Percentile 3.0 3.3 3.0 PARKIN (# of Vehicles) Available 29.0 29.0 29.0 Average 14.7 13.9 8.6 Maximum 21.0 19.0 14.0 85th Percentile 19.0 17.0 12.0 QUEUE FREE FLOW Average yes yes yes Maximum no no no SERVICE TIME Isec.) Average 161.1 120.2 183.1 Maximum 293.0 210.0 300.0 85th Percentile 197.0 175.0 246.0 27 TABLE 9 COSTA MESA SITE SURVEY SUMMARY LOCATION: 17TH ST. & NEWPORT BLVD. SATURDAY WEEKDAY WEEKDAY FL NOON NOON EVENING ORDER BOARD (# of Vehicles) Average 3.3 5.3 2.4 Maximum 7.0 9.0 6.0 85th Percentile 5.3 8.0 4.3 PICKUP WINDOW (# of Vehicles) Average 4.4 3.6 2.5 Maximum 6.0 7.0 5.0 85th Percentile 6.0 5.0 4.0 PARKING (# of Vehicles) Available 57.0 57.0 57.0 Average 24.5 31.4 21.3 Maximum 33.0 49.0 30.0 85th Percentile 28.0 43.0 25.0 QUEUE FREE FLOW Average yes yes yes Maximum no yes no SERVICE TIME (sec.l Average 252.4 211.1 235.2 Maximum 347.0 456.0 408.0 85th Percentile 302.0 266.0 341.0 28 The results of the site surveys indicate that there is a significant variation of observed parameters which appears to be related to facility size (building area), and proximity to other commercial areas, especially offices. The largest facility, (2,796 square feet) located in Costa Mesa, exhibited the highest demand for drive-thru service and parking and is located in the most active commercial area. The medium sized facility, (2,528 square feet) located in Huntington Beach, exhibited less demand for both drive-thru service and parking and is in a less commercial area. The smallest facility, (2,240 square feet) located in Dana Point exhibited the least demand for both drive-thru service and parking. All three of the survey sites are larger than the proposed project in Newport Beach (1,989 square feet of indoor floor area). Demand at the Newport Beach site may also be influenced by the relatively close site in Costa Mesa, limiting the market area of the proposed facility to the beach area and "pass-by" traffic on Coast Highway. The facility in Dana Point may be most representative of operations at the proposed site. Using the site survey information, it would appear that the key parameters for the drive-thru lane (order queue length) and parking demand at the Newport Beach site would be a maximum of 7 to 8 vehicles in the order queue and approximately 35 parking spaces. The site plan for Newport Beach proposes an order queue storage of 7 vehicles and 38 parking spaces which should satisfy the projected demand. Because of the access and circulation design at the proposed site, an infrequent higher order queue demand could be satisfied without backing vehicles onto Coast Highway or impeding site access. The striped median on Coast Highway could also mitigate momentary peak demand for the order queue if it occurred. In addition, the two proposed driveways to the site would further potential queuing conflicts. At the project site, vehicles enter the driveway to the menu/order board and pickup window directly to the right of the east driveway and circulates counter-clockwise 29 around the building. The driveways are well located relative to the parking stalls such that there are no dead-end parking areas. With the previous observations on access, and order queue and parking demand, on-site circulation for the site would appear to be adequate as proposed, and is probably as good as can be achieved at this site. Parking Requirements Parking demand at the proposed facility has been evaluated using the site survey data collected at the three similar Taco Bell locations. As discussed in the previous section, parking demand and drive-thru queue storage have been surveyed independently. Results of the site surveys indicate a significant variation in parking demand based on restaurant size and surrounding commercial activity. The maximum parking demand of 49 vehicles occurred at the Costa Mesa location on a weekday at noontime. The demand at this location reflected the larger indoor square footage of the facility (2,796 square feet) relative to the other sites. The other locations produced maximum demands of 26 vehicles (Huntington Beach, 2,528 square feet) and 21 vehicles (Dana Point, 2,240 square feet), both at noontimes but on different days. Based on the gross building area of the proposed project (1,989 square feet), the peak demand is estimated not to exceed 35 spaces. On this basis, the 38 spaces (including 2 handicapped spaces) proposed at the project site would appear to be adequate to meet peak demands. 30 SUMMARY The proposed Taco Bell site in Newport Beach is a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru service. The project would be located on Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive. The 1,989 square foot building floor plan will generate 55 A.M. peak hour trips, 112 P.M. peak hour trips and 1,392 daily trips. During the two and one-half hour peak A.M. and P.M. periods, one of the six study area intersections is impacted by project traffic with a project impact of greater than one percent. This intersection, Tustin Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, will operate with an acceptable level of service (Intersection Capacity Utilization of below 0.90) for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Site access, on-site circulation and parking are adequate for the site as proposed. Site surveys at three Taco Bell Orange County coastal facilities indicate that a maximum order queue length of 7 to 8 vehicles and parking for vehicles should satisfy demands at the site for the proposed project. 31 APPENDIX.A ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 14EWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 93)AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound 4019 81 105 4205 4 Southbound 2844 57 372 3273 33 Eastbound 1157 0 { 50 1207 I 12 I Nestbound 766 0 20 786 8 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 9 PM Peak 23S Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1": of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2+k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3908 79 211 4198 42 ! 11 South bound 4496 90 215 4801 48 8j 11 Eastbound 1696 0 144 1840 j 18 0 Westbound 863 0 0 863 9 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22-. Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _)AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2k Nour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3023 0 19 3042 30 10 Mound 2745 0 9 2754 28 j 7 Eastbound 16 0 0 1 6 0 0 Westbound 1061 0 0 1061 11 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected M Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 92)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2983 0 21 3004 30 17 Southbound 4524 0 27 4551 46 j 17 Eastbound 41 0 0 41 0 0 Westbound 1181 0 0 1181 12 0 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19 93 ) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved i Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project j Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume �i Northbound 0 0 12 12 0 0 Southbound 794 0 41 835 8 j 3 �) Eastbound 4873 197 729 5799 i 58 i 34 Westbound 130 541 3883 39 i 23 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 rouE thbo und 13070 16 1323 136 astbound 4969 201 662 5832 1 58 56 i Westbound 224 806 6585 66 62 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92 )AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour ]' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 4 0 0 4 0 i South bound 124 0 24 148 1 j 3 Eastbound 4533 277 820 5630 56 37 Westbound 198 535 3960 40 25 3227 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92 )PM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 21� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6 0 0 6 0 Southbound 301 0 8 309 3 j 6 Eastbound 4108 251 655 5014 50 i 62 Westbound 5106 313 812 1 6231 62 68 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. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Vol—um—e—s-Fa—sed on Average inter pring 19 93)AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 297 0 4 301 3 0 [WEustbound thbound 2280 0 260 2540 25 7 4164 168 852estbound 4392 177 588 5157 52 20 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 93 )PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1*,.; of Projected Project Direction Peak 231 Hour Growth Peak 21g Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h.Hcur Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 277 0 10 287 3 0 Southbound 2910 0 169 3079 31 11 Eastbound 4230 171 681 5082 51 i 45 Westbound 6757 273 991 8021 80 34 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 1992 AM Peak 2h. Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 965 0 26 991 10 3 Southbound 208 0 153 361 4 0 Eastbound 5900 361 638 6899 69 13 ( Westbound 3856 236 331 4423 44 17 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected E] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 92 )PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1374 0 2 1376 14 6 south bound 179 0 249 428 • 4 • 0 Eastbound 6446 395 480 7321 73 i 34 l Westbound 6338 388 591 7317 73 28 ® 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 El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16/94 PROJECT: Taco Bell CH263SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluae I V/C I I Icapacitylcapacityl Voluae I Ratio I volune I Volune Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I -----------------------------------I I NL ) I 1 01 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I--------- ------------------ ----I 1 NT ) 1600 1 1 0 ) 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 I 010.001 -----------------------------------I NR ) I 1 0 ) 1 01 0 1 1 01 1 -------�-------i--------'----------------------------------------------------------------I 47 ) 1 01 81 1 21 1 I--------- ................... -------------------- ------I I ST ) 1600 1 1 01. 0.04 * 0 1 0 1 0.05*1 01 0 .051* ------------------ -----------------------------------------------I 1 SR ) 1 1 13 ) 1 0 1 41 1 01 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 37 1 0.02 1 2 1 1 1 0.03 1 01 1 __________________________________________________________________________________________I ET 1 1 2076 1 127 1 410 1 0.82 1 1810.821* --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.65 *----------------------------------------------I ER I 1 0 i 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I WL I I I II 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ---I i WT 1 48001 1 13281 0.281 81 1 264 1 0.35 1 1210.351 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WR 1 16001 1 401 0.031 21 21 0.03 1 110.031 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 (EXISTING 1 0.69 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.87 I---------------II (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH-+ PROJECT I.C.U. - - 1 0.871 -----------------------•_________________-__--------------__--------------------------------- i� Projected + project traffic 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 than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: Taco Bell 5/16/94 PROJECT FORM 11 CH263SAN CH2635PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 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 (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL I 1 11 1 0I 0 1 1 01 1 I--------) ------------------) .......----------------------------------------I I NT 16001 1 1 0.001 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 010.00, I--------) ------------------> -----------------------------------------------I I NR I I 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I...........................................................................................I I SL 1 1 85 1 0 1 4 1 1 31 1 1--------) ------------------) -----------------------------------------------I I sT 1600 1 1 1 0.08 - 0 1 0 1 0.08*1 01 0.0d* I--------) ------------------) ...............--------------------------------I I SR 1 1 36 1 0 1 0 1 1 01 1 I...........................................................................................I I EL 1 16001 1 621 0.041 41 21 0.04 1 010.041 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ET 1 1 1621 1 99 1 323 1 0.64*1 311 0.651* 1--------1 3200 ------------------) 0.51 *-----------...............--------------------I I ER 1 1 6 I 01 01 1 01 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL I 1 1 31 1 01 01 1 01 1 I...........................................................................................I I WT 1 48001 1 21851 0.461 1341 4011 0 .57 1 311 0.0 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I WR 1 1600 1 1 73 1 0.05 1 4 1 4 1 0.05 1 31 0.051 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTiNG 1 0.59 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.72 1 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.731 ............................................................................................. I J Projected + project traffic will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_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 equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be 4ess than I.C.U. without project ------------------------------------------------------------- ....... Description of system improvement: Taco Bell 5/16/94 PROJECT CH2635PM APPENDIX C TACO BELL SITE SURVEY DATA SHEETS TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/30/94 Street: Bolsa Chica St. City: Huntington Beach Cross Street: Heil Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,528 / 80 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 37 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 3 2 14 Yes 150 11:35 AM 3 1 13 Yes 120 11:40 AM 1 1 12 Yes 137 11:45 AM 0 1 12 Yes N/A 11:50 AM 2 2 12 Yes 91 11:55 AM 2 2 13 Yes 105 12:00 PM 4 2 14 Yes 144 12:05 PM 4 2 15 Yes 125 12:10 PM 2 3 12 Yes 160 12:15 PM 4 2 15 Yes 214 12:20 PM 3 1 13 Yes 123 12:25 PM 5 2 14 Yes 198 12:30 PM 4 2 18 Yes 120 12:35 PM 1 3 23 Yes 55 12:40 PM 5 2 19 Yes 204 12:45 PM 1 4 18 Yes 98 12:50 PM 4 1 17 Yes 83 12:55 PM 2 3 21 Yes 93 1:00 PM 1 0 19 Yes 55 Average 2.7 1.9 1 15.5 L 126.4 Maximum 5 4 23 214 85th Percentile 4 3 19 177 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Bolsa Chica St. City: Huntington Beach Cross Street: Heil Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,528 / 80 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 37 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 3 3 14 Yes 185 11:35 AM 2 3 15 Yes 160 11:40 AM 4 2 16 Yes 62 11:45 AM 1 2 14 Yes 59 11:50 AM 4 2 15 Yes 115 11:55 AM 1 2 12 Yes 85 12:00 PM 4 2 14 Yes 85 12:05 PM 3 2 15 Yes 79 12:10 PM 4 3 18 Yes 135 12:15 PM 0 3 18 Yes N/A 12:20 PM 1 3 21 Yes 125 12:25 PM 3 2 20 Yes 90 12:30 PM 4 3 24 Yes 129 12:35 PM 3 2 24 No 102 12:40 PM 2 3 26 No 95 12:45 PM 2 3 23 Yes 97 12:50 PM 2 1 20 Yes 126 12:55 PM 2 2 18 Yes 90 1:00 PM 2 3 19 Yes 68 Average 2.5 2.4 18.2 104.8 Maximum 4 3 26 185 85th Percentile 4 3 23 132 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Bolsa Chica St. City: Huntington Beach Cross Street: Heil Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,528 / 80 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 37 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 5:00 PM 0 0 9 Yes N/A 5:05 PM 1 1 9 Yes 91 5:10 PM 1 3 9 Yes 168 5:15 PM 2 4 9 No 119 5:20'PM 1 3 11 Yes 114 5:25 PM 1 0 12 Yes 179 5:30 PM 1 2 10 Yes 177 5:35 PM 3 3 15 Yes 183 5:40 PM 1 2 13 Yes 134 5:45 PM 2 4 16 No 166 5:50 PM 4 2 16 Yes 272 5:55 PM 1 3 13 Yes 168 6:00 PM 0 1 11 Yes N/A 6:05 PM 2 4 11 No 186 6:10 PM 3 4 12 No 161 6:15 PM 1 3 14 Yes 130 6:20 PM 1 0 13 Yes 136 6:25 PM 0 3 12 Yes N/A 6:30 PM 1 3 16 Yes 260 Average 1.4 2.4 12.2 165.3 Maximum 4 4 16 272 85th Percentile 2.3 4 15 185 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/30/94 Street: 17th St. City: Costa Mesa Cross Street: Newport Blvd. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,796 / 80 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 52 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 1 6 20 Yes 222 11:35 AM 1 3 26 Yes 180 11:40 AM 1 2 20 Yes 99 11:45 AM 3 3 16 Yes 232 11:50 AM 4 5 16 Yes 293 11:55 AM 1 6 20 No 274 12:00 PM 3 3 27 Yes 229 12:05 PM 2 4 26 Yes 296 12:10 PM 1 5 27 Yes 315 12:15 PM 3 6 26 No 291 12:20 PM 5 4 29 Yes 215 12:25 PM 3 4 28 Yes 283 12:30 PM 2 4 26 Yes 248 12:35 PM 1 6 2 23 Yes 187 12:40 PM 6 4 25 Yes 209 12:45 PM 4 5 24 Yes 263 12:50 PM 5 6 22 No 347 12:55 PM 7 6 31 No 330 1:00 PM 4 6 33 No 283 Average 3.3 4.4 24.5 252.4 Maximum 7 6 33 347 85th Percentile 5.3 6 28 302 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. I TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/28/94 Street: 17th St. City: Costa Mesa Cross Street: Newport Blvd. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,796 / 80 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 52 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 2 4 14 Yes 165 11:35 AM 0 1 14 Yes N/A 11:40 AM 2 3 16 Yes 120 11:45 AM 8 1 18 Yes 173 11:50 AM 6 4 18 Yes 183 11:55 AM 6 3 22 Yes 363 12:00 PM 8 4 29 Yes 250 12:05 PM 6 4 43 Yes 232 12:10 PM 4 4 44 Yes 208 12:15 PM 7 3 41 Yes 108 12:20 PM 5 3 44 Yes 142 12:25 PM 8 4 40 Yes 130 12:30 PM 8 1 49 Yes 156 12:35 PM 8 5 42 Yes 240 12:40 PM 9 3 38 Yes 234 12:45 PM 6 4 28 Yes 137 12:50 PM 4 5 31 Yes 217 12:55 PM 3 5 35 Yes 285 1:00 PM 1 7 31 Yes 456 Average 5.3 3.6 31.4 211.1 Maximum 9 7 49 456 85th Percentile 8 5 43 266 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. a TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4128/94 Street: 17th St. City: Costa Mesa Cross Street: Newport Blvd. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,796 / 80 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 52 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 5:00 PM 0 0 12 Yes N/A 5:05 PM 2 2 13 Yes 320 5:10 PM 1 3 18 Yes 324 5:15 PM 3 5 19 Yes 291 5:20 PM 3 4 21 No 389 5:25 PM 2 4 22 Yes 219 5:30 PM 0 3 21 Yes N/A 5:35 PM 0 2 19 Yes N/A 5:40 PM 2 3 23 Yes 137 5:45 PM 0 0 26 Yes N/A 5:50 PM 3 2 23 Yes 86 5:55 PM 5 1 24 Yes 120 6:00 PM 4 4 26 Yes 190 6:05 PM 4 2 23 Yes 151 6:10 PM 5 2 30 Yes 222 6:15 PM 3 2 22 Yes 130 6:20 PM 6 0 22 Yes 198 6:25 PM 2 4 20 Yes 343 6:30 PM 1 5 20 Yes 408 Average 2.4 2.5 21.3 235.2 Maximum 6 5 30 408 85th Percentile 4.3 4 25 341 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/30/94 Street: Coast Hwy. City: Dana Point Cross Street: Del Prado Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,240 /60 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 29 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 0 1 11 Yes 154 11:35 AM 0 2 11 Yes 121 11:40 AM 1 0 12 Yes 134 11:45 AM 1 1 13 Yes 157 11:50 AM 0 1 12 Yes 135 11:55 AM 0 3 13 Yes 146 12:00 PM 0 0 11 Yes 215 12:05 PM 0 2 12 Yes 189 12:10 PM 1 1 13 Yes 150 12:15 PM 1 2 15 Yes 137 12:20 PM 2 0 21 Yes 127 12:25 PM 0 0 16 Yes N/A 12:30 PM 1 3 20 Yes 130 12:35 PM 3 4 21 No 153 12:40 PM 2 3 18 Yes 293 12:45 PM 2 4 19 No 167 12:50 PM 2 1 15 Yes 122 12:55 PM 0 0 12 Yes 164 1:00 PM 3 1 14 Yes 206 Average 1.0 1.5 14.7 161.1 Maximum 3 4 21 293 85th Percentile 2 3 19 197 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Coast Hwy. City: Dana Point Cross Street: Del Prado Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,240 / 60 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 29 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 11:30 AM 1 1 8 Yes 120 11:35 AM 0 0 9 Yes N/A 11:40 AM 2 1 9 Yes 120 11:45 AM 2 0 11 Yes 60 11:50 AM 5 0 8 Yes 60 11:55 AM 4 3 8 Yes 55 12:00 PM 3 2 19 No 82 12:05 PM 3 3 17 Yes 115 12:10 PM 0 4 16 Yes 72 12:15 PM 3 2 15 Yes 100 12:20 PM 0 3 16 Yes 107 12:25 PM 2 1 14 Yes 104 12:30 PM 1 4 18 Yes 210 12:35 PM 2 4 18 No 180 12:40 PM 2 2 17 Yes 130 12:45 PM 2 2 17 Yes 170 12:50 PM 0 1 15 Yes 116 12:55 PM 2 2 14 Yes 193 1:00 PM 4 2 16 Yes 170 Average 2.0 1.9 13.9 120.2 Maximum 5 4 19 210 85th Percentile 3.3 3.3 17 175 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. 4 t I TACO BELL SITE SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/27/94 Street: Coast Hwy. City: Dana Point Cross Street: Del Prado Ave. Bldg. sq. ft./Seats: 2,240 / 60 Job Number: 559-94-001 NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPACES = 29 QUEUE SERVICE AT OR BEHIND AT OR BEHIND FREE-FLOW TIME TIME ORDER BOARD PICKUP WINDOW PARKED CONDITIONS (SEC.) 5:00 PM 1 2 8 Yes 152 5:05 PM 1 2 9 Yes 205 5:10 PM 1 3 11 No 247 5:15 PM 3 3 12 No N/A 5:20 PM 0 3 12 Yes 122 5:25 PM 2 3 9 Yes 183 5:30 PM 0 2 8 Yes 171 5:35 PM 0 0 4 Yes 92 5:40 PM 1 1 5 Yes 159 5:45 PM 0 1 5 Yes 150 5:50 PM 1 0 6 Yes 144 5:55 PM 0 0 7 Yes 145 6:00 PM 1 1 6 Yes 249 6:05 PM 1 1 6 Yes 197 6:10 PM 1 2 7 Yes 197 6:15 PM 1 2 10 Yes 154 6:20 PM 8 2 13 Yes 254 6:25 PM 3 3 12 No 300 6:30 PM 5 4 14 No N/A Average 1.6 1.8 8.6 183.1 Maximum 8 4 14 j 300 85th Percentile 3 1 246 NOTES: 1. Queue free-flow condition occurs when vehicles waiting in pickup queue do not block a vehicle from leaving order board. 2. Service time is elapsed time in seconds for one vehicle between leaving order board and leaving pickup window. kf:6rW1:Q BY PLANF411YG DEPARTMENT CITY OF IIdEWPOE'RTGiEP9CK-B COUNTY CLERK' U NTY O F AM MAR - 7 1nhC • TELEPHONE:714I9042246 Y 1 Y�lf�iifS JJJ PM 2 1O COUNTY COUFkTHOUSE W SAN A ANA BLVD. 71819110111112111213141516 P.O.BOX 22013 5 3 RAN G E SANTA ANA•CA 92702.2013 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK 6; � I Memorandum TO: ` 61 " ""TE: —� —/ 5 Wo SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports Amendment of ,Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" . The attached Noticereceived, filed, and a copy was posted on It remained posted for 30 (thirty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk of the State of California 'n and f r t e'.County f Orange. By: �} Deputy Public Resource Code 21092 . 3 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080 .4 and 21092 for an evironmental 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 by law to be posted for 30 days The' County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resourse Code 21152 (c) All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt 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 lead agency. shall retain the notice for not less than nine months . Addition or changes by underline: deletions by 0 � G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED A '51995 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 JAN 5 95 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 GI�tYL,G GARYL.oR r - ocorder By NOTICE OF DETERMINATIONey DEPUTY To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) XX Public Services Division 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 211 o the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Taco Bell Restaurant, Traffic Study No. 99, Use Permit No.3517 State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone Na.: John H. Douglas 714 / 644-3225 Project Location: 1400 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California Project Description: Construction of a restaurant facility with 68 indoor seats, outdoor seating and a drive-thru service window. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 12-12-94 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. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures RR were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was U was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings❑ 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 -5-1995 Environmental Coordinator Signatnr J hn 6. Douglas, AICP Date Title CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FILED � 5 CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION GAR ,1995 BY Clerk•Recorder De Minimis Impact Finding DEPUTY A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: Fanche Development v tee Service 1342 Bell L `44 95 Tustin, CA 92680 B. Project Description. Construction of a restaurant facility with 68 indoor seating, outdoor seating area and a arive-thru service window. C. Project Location: 1400 W. Coast Highway, Hewport Beach, California D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projeces 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 7535(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 7112 of the Fish and Game Code. January 5,199b Date Jo . D las, AICP En ' onmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach F.\wP51\PUle,MiGVOHN.D\FORMs\DFG.EXFM. OR � CIFAf OF NEWPORT AACH n P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 u z C'9C/FO{iN`P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3225 January 6, 1995 Taco Bell Mr. Scott Duffner 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-K Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Taco Bell Restaurant at 1400 West Coast Highway,Newport Beach,California Dear Mr.Duffner: Enclosed please find Check No. 2343, a copy of the Notice of Determination and a receipt in the amount of$25.00 for filing fee paid to the County of orange. Due to the changes of site plan the project was delayed and Check No. 2343, issued on 5/11/1994 payable to the County of Orange, has lost its validity. The County of Orange has a policy that would not accept any checks passed thirty days of the issuance date. Therefore, the City, in good faith, has paid the required NOD filing fee on Taw Bell's behalf. Please reimburse the City by sending a check, payable to the City of Newport Beach, in the amount of$25.00. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWIC/KER,Director By. h �--- Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner F:\WP5 B...\Aziz-a\Traffic\TS99\letter2 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I - - EW PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n V P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 e. CACI FO VL PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 April 26, 1994 Mr. Scott Duffner 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-K Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Taco Bell Restaurant Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study, 1400 West Coast Hwy, Newport Beach (TPO # 99) Dear Mr. Duffner: Enclosed please find the Environmental Information Form and a copy of a proposal submitted by Robert Kahn,John Kain & Associates regarding Traffic Engineering Services required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant at 1400 West Coast Highway in Newport Beach. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time, and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City. After discussion with the Traffic Consultant, item 12, page 2, was deemed to be unnecessary and may not be requited. As a result, the original traffic consultant's fee of $6,500 is considered appropriate. A copy of the contract acceptance is enclosed for your file. Due to the sensitivity of the proposed project's location and the use impacts, a Negative Declaration will be required per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following fees are required to process the proposed project traffic study and CEQA requirements. Consultant Fees $ 6,500 City Fees (10%) $ 650 Initial Study $ 278 County of Orange $ 54 Total : $ 7,478 The City has received Check No. 007154 in the amount of $6,500 payable to the City of Newport Beach. The unpaid balance of the required fees, is $978.00 (7,478 - 6,500 = 978). 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. Scott Duffner April 26, 1994 Page 2 Please submit the remaining balance of$978 to the Planning Department as follows: one check payable to the City of Newport Beach in the amount of$928 and two separate checks, each in the amount of $25.00, payable to the County of Orange Clerk. The Environmental Information Form must be completed as instructed and your prompt response would expedite the process. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By�, Aziz M. ' siaml Associate Planner F:\WP51\...\Aziza\Traffic\Ts99\cost Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering RECEIVED BY April 12, 1994 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 131994 PM Mr. John Douglas 7i8i90001441A8f A6 Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Q 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Taco Bell (1400 Pacific Coast Highway) Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Douglas: INTRODUCTION The firm of ROBERT KAHN, JOHN HAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit this proposed Agreement to provide a traffic impact study for the proposed Taco Bell located at 1400 Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development would be located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway directly adjacent to the existing Balboa Bay Club. The project would include 1989 square feet of building with 68 indoor seats and approximately 16 outdoor seats. Based upon our discussion with Rich Edmonston (City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineer) , a traffic impact study following the City's required traffic phasing ordinance would be required in addition to a field analysis of queuing requirements for Taco Bell facilities located in coastal communities. SCOPE OF WORK The following Scope of Work is proposed by ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for this study effort: 1. Meet with the City to finalize scope of work and to obtain existing traffic counts, cumulative projects and study methodologies. 2. Based upon the Cityfs traffic phasing ordinance and City approved trip generation rates, calculate the project's peak hour and daily trip generation. Existing peak hour traffic counts will be obtained from the City documents. 3 . Determine the project's trip distribution and traffic assignment to the adjoining roadway system. 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX(714) 474-0902 • Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1994 Page 2 4. Conduct one percent analysis for up to six (6) study area intersections as designated by the City. S. Determine traffic volumes and levels of service at up to six (6) study area intersections for cumulative conditions with the project. 6. Identify any required traffic mitigation measures at study area intersections. 7. Review stacking requirements and circulation adequacy for similar Taco Bell facilities located in coastal communities. We would propose to review the queuing and internal circulation at the following three (3) sites: • 17th Street at Newport Boulevard • Dana Point on Pacific Coast Highway • Huntington Beach on Bolsa Chica Street Queuing and circulation impacts would be reviewed as follows: • Weekday 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM • Weekday 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM • Weekend 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM 8. Based upon the field study, identify potential queuing requirements for the proposed Taco Bell. 9. On-site circulation and parking recommendations will be made including site access and internal circulation. 10. Summarize the results of the study in traffic impact report. 11. Attend additional coordination meetings with the City and project proponent. PROFESSIONAL FEES The fee for the work outlined in this proposal is based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in the attached Exhibit A. The fixed fee to accomplish the above Scope of Work Tasks 1 - 10 is $6,500. 00. The cost for Task 11 will be on a time and materials basis based upon Exhibit A. Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1994 Page 3 Three copies (two bound and one original for the client's use) of the project report would be prepared. Monthly billings from ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. will be based upon the attached Exhibit A - BILLING RATES FOR ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. . The proposed fee does not include attendance at public hearings/meetings, which may be required to secure approval of the project. If these are required and requested, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. would be happy to attend these meetings and billing would be based upon the billing rates included in Exhibit A. The Client agrees to limit the Design Professional's liability to the Client and to all construction Contractors and Subcontractors on the project, due to the Design Professional's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of the Design Professional to all those named shall not exceed $50,000 or the Design Professional's total fee for services rendered on this project, whichever is greater. In the event that a lawsuit is brought for the enforcement of any of the terms of this agreement, the prevailing party should be entitled to attorney fees and costs in addition to any damages. TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the Taco Bell Traffic Impact Study will take approximately 15 working days to complete from the date of authorization, and date of receipt of data essential for the study. Additionally, any delays resulting from circumstances beyond our control, such as weather, shall extend the time schedule. QUALIFICATIONS ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is located in Newport Beach, California and specializes in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering for governmental agencies and the business community. The firm principals and associates have over 100 years of combined engineering and planning experience throughout Southern California at the regional, local and individual project levels. The experience of the firm's personnel in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering provides the special skills necessary for determining practical and meaningful traffic solutions. Resumes of key personnel within the firm are attached. Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1994 Page 4 This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this project. This proposal is valid for sixty days, if signed by the client. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. P, �- V-w' Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal RK:nad/3999 JN:559-94-001 Attachments xc: Scott Duffner, FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVAL Approved by: Title: Firm: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Date: EXHIBIT A BILLING RATES FOR ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES. INC. Compensation for Services The Consultants Billing rates for services are as follows: Position Hourly Rate Principal $110.00 Senior Associate $ 85.00 Associate $ 80.00 Senior Engineer/Planner $ 70.00 Engineer/Planner $ 60.00 Assistant Engineer/Planner $ 50.00 Engineering Technician IV $ 45.00 Engineering Technician III $ 35.00 Engineering Technician II $ 30.00 Engineering Technician 1 $ 25.00 Administrative Assistant $ 35.00 Administrative Aide $ 30.00 Clerical Aide $ 25.00 General (1) Reimbursable direct costs, such as reproduction, supplies, messenger service, long-distance telephone calls, travel and traffic counts will be billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. (2) Hourly rates apply to work time, travel time and time spent at public hearings and meetings. For overtime work and public meetings, the above rates may be increased 50 percent. (3) Client payment for professional services is not contingent upon the client receiving payment from other parties. (4) Billing statements for work will be submitted monthly. Statements are payable within thirty (30) days of the receipt by client of statement. Any statement unpaid after thirty (30) days shall be subject to interest at the maximum permitted by law. January 1, 1992 Robert Kahn,LJohn Kain & Associatnc. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering April 15, 1994 RECEIVED BY pLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. John Douglas APR 161994 PM Planning Department 7M8i9i �lll��1j213�4i5t6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Taco Bell (1400 Pacific Coast Highway) Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Douglas: INTRODUCTION The firm of ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit this revised proposed Agreement to provide a traffic impact study for the proposed Taco Bell located at 1400 Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development would be located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway directly adjacent to the existing Balboa Bay Club. The project would include 1989 square feet of building with 68 indoor seats and approximately 16 outdoor seats. Based upon our discussion with Rich Edmonston (City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineer) , a traffic impact study following the City's required traffic phasing ordinance would be required in addition to a field analysis of queuing requirements for Taco Bell facilities located in coastal communities. SCOPE OF WORK The following Scope of Work is proposed by ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for this study effort: 1. Meet with the City to finalize scope of work and to obtain existing traffic counts, cumulative projects and study methodologies. 2. Based upon the City's traffic phasing ordinance and City approved trip generation rates, calculate the project's peak hour and daily trip generation. Existing peak hour traffic counts will be obtained from the City documents. 3 . Determine the project's trip distribution and traffic assignment to the adjoining roadway system. 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 15, 1994 Page 2 4. Conduct one percent analysis for up to six (6) study area intersections as designated by the City. 5. Determine traffic volumes and levels of service at up to six (6) study area intersections for cumulative conditions with the project. 6. Identify any required traffic mitigation measures at study area intersections. 7. Review stacking requirements and circulation adequacy for similar Taco Bell facilities located in coastal communities. We would propose to review the queuing and internal circulation at the following three (3) sites: • 17th Street at Newport Boulevard • Dana Point on Pacific Coast Highway • Huntington Beach on Bolsa Chica Street Queuing and circulation impacts would be reviewed as follows: • Weekday 11:30 AM - 1: 00 PM • Weekday 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM • Weekend 11:30 AM - 1: 00 PM 8. Based upon the field study, identify potential queuing requirements for the proposed Taco Bell. 9. On-site circulation and parking recommendations will be made including site access and internal circulation. 10. Summarize the results of the study in traffic impact report. 11. Attend additional coordination meetings with the City and project proponent. 12 . Optional trip generation study for Taco Bell facilities. Field traffic counts will be obtained for two Taco Bell sites to determine appropriate AM/PM peak hour trip generation rates based upon local conditions. Two hour counts will be taken during both the AM and PM peak hour periods for two weekdays. PROFESSIONAL FEES The fee for the work outlined in this proposal is based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in the attached Exhibit A. The fixed fee to accomplish the above Scope of Work • Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 15, 1994 Page 3 Tasks 1 - 10 is $6,500. 00. The cost for Task 11 will be on a time and materials basis based upon Exhibit A. This cost for optional Task 12 would be $660.00. Three copies (two bound and one original for the client's use) of the project report would be prepared. Monthly billings from ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. will be based upon the attached Exhibit A - BILLING RATES FOR ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. . The proposed fee does not include attendance at public hearings/meetings, which may be required to secure approval of the project. If these are required and requested, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. would be happy to attend these meetings and billing would be based upon the billing rates included in Exhibit A. The Client agrees to limit the Design Professional's liability to the Client and to all construction Contractors and Subcontractors on the project, due to the Design Professional's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of the Design Professional to all those named shall not exceed $50, 000 or the Design Professional's total fee for services rendered on this project, whichever is greater. In the event that a lawsuit is brought for the enforcement of any of the terms of this agreement, the prevailing party should be entitled to attorney fees and costs in addition to any damages. TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the Taco Bell Traffic Impact Study will take approximately 15 working days to complete from the date of authorization, and date of receipt of data essential for the study. Additionally, any delays resulting from circumstances beyond our control, such as weather, shall extend the time schedule. QUALIFICATIONS ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is located in Newport Beach, California and specializes in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering for governmental agencies and the business community. The firm principals and associates have over 100 years of combined engineering and planning experience throughout Southern California at the regional, local and individual project levels. The experience of the firm's personnel in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering • Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 15, 1994 Page 4 provides the special skills necessary for determining practical and meaningful traffic solutions. Resumes of key personnel within the firm are attached. This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this project. This proposal is valid for sixty days, if signed by the client. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. `c cw\ Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal RK:nad/3999 JN:559-94-001 Attachments xc: Scott Duffner, FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVAL Approved by: Azi z 11. As 1 ami Title: Associate Planner Firm: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Date: 4-26-1994 EXHIBIT A BILLING RATES FOR ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES. INC. Compensation for Services The Consultants Billing rates for services are as follows: Position Hourly Rate Principal $110.00 Senior Associate $ 85.00 Associate $ 80.00 Senior Engineer/Planner $ 70.00 Engineer/Planner $ 60.00 Assistant Engineer/Planner $ 50.00 Engineering Technician IV $ 45.00 Engineering Technician III $ 35.00 Engineering Technician II $ 30.00 Engineering Technician 1 $ 25.00 Administrative Assistant $ 35.00 Administrative Aide $ 30.00 Clerical Aide $ 25.00 General (1) Reimbursable direct costs, such as reproduction, supplies, messenger service, long-distance telephone calls, travel and traffic counts will be billed at cost plus ten 110) percent. (2) Hourly rates apply to work time, travel time and time spent at public hearings and meetings. For overtime work and public meetings, the above rates may be increased 50 percent. (3) Client payment for professional services is not contingent upon the client receiving payment from other parties. (4) Billing statements for work will be submitted monthly. Statements are payable within thirty (30) days of the receipt by client of statement. Any statement unpaid after thirty (30) days shall be subject to interest at the maximum permitted by law. January 1, 1992 Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. �,E•wP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 C'14/FOUL N PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 April 26. 1994 Robert Kahn Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant at 1400 West Coast Hwy, Newport Beach (TPO # 99) Dear Mr. Kahn: Enclosed please find the"Proposal Acceptance"for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant that would be constructed in the City of Newport Beach. For traffic data or technical questions please contact Rich Edmonston, the City's Traffic Engineer, at (714) 644-3344. 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 , C�y N ok, Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner R\WP51\...\Aziz.A\Traffic\TP099\Letl 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach RKJK Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning Traffic/Acoustical Engineering STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 r • • ROBERT KAHN JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is a Transportation Planning and Traffic/Acoustical Engineering firm providing consulting services to both public and private clients. The firm was founded by Robert Kahn, P.E. and John M. Kain, AICP. RKJK staff have a combination of over 100 years of professional experience in the fields of traffic engineering and planning. The firm provides a complete range of professional services in the following fields: TRANSPORTATION MODELING Since 1978, Robert Kahn and John Kain have overseen the development of numerous traffic models to evaluate future travel patterns and capacity requirements. Lee Royalty and Carleton Waters, Associates at RKJK, have been utilizing TRANPLAN software for subarea model applications since 1985. RKJK personnel are experienced in regional model interface (window/focus techniques), interactive graphics, land use and trip generation assessments, validation procedures, traffic assignment options, and refinement of traffic forecasts. The firm can provide "hands on" training in computer applications for TRANPLAN and many other software packages. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RKJK staff have prepared several hundred traffic impact studies throughout Southern and Central California. Work products provided by the firm can include conceptual planning/feasibility studies or detailed design recommendations. The firm can evaluate both existing conditions and the effects of future development upon infrastructure requirements. Carl Ballard and Lawrence Estrada, Associates at RKJK, have a combination of 25 years of professional experience in traffic impact analysis. RKJK responsibilities can include representing clients at Board of Supervisors, City Council and Planning/Traffic Commissions meetings; liaison with company/public agency representatives on technical matters involving traffic impacts; working with County, regional and state agencies to secure government approvals and funding for projects; and interfacing with other firms to provide coordination of engineering/planning and design of projects. Robert Kahn , John Kain & Associates, Inc. RKJK QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT (CONT'D) CIRCULATION PLANNING RKJK has a broad range of experience including city general plan circulation elements, specific plans, traffic control assessments for special attractions or major events, site access evaluations, traffic management plans and fee program studies. Recent RKJK projects include the preparation of general plan circulation elements for the Cities of Indian Wells, Hesperia, Indio, Murrieta and Norwalk. RKJK prepared the traffic projections in support of Project Study Reports (PSR's) for the Washington Street/1-10 Freeway interchange and California Oaks Road/1-15 Freeway interchange. RKJK services include coordination with Caltrans and other agencies to monitor the implementation of planned improvements. RKJK services include the preparation of neighborhood traffic management plans to reduce volumes on residential streets, minimize vehicle speeds, and address 'but through" traffic issues. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies designated for local government action have taken on increased importance in light of federal conformity requirements. Findings must be made that transportation control measures are being "expeditiously implemented" in order to receive federal transportation funds. In addition, local governments are adopting trip reduction ordinances to comply with the state Congestion Management Program (CMP). RKJK has prepared TDM plans for industrial, office, retail and residential projects throughout Southern California. RKJK services include the determination of appropriate transportation control measures as well as project-specific implementation and monitoring strategies. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING In conjunction with RKJK DESIGN GROUP, INC., the firm of ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. provides a full range of traffic engineering capabilities including intersection capacity analysis, traffic signal warrant studies, weaving analysis, parking area design, signing and striping, traffic signal design, pedestrian/bicycle studies, and feasibility studies. 2 Robert Kahn , John Kain & Associates, Inc. RKJK QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT (CONT'D) TRANSIT PLANNING The increasingly intermodal aspects of regional and local transportation are being addressed by RKJK on an integrated basis. RKJK staff have prepared detailed studies of on-road and rail transit services, including corridors and stations. RKJK has provided assessments of the location, design and travel patterns associated with commuter rail stations in Orange County, San Bernardino County and Kern County. Accommodations for public transportation services, such as bus turnouts and pedestrian access linkages, are evaluated by RKJK staff in conjunction with site plan review activities. RKJK staff have been involved in the preparation of patronage forecasts for the initial section of Central Orange County Fixed Guideway System, including the Fullerton Transportation Center. ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING The effects of traffic on noise and air quality are a significant by-product of roadway design. Robert Kahn, P.E. has been designated as a Certified Acoustical Engineer (No. 112-88) in the County of Orange. RKJK services include acoustical studies, truck mix studies, noise control assessments and noise mitigation design. RKJK uses "state of the art" computer modeling to project noise impacts and also has the equipment to prepare actual field measurements. PARKING STUDIES RKJK has completed a number of parking studies for residential, commercial and industrial developments. Studies have included evaluating existing parking demand and the assessment of "shared parking"through the use of ULI (Urban Land Institute) shared parking evaluation procedures. Parking management plans have been developed to control parking for high parking generators (i.e. large institutional uses and special events including raceways and concerts). RKJK develops creative and innovative methods for maximizing the efficiency of available parking resources. 3 Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES. INC. PARTIAL LIST OF PROJECTS TRANSPORTATION MODELING • Ramona Expressway Corridor Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Menifee Area Traffic Model (Riverside County) • North Murrieta Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Southwest District Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Lakeview/Nuevo Specific Plan Scenario Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Desert Area Traffic Model (Washington Street/1-10 Interchange PSR) (Riverside County) • Indio Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Lake Elsinore General Plan Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Desert Hot Springs West Study Area Buildout Traffic Model (Riverside County) • Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study Traffic Model (Orange County) • Talega Traffic Model (Orange County) • Huntington Beach General Plan Update Traffic Model (Orange County) • Saddleback Area Circulation Study Traffic Model (Orange County) • Chino Hills/Ramona Avenue Extension Traffic Model (San Bernardino County) • Hesperia General Plan Traffic Model (San Bernardino County) • East Chula Vista Traffic Model (San Diego County) • Highlands Ranch Community Traffic Model (Denver, Colorado) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • Ague Dulce Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50385 Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Pomona College Hahn Academic Building Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Pomona College Mall Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • State Farm Insurance Site, San Dimas, Site Specific Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Chatsworth Project Traffic Assessment (Los Angeles County) • Peter J. Pitchess Honor Rancho Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis (Los Angeles County) • Airport Distributors Warehouse Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Claremont Commercial Project Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Heritage Village Senior Housing Project Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Claremont Court Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Central Plaza Traffic Study (Los Angeles County) • Castle & Cooke Parcel Map 7394 Traffic Study (Kern County) • Cambridge Village Traffic Study (Kern County) • Starwood Subdivision Traffic Evaluation (Mammoth, California) • North Village Specific Plan (Mammoth, California) • Tentative Parcel Map 13024 (Chino Hills) Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Chino Stark Parcel Tentative Tract 15058 Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • 71/Eucalyptus Center, Parcel Map 11801 Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Harvest/Greening Development (Chino Hills) Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Sterling Downs PUD, Rincon Village Traffic Analysis (San Bernardino County) • WAL-MART Center, Fontana - Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Highland Central Commercial Site - Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Terracina Apartments at Redlands - Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Lake Arrowhead TT Map 11142 - Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • California Landings Traffic Impact Analysis (San Bernardino County) • Harry S. Truman Middle School Traffic Analysis (San Bernardino County) Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. RKJK PARTIAL LIST OF PROJECTS (CONT'D) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (CONT'D) • Horsethief Canyon Ranch Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Elsinore City Center Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Diamond Valley Golf Club TTM 26917 Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Alessandro Village Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Ramona Expressway Center Access Study (Riverside County) • Temecula Tent. Maps 24085, 24086, 25139 and 25408 Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Bear Creek Inn, CUP 3109 Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • ARCO AM/PM, Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Murrieta Valley High School Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • The Vineyard PM 24031 Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Murrieta Apartments Plot Plan 12171 Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Murrieta Centre Plot Plan 11729 Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • North County Bank Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Smart & Final Plot Plan 12260 Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Silverhawk Townhomes Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Murrieta Springs Mall Traffic Mitigation Study (Riverside County) • Murrieta Highlands Site Specific Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Church of Christ Focused Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Crestmore Materials Winchester Facility Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Sun City Palm Springs Tentative Tract Impact Studies (Riverside County) • MacLeod Commercial Palm Desert Traffic Impact Study (Riverside County) • Desert Hospital Expansion Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Noble Creek Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Valley View/Lincoln Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study (Orange County) • Weir Canyon/La Palma Commercial Project Traffic Study (Orange County) • Ortega Rock Quarry Traffic Study (Orange County) • University of California, Irvine Parking Structure No. 2 Traffic Study (Orange County) • University of California, Irvine Group Housing Traffic Study (Orange County) • Irvine MPC Industries Traffic Study (Orange County) • McGaw Business Center Traffic Study (Orange County) • Cypress Texaco Gas Station Traffic Study (Orange County) • Pepsi-Cola Pacific Park Facility Traffic Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo Barbadanes Park Traffic/Parking Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo Parcel Maps 87-146/90-426 Traffic Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo Tract Map 12632 Traffic Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo PA 12 Park Sites Traffic/Parking Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo Country Club Center II Traffic Study (Orange County) • Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis (Orange County) CIRCULATION PLANNING • City of Norwalk Circulation Element Update (Los Angeles County) • Desert Highlands Traffic Study (Kern County) • Pacificana Specific Plan Traffic Study (Kern County) • Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • San Bernardino Specific Plan 90-002 Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • City of Yucaipa Road Fee Program Traffic Assessment (San Bernardino County) • San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) 2 Robert Kahn, John Kain Ec Associates, Inc. • • RKJK PARTIAL LIST OF PROJECTS (CONT'D) CIRCULATION PLANNING (CONT'D) • East Highlands Ranch Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Sycamore Creek Specific Plan Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Lake Edge Specific Plan Traffic Study (Riverside County) • City of Lake Elsinore Circulation Element Update 0 990) (Riverside County) • La Laguna Estates Specific Plan Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Canyon Heights Specific Plan 272 Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Palm Crest Specific Plan 292 Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Riverside County Raceway (Specific Plan 297) Traffic Study (Riverside County) • City of San Jacinto Circulation Element Update (Riverside County) • Sunrise Ranch Traffic Study (Riverside County) • McSweeny Ranch Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Riverside County Regional Equestrian Center Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Jurupa Community Plan, 1-15 West Study Area Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • The Sierra Collection Specific Plan/GPA Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Perris Downtown Specific Plan Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Specific Plan 246 (Preissman Property) Buildout Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Riverpark Specific Plan Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Specific Plan 172 - Walker Basin Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Murrieta Creek Crossings Phasing Analysis (Riverside County) • I-15/1-215 Confluence Area Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Temecula Old Town Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Roripaugh Specific Plan Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Borel Airpark Center Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Winchester 1800 Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Quinta Do Lago (SP 284) Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Winchester Hills Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Menifee North Specific Plan 260 Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Menifee Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Washington/1-10 Road and Bridge Benefit Program Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Olympus Golf Club Specific Plan 287 Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Black Bench Ranch Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Jack Rabbit Trail Residential Project Traffic Study (Riverside County) • Balsa Chica Area Traffic Improvement Program (Ornage County) • Dana Point Headlands Specific Plan Traffic Study (Orange County) • Irvine Northwood 5 Traffic Study (Orange County) • Foothill Ranch Marketplace Traffic Study (Orange County) • Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park Traffic Study (Orange County) • Saddleback Community Church Traffic Study (Orange County) • Foothill Aliso Planned Community Traffic Study (Orange County) TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT • Balsa Chica Trip Reduction Strategic Plan (Orange County) • Talega -TSM Plan (Orange County) • Foothill Ranch TSM Plan (Orange County) • Capistrano Gateway Transportation Management Plan (Orange County) • Burke Commercial Development TMA (Orange County) • Preissman Property Specific Plan 246 TOM Plan (Riverside County) 3 Robert Kahn, John Kain Et Associates, Inc. RKJK PARTIAL LIST OF PROJECTS (CONT'D) TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • Rialto Gateway/Restaurant Row Access Study (San Bernardino County) • Traffic Signal Design and Warrants for Baseline at Church Street' (San Bernardino County) • Greentree Blvd. at 7th St. & Valles Center Dr. lntersection Review' (San Bernardino County) • Olivenhain Elementary School Traffic Assessment (San Diego County) • Rancho Verde Off-Site Striping Plan' (San Diego County) • Tentative Tract 47467 (Glendale) Access Analysis (Los Angeles County) • Sierra Madre Sight Distance Analysis' (Los Angeles County) • Traffic Control for Lemon Avenue' (Los Angeles County) • Starwood Subdivision Traffic Review' (Mono County) • Coto de Caza Traffic Evaluation (Orange County) • Marina Hills Drive at Tropea Traffic Signal Design' (Orange County) • Traffic Signals at VTTM 12632' (Orange County) • Oso Parkway Traffic Control Plan' (Orange County) • Medical Center Drive Striping Plan' (Orange County) • Traffic Signal Modification Harvard Avenue at Warner Avenue' (Orange County) • Irvine Commercial Centers Access Plan' (Orange County) • Saddleback Community Church Access Road Striping Plan' (Orange County) • Balsa Chica Roadway Design Review' (Orange County) • University Drive at Mesa Road Traffic Signal Design' (Orange County) • Crossroads Shopping Center Shell Station' (Orange County) • John Wayne Airport Roadway Operation and Signage Modifications' (Orange County) • Washington Street Realignment Traffic Analysis (Riverside County) • Washington Street Striping Plan' (Riverside County) • Del Webb Palm Springs Bicycle Circulation Plan' (Riverside County) • Adams Street Signing and Striping Plan' (Riverside County) • Crowne Hill-Butterfield Stage Road at Royal Crest Traffic Signal Design' (Riverside County) TRANSIT PLANNING • Bakersfield AMTRAK Station Traffic Study (Kern County) • Rialto Commuter Rail Station Traffic Study (San Bernardino County) • Aliso Viejo Multi-Modal Circulation Plan (Orange County) • Mission Viejo Multi-Modal Terminal Location Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo PA 32 Public Transportation Assessment (Orange County) • Aliso Viejo PA 40 Public Transportation Assessment (Orange County) • Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane PSR Traffic Projections (Orange County) • Plano Trabuco Transit Development Plan (Orange County) • Aliso Viejo Public Transportation Study (Orange County) • Dial-A-Ride Franchise Performance Study (Los Angeles County) • Public Transit Expenditures/Funding Assessment (San Diego County) ' Prepared by RKJK DESIGN GROUP, INC. 4 Robert Kahn, J=KainAssociates • RKJK PARTIAL LIST OF PROJECTS (CONT'D) ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING • Trabuco Hills Center Acoustical Study (Orange County) • Plaza Bellogente Acoustical Analysis (Orange County) • Leisure World Noise Assessment Widening Moulton Parkway (Orange County) • Irvine Coastal Area Preliminary and Final Acoustical Analysis (Orange County) • Lincoln Drive-In Theater Site Acoustical Analysis (Orange County) • Coto de Caza Hunt Club Acoustical Analysis (Orange County) • Saint Paul's Greek Orthodox Church Final Acoustical Study (Orange County) • Mariners Point Noise Studies (San Diego County) • Sun City Palm Springs Preliminary and Final Noise Studies (Riverside County) • Silverhawk Townhomes Acoustical Analysis (Riverside County) • Center Street Widening Acoustical Evaluation (Riverside County) • Greer Ranch Noise Study (Riverside County) • Hamilton Property Noise Study (Riverside County) • Chino Hills Final Acoustical Study (San Bernardino County) • East Highlands Ranch Air Quality Analysis (San Bernardino County) PARKING STUDIES • Senior Apartments Research (USA Properties) (Sacramento County) • American Instorage (El Segundo) Parking Analysis (Los Angeles County) • Saddleback Community Church Parkin Management Plan (Orange County) Sadd Y 9 • Trabuco Hills Center Parking Study (Orange County) • Koll Pacific Park Parking Study (Orange County) • Meadowpark School Parking Lot Evaluation (Orange County) • Monarch Beach Plaza Parking Study (Orange County) • Eastbluff School Parking/Traffic Evaluation (Orange g County) • Marguerite Center Shared Parking Analysis (Orange County) • Western Country Plaza Parking Study (Orange County) • Westcorp II Parking Study (Orange County) • Irvine Inn SRO (Orange County) • High Park Parking Evaluation (Orange 9 County) • Roger Miller Ford Parking Study (Orange County) • Jeronimo Plaza Parking Study (Orange County) • California Pacific Study for Small Lot Residential (Orange County) • Market on the Lake Parking Evaluation (Orange County) • Santa Margarita Plaza Parking Study (Orange County) • Mission Viejo Planning Area 12 Park Sites A, B & C Parking Study (Orange County) • Barbadanes Park Parking Study (Orange County) 5 Robert Kahn, John Kain do Associates, Inc. RKJK PARTIAL CLIENT LIST BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS SWEDE-CAL PARTNERSHIP II STA, INC. AMERICAN ASSETS, INC. S/I OSTERMAN PARTNERSHIP LTD. T&B PLANNING ARVIDA CORPORATION TMC TAKATA ASSOCIATES BALDWIN COMPANY, THE TOLD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TERRA NOVA BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. TOSS INTERNATIONAL, INC. TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTANTS BEDFORD PROPERTIES TOZAI,INC. URBAN DESIGN STUDIO BENNETT PROPERTIES TRIAD PARTNERS URBAN VISION BETHEL DEVELOPMENT CORP. TRIQUEST DEVELOPMENT BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT, INC. U.S. SUNBELT DEVELOPMENT PUBIC AGENCIES/INSTITUTIONS BRIGHTON HOMES VIP INVESTMENTS CARLSBAD SCHOOL DISTRICT BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT, INC. VSL ENTERPRISES CENTRALIA SCHOOL DISTRICT BUIE CORPORATION WATT BUSINESS PROPERTIES CITY OF BUENA PARK BURKE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WEST MAR COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE CITY OF CLAREMONT CALIFORNIA OAKS DEVELOPMENT CO. WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES CITY OF CYPRESS CASTLE&COOK DEVELOPMENT CORP. WESTERN SKYLINES DEVELOP. CORP. CITY OF HESPERIA CHARISMA GROUP, INC. WINDROSE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITATION HOMES WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CITY OF INDIO COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT CITY OF IRVINE COSCAN CALIFORNIA, INC. PLANNERS/ENGINEERS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COTO DE CAZA COMPANY ADKAN ENGINEERS CITY OF MURRIETA COUSSOULIS DEVELOPMENT CO. ALBA ENGINEERING, INC. CITY OF PALM DESERT CROSSROADS DEVELOPMENT ALBERT A.WEBB ASSOCIATES CITY OF PERRIS DELGAR PARTNERS ANDRADE ARCHITECTS CITY OF NORWALK DEL WEBB CALIFORNIA CORP. ARCHITECTS ORANGE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DON WILSON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. CITY OF SAN JACINTO DONAHUE SCHRIBER BALLEW&ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF TEMECULA EMERALD DEVELOPMENT BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. CITY OF YUCAIPA FIRST CITY PROPERTIES, INC. CALIFORNIA CIVIL, INC. COASTLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOCUS DEVELOPMENT CARTER,ROMANEK LANDSCAPE ARCH. COUNTY OF ORANGE FOOTHILL RANCH COMPANY CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. DESERT HOSPITAL F.C. IRVINE, INC. CHURCH ENGINEERING, INC. EAGLES NEST CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP GATLIN/BERGER DEVELOPMENT, INC. CM ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOLDEN PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC. COURTON &ASSOCIATES IRVINE SCHOOL DISTRICT GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CO. ' CROSBY AND ASSOCIATES JOAQUIN RANCH FACILITIES DISTRICT GROVE CORPORATION CULBERTSON, ADAMS &ASSOC., INC. LA MONTE ACADEMIE HARBOR CREST DEVELOPMENT CYP, INC. MURRIETA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT HILLMAN PROPERTIES WEST,INC. DAVID TAUSSIG AND ASSOC., INC. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HUNTINGTON CAPITAL CORPORATION ENGINEERING VENTURES COMMISSION INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES EPT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE POMONA COLLEGE INTERAMERICAN BUILDERS CORP. FLORIAN MARTINEZ ASSOCIATES RIVERSIDE CO. ECONOMIC DEV. CORP. IRVINE COMPANY, THE GRAYNER-ROGERS ENGINEERING RIVERSIDE CO.TRANSPORTATION DEPT. JAMES MANLEY AND ASSOCIATES GREINER, INC. SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY CHURCH JOHNSON &JOHNSON DEVEL. CORP. GRILLIAS, PIRC,ROSIER AND ALVES ST. PAUL'S GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH KATHRYN G.THOMPSON DEVEL. CO. HDR ENGINEERING, INC. SUNRISE PRESCHOOLS KAUFMAN AND BROAD HRP LAND DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE KOLL COMPANY HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF LEBANOFF-MCKNIGHT DEVEL. GROUP JOHN BATES ASSOCIATES GOVERNMENTS LYON COMMUNITIES, INC. J. L.WEBB PLANNING MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP. KEITH COMPANY, THE OTHER MISSION VIEJO COMPANY LIGHTFOOT PLANNING GROUP,THE AIRPORTER INN HOTEL MURDOCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOHR AND ASSOCIATES,INC. AL SHANKLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY O HILL PROPERTIES LPA, INC. ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT PACIFIC GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT CO. L.D. KING, INC. AUSTIN-NELSON PACIFIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT CO. M. MARJAN ARCHITECTS A.J. BOYD CONSTRUCTION PEACOCK RADAKER CORPORATION MARKHAM &ASSOCIATES BRUNSWICK CORPORATION PREFERRED EQUITIES MD2S ENGINEERING, INC. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES CZ MASTER ASSOCIATION PULTE HOME CORPORATION NBS/LOWRY KENNETH A.RUBY CONSTRUCTION CO. RAEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES MALCOLM SMITH RANCON FINANCIAL CORPORATION PBR MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. RANPAC COMMUNITIES PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS NATIONAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. RECREATIONS GROUP OF COMPANIES PLANNING ASSOCIATES,THE NORTH COUNTY BANK REGIS HOMES PLANNING CENTER,THE PEPSI-COLA RESCO PLANNING CONSORTIUM,THE RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY ROBERTSON HOMES PLANNING NETWORK SHELL OIL COMPANY SANDERSON -J. RAY DEVELOPMENT POMEROY ASSOCIATES SHIMIZU AMERICA CORP. SHERMAN CO./CHANDIS SECURITIES CO. PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS SMART &FINAL STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY PSOMAS AND ASSOCIATES SOUTHERN CALIF. PLANT GROWERS STERLING BUILDERS RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION SOUTHSHORE PLUMBING, INC. SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. RAY E. MORALES ASSOCIATES, INC. U.S. STORAGE, INC. SUN CAL DEVELOPMENT ROBERT REIN,WILLIAM FROST WELLMAN &CANE SUN PACIFIC SOUTHLAND ENGINEERING WYROCK, INC. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. ROBERT KAHN JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REFERENCES CALTRANS - DISTRICT 8 POMONA COLLEGE P.O. Box 231 333 North College Way San Bernardino, CA 92402 Claremont, CA 91711 (909) 383-5938 (909) 621-8136 Linda Grimes John Giboney CITY OF HEMET COUNTY OF ORANGE 450 E. Latham Avenue Environmental Management Agency Hemet, CA 92543 300 N. Flower Street, 7th Floor (909) 765-2360 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Juan Perez Ken R. Smith - (714) 834-6130 Bob Peterson - (714) 834-5377 CITY OF HESPERIA 15776 Main Street COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION DEPT. Hesperia, CA 92345 1695 Spruce Street (619) 947-1400 Riverside, CA 92507 Phil Wray Franklin E. Sherkow - (909) 275-6740 Ruthanne Taylor-Berger- (909) 275-2076 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street RIVERSIDE COUNTY Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (714) 536-5582 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Jim Otterson Riverside, CA 92501 Bruce Gilmer (909) 787-7141 Shirley Medina CITY OF MISSION VIEJO 26522 La Alameda, Suite 190 CITY OF SAN JACINTO Mission Viejo, CA 92691 312 East Main (714) 582-2489 San Jacinto, CA 92583 Dennis Wilberg (714) 654-7337 Les Evans CITY OF INDIO 100 Civic Center Mall SOUTHERN CALIF. ASSOC. Indio, CA 92202 OF GOVERNMENT (619) 342-6500 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216 Henry Hohenstein Riverside, CA 92501 Amir Modarressi (909) 784-1513 Mike Ainsworth CITY OF MURRIETA 26442 Beckman Court UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Murrieta, CA 92562 Office of Campus & Environmental Planning (909) 698-1040 401 Berkeley Place, Suite 350 Stephen Harding Irvine, CA 92715 (714) 856-7058 CITY OF PALM DESERT Richard Demerjian 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL (619) 346-0611 OF GOVERNMENTS Seyed Safavian 3737 Main Street, Suite 420 Riverside, CA 92501 CITY OF PERRIS (909) 787-7985 170 Wilkerson Avenue, Suite A David Gunderman Perris, CA 92570 (909) 943-6504 Habib Motlagh Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. ROBERT KAHN, P.E. Principal Robert Kahn has worked professionally in traffic engineering, transportation planning and acoustical engineering since 1968. He received the master of science degree in civil engineering from the University of California, Berkeley,where he attended the Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering. Mr. Kahn has worked in both the public (Caltrans) and private sectors. Mr. Kahn established the firm of Robert Kahn and Associates in 1988 to provide traffic engineering, transportation planning and environmental engineering services. His professional activities have included writing transportation articles and giving presentations to various professional organizations, including the California Public Works and Transportation Conference. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (4 years) Principal Co-founded the firm in 1990. • Robert Kahn and Associates (2 1/2 years) Principal Formed new traffic engineering and environmental engineering company. • Jack G. Raub Company (11 years) Vice President of Engineering Planning. Responsible for the firms transportation and traffic engineering, site planning, environmental engineering, hydraulics and graphics departments. • The Irvine Company (4 years) Program Engineer • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (4 years) Assistant Engineer EDUCATION: • BS, University of California at Berkeley School of Civil Engineering, 1967. • MS, University of California at Berkeley, Graduate School of Civil Engineering, 1968. • Post Graduate Work in Transportation and Systems Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, 1969-70. PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION: • Registered Civil Engineer, California, 1971, No. 20285 • Registered Traffic Engineer, California, 1977, No. 0555 • Registered Professional Engineer, Colorado, 1984, No. 22934 • Certified Acoustical Engineer, Orange County, 1985, No. 112-88 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) • Building Industry Association (BIA) Transportation Committee Robert Kahn, LJohn Kain do Associate . JOHN KAIN, AICP Principal John Kain has worked professionally in transportation planning and traffic engineering since 1975. He received the master of science degree in administration from the University of California, Irvine, where he specialized in transportation systems evaluation. Mr. Kain has served on the Institute of Transportation Engineers technical committees for Traffic Forecasting and Highway Access Control. Mr. Kain co-founded the firm of Transware Systems in 1982 to provide transportation planning software for microcomputer applications. His professional development activities have included UTPS training, modeling workshops, and ITS courses. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (4 years) Principal Co-founded the firm in 1990. • Kunzman Associates (7 years) Principal Responsible for all aspects of traffic engineering and transportation planning studies conducted by the firm. • Jack G. Raub Company (5 years) Manager of Transportation and Traffic Engineering. Responsible for managing traffic studies in California and Colorado, including: traffic impact assessments, community design studies, corridor and circulation plans. • Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) (2 years) Research Assistant • California College of Medicine, UC Irvine (1 year) Shuttle Bus Coordinator EDUCATION: • BA, University of California at Irvine, Social Ecology with emphasis in Planning and Public Policy, 1975. • MS, University of California at Irvine, Graduate School of Administration with emphasis in Transportation Systems Management, 1977. • Certificate in Management of Transportation Programs, University of California at Irvine, 1981. • Instructor Credential, Public Services and Administration, California Community Colleges, 1981. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: • American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) • Transportation Research Board (TRB) • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Robert Kahn, John Kain do Associates, Inc. CARLBALLARD Senior Associate Carl Ballard has worked in transportation planning and traffic engineering since 1982. He has extensive experience in the management of complex analytical procedures and computer applications. Mr. Ballard is involved in many aspects of the profession, including: site access evaluation, intersection capacity analysis,traffic forecasting,circulation planning,traffic impact studies, and travel demand management plans. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (4 years) Associate Responsible for a wide range of traffic impact analysis and circulation planning functions within the firm. • Kunzman Associates Associate Engineer (4 years) Responsible for analyzing traffic and transportation issues ranging from site design to regional network features. Work emphasis included the analysis of develop- ment impacts, intersection service levels, traffic signal coordination and access controls. Mr. Ballard supervised the application of many micro-computer based transportation analysis programs. • Kunzman Associates Engineering Technician (4 years) Responsible for analysis of roadway capacity requirements, evaluation of accident data, preparation of computer-based technical drawings, and collection of volume and street inventory data. EDUCATION: • BA, California State University, Fullerton, Mathematics, with emphasis in Probability and Statistics, 1986. • Certificate, Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, University of California Institute of Transportation Studies, 1984. • Certificate, Site Impact Traffic Evaluation, Institute of Transportation Engineers Professional Development Seminar, 1987. • Certificate, Transportation Demand Management, California State University, Fullerton, University Extended Education Services, 1992. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Robert Kahn , John Kain & Associates, Inc. • LEE ROYALTY, P.E. Associate Lee Royalty received his bachelor of science degree from California State University, Los Angeles, in Civil Engineering and is a registered engineer in the state of California. He has worked extensively in both the public and private sectors since 1971. Mr. Royalty specializes in computer applications for transportation planning. He has held the position of manager of technical systems development for a private sector engineering firm and has designed and implemented several major software systems for transportation modeling and impact analysis. His work includes traffic impact studies and the development of traffic models in support of several major municipal circulation planning efforts. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (3 years) Associate Responsible for the development, validation, and refinement of traffic models, as well as the preparation of traffic impact studies. • Transware Systems (2 years) Principal Co-founded software development firm specializing in transportation planning analysis. Developed several major software systems for traffic modeling and impact analysis. Products are in use throughout the United States. • Kunzman Associates (6 years) Associate Engineer Responsible for traffic impact studies and development of major traffic models. Coordinated report preparation, project administration and represented clients at public hearings. • Jack G. Raub Company (6 years) Manager of Technical Systems and Development Responsible for all aspects of systems management and in-house development of software systems in support of the firm's multi-discipline engineering activities. EDUCATION: • California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and California State University, Los Angeles. • BS, California State University, Los Angeles, School of Engineering, 1979. PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION: • Registered Professional Engineer, California, 1982, No. 35387 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. CARLETON WATERS Associate Carleton Waters has worked professionally in transportation planning and engineering since 1982. He was project planner for various phases of the Measure A modeling project for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Mr. Waters was involved in converting a mainframe model encompassing most of urban southern California to a microcomputer based modeling package. Mr. Waters received the Master of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of California, Irvine. His professional activities include election to the board of the Southwestern Region TRANPLAN Model Users Group. WORK EXPERIENCE: • ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (2 years) Associate Developed and applied travel demand models in support of General Plan update efforts and major development projects in Orange County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County. Prepared traffic and air quality impact studies. • DKS Associates (3 years) Senior Transportation Planner Project engineer for Central Orange County Central Fixed Guideway initial urban rail system study. Task Manager for data assembly, update of highway network, model validation, and development of future year networks and socioeconomic data for the RIVSAN model. Project manager for the Moreno Valley Travel Demand Model. Supervised model development,-validation and finding of consistency in accordance with SCAG requirements for Riverside County. Prepared traffic impact studies throughout southern California. Project manager of study assessing the impacts of the transportation of hazardous materials by both train and truck in Bakersfield, CA. • HMM Associates (2 years) Transportation Planner Project manager of citywide traffic studies. Studies included development of calibrated models of study area conditions. Project manager of traffic impact study for transport of hazardous materials to and from a proposed hazardous waste incinerator in Braintree, MA. Project planner for downtown Boston development projects, including transit patronage estimates and parking demand analysis. • Louis Berger & Associates (1 year) Assistant Transportation Engineer Project engineer for intersection improvement projects and transportation planning projects, including impact and corridor studies. • Orange County Transportation Commission (1 year) Transportation Planning Intern • Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) (1 year) Research Associate • CME Corporation (1 year) Construction costs, quantities and scheduling estimates. EDUCATION: • BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 1981. • MS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 1986. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. ._. _...... LAWRENCE ESTRADA Associate Lawrence Estrada's expertise includes traffic impact studies, access and circulation studies, site plan review and analyses, transportation forecasting, arterial alignment studies, detour plans and general transportation planning. Mr. Estrada served as project manager for the George Air Force Base Reuse Traffic Study. The study evaluated the traffic impacts and circulation characteristics associated with the redevelopment of the 6,000 acre George Air Force Base. In addition, he has been Project Manager for the design of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) through Aliso Viejo in South Orange County. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (1 1/2 years) Associate • Lawrence Estrada & Associates (1 1/2 years) Principal • Nolte and Associates (3 years) Manager Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Manager in charge of traffic and transportation projects for Nolte and Associates, Orange County office • Jack G. Raub Company (4 years) Manager of Transportation and Traffic Engineering Responsible for managing traffic studies, circulation plans, and roadway designs in California and Colorado. • Jack G. Raub Company (3 years) Transportation Engineer • City of Anaheim (1 1/2 years) Engineering Technician Traffic engineering studies,traffic signals, safety analysis work with public. EDUCATION: • BS/Biology - California State University, Fullerton • Transportation System Management Certificate, University of California at Irvine • Traffic Engineering Certificate, University of California at Berkeley Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. BILL LAWSON Transportation Planner Bill Lawson has experience in a variety of transportation related issues, including: circulation planning, intersection capacity analysis, transportation modeling, parking demand analysis and traffic impacts. Mr. Lawson's project experience includes: the Hollister Peak Golf Club Traffic Impact Report where in coordination with the project owner and architect prepared a detailed analysis of existing and future traffic conditions while providing appropriate mitigation measures; the case study for the South Street Extension Project in the City of San Luis Obispo, California Extension Project in the City of San Luis Obispo, California where the feasibility of extending South Street was examined using MINUTP traffic modeling software; and, updating the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the City of Paso Robles, California. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (2 years) Engineering Technician Participated in all aspects, for the preparation of traffic impact reports including: site surveys, computer graphics, peak-hour intersection turning movement'counts and intersection capacity analysis. Conducted shared-use parking demand studies. Responsible for the collection of traffic data (volumes, turning movements, and other distinguishing characteristics of various roadway sections and intersections during the peak-hour periods). • Applied Research Facility, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, California Student Assistant Measured the shortest path routes for transit lines using MINUTP. Conducted literature search concerning HOV lane safety. Prepared video presentation for Caltrans. EDUCATION: • BS - California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, City & Regional Planning, 1992 • MS - California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Civil Engineering, with emphasis in Transportation Planning, 1994 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: • American Planning Associate (APA) • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. • CATHY KEENEY Transportation Planner Cathy Keeney has experience in a variety of transportation and planning related areas, including travel demand modeling and traffic impact studies. She has been working as a transportation planner since 1991. Ms. Keeney has worked as assistant to the lead person on the development of traffic models. In this role, her work activities included gathering land use data, network coding and digitizing, and applications utilizing TRANPLAN software. She has participated in the validation and refinement of buildout conditions traffic models such as the City of Indio Traffic Model, Menifee Area Traffic Model, Eastside Reservoir Traffic Model and the Ramona Expressway Corridor Study. She has assisted with other traffic impact studies and traffic analysis using in-house software programs. WORK EXPERIENCE: • Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. (2 years) Transportation Planner Participated in the preparation of transportation modeling using in-house and TRANPLAN software. Responsible for the collection of traffic data (volumes, turning movements, and other distinguishing characteristics of various roadway sections and intersections during the peak-hour periods). Carried out logistical duties needed to produce reports for the company using Work Perfect, Lotus 123 and Excel. Produced model network and assignment plots with use of HP Design Jet 600 plotter. • Robert Kahn & Associates (1 year) Administrative Assistant Assisted in the compilation and production of technical report materials. • Data-Chrome, Inc. (6 years) Vice President Responsible for management of photo design processing and coordination with clients. EDUCATION: • BA - Business, California State University, Los Angeles, 1977 • Transportation Planning Models & Software Applications Certificate, ITS, 1993 Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. I� TRAFFIC STUDIES #�g 0 APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: ' PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: on i DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE - 6� O86• c1� /6 �� ollJ 13DD PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 ��gW p Building Department u \� ? 3300 Newport Blvd. d P.O. Box 1768 G41pog Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS 7��� Received From Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 S 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 $ TemporaryGas................................ ...........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 $ X Other )jeZ� # 7 D1p z °a 65DD,�0 RECEIVED BY: « rG i w) TOTAL FEES $ o� APR 251994 �0 NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. FEE RECEIPT N0. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (f\feerept9-93) PART C.14Y�OM* NEWPORT BEACH �j ! �SEW p e !yBirilding W5Ftment u ? 3300 Newport Blvd. _ P.O. Box 1768 °q( FoaN\P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS n Received From 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.............................. . . ...........010-4616 f Grease Interceptor.......................... . ...........010-4620 E Planning Department Fees................... . .. ..........010-5000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications.............. .. . .. ..........010-5812 $ Determinatik of Unreasonable Hardship.... .. . . ..........010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies................ . ...........010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ X Other Ti /�� # Z?ID• ZS EiDD. (� ` Pp1 ® RECEIVED BY: ApR 2 5 1994 TOTAL FEES $ �} i k Or t\jKtatr`' NOTICE: Plan Check expires 18P(Jays after application. t qq FEE RECEIPT NO. (f\Vempt9-93) ., t. w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT a m NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 C'4</FOM1�' 3901E RECEIVED RY: CM CUSTOMER:TACO DELL MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0102300 TRAFFIC STD #99 010-2300 $6,500. 00 1 44 i TOTAL DUE ? �� { ? $6,500, 00 CASH PAID CHECK PALD E+K NO ; ' TENDERED CHAN13E $. 00 $E, 500. 00 007S54 - - - .' $E, 500.00 $. 00 DATE - 04/25/44 T''IME• =^{14-,19:55 11199206H 'BRANCHPAY'ANORcRSERVICEOFGELCOPAYMENTSYSiE1,t$WC.,E6phLTc5da550.'19W6.ige )44C WAPIDR REGUSPATOFF 2007700001 r 007154 TACO �1 BELL® PLANS& PER ONLY ITS oar usEflNo. II �. PAYTOTHE ORDER OF ap (11 YEE) MA DBIA A DRESS) q 2 ,65,0 (C" ISTA E) (ZIP) THE AMOU ( OF DOLLARS ( NOT REDEEMA FO GAS DRAWE SAUT III EPRE TATIVE NOT Od F R MORE THAN$25,0Q0,00 PAYABLETHROUGH MANUFACTURERS HANOVER UANK(DELAWARE) Un ( 1201 MARKET STREET 311 SIG OF CONS TRUCTgN WILMINGTON• DE 19601 B)sp dti¢Ryan.minalgmAgecalgWmimcemlUrsTnvil Rabovlyan Yla�htmxq IaySdagfl6ambelr6ua..e.eeabmgc0.:�oeepaAaeo-a,ewl^�TM+�aceamnaunm+vrcn al oyaas�a-e �nAa arnnnssronn'� 11•0071, 5►.)(• 1:03LL002r3 6301,421,065 50911• FANCIIER DEVELOPM* SERVICES INC. Land Oevdopment Consultants LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Newport Beach-Planning DATE: April 19, 1994 3300 Newport Blvd. JOB#: 02-948 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 RE: Taco Bell- PCH ATTN: John Douglas Traffic Study WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING VIA: U.S.MAIL: EXPRESS MAIL: XXXX CERTIFIED MAIL: U.P.S.: MESSENGER: OTHER: DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS: j I John- Please find enclosed one (1) check in the amount of $6,500.00 (Based upon the proposal from Kahn, Kain & Associates) for use in the traffic study for the above mentioned site. Please notify either Scott or myself upon receipt of this package. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact Scott. Thank You- cc: Kristen Cumby -Taco Bell Robert Kahn - Kahn,Kain & Associates RECEIVED BY: RECEIVED BY SIN ERE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Krist' a Motter 1342 Dell Avenue, Suite 3-K. Tustin, Calrlornia 92680. (714)2584808.PAX(714)25W APR 2 0 1994 718i9iID1111121112A41516 4 �agWPpRr @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 SP C'tCIFORN`' 41077 RECEIVED BY:C:M CUSTOMER:FANCHER DEV SERV INC ZONING of SUBDIVISION FEESNEG DEC. TACO BELL TS*.,DD 010-5000 $278„00 ZONING P: SUBDIVISION FEESCITY FEE FOR TX . :?9- 010-5000 $650. 00 1 \f TOTAL DUE f I e $928. 00 CASH PAID CHECK: PA1,15 r HE1,:K.. 'NO :�. f TENDERED CHAN13E A' 2 t923. 00 $. Ct0 'ti'3'�'.8,tr0 .t.s•#:e. � _ _ _ � 'S. OG DATE — ++S/L 06: 16 rC�EVVPpRr l OF NEWPORT-BEACH • p e Building Department ' \ z 3300 Newport Blvd. e. P.O. Box 1768 Cq<IF;OTL �P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK N0. FEE RECEIPTS �/.G%00O��/�C<riy-ram '.t7/i1,IrI.C6 Received From 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...........................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor........................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees.. . 010-5000 $tiza Sale of Maps & Publications.. .. .................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies............................010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure...........................010-5021 $ Other (/l � aG/n T� #7 7 $ d �� RECEIVED BY: A TOTAL FEES $ NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days a'fi 6 *l lion. FEE RECEIPT N0. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI;Mfeercpt9-93) • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 10, 1994 TO: Accounts Payable FROM: John Douglas, Planning Department SUBJECT: PO# 13682 The above purchase order is for $6500.00. Robert Kahn,John Kain&Associates submitted Invoice No.3481,for$1,429.80 for services rendered April 1-30, 1994, and the attached invoice No. 3519 for $5,086.91 for services rendered May 1-30, 1994. The traffic study is now complete. The two invoices total $6516.71 or $16.71 above the purchase order amount. There are sufficient funds in the account of 010 2300 to cover this over-run. r � Robert Kahn , John Kain • & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering MR. JOHN DOUGLAS Date: 06-Jun-94 PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 SUBJECT: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. MONTHLY INVOICE TIME PERIOD: MAY 1 - 31, 1994 Client Name: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Invoice No. : 3519 P.O. #: 13682 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOB NUMBER DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE HOURS AMOUNT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 559-94-001 TACO BELL (1400 PCH) PRINCIPAL $110 20. 0 $2,200.00 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ASSOC. ENGINEER $80 35. 0 $2,800.00 ENGR. TECH. $35 1.0 $35.00 ADMIN. ASSIST. $35 0.0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR $5,035. 00 DIRECT COSTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRO $40.91 COUNTS $0.00 OTHER - DELIVERY $11.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $51.91 TOTAL INVOICE INVOICE THIS MONTH $5,086.91 By Plann ng Director • NT NO.: M-�' /2b 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 y Robert Kahn , John Kain & Associates, Inc. . Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering REPRODUCTION CHARGES JN: 55a -W - nl I Date: �l kq Bill to: # Charge Job Name Copies Ws) 1 ac, Q� C�n�i n�cUncsL U (-7 .50 Total Due S �.S� 4 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 • OCB Reprographics, Inc. 791451 �1 Corporate Office (� NUMBER ` 17721 Mitchell North Irvine 92714 (714)660-11iti �r 1 Venture,Suite 110 Irvine Spectrum 92718 (714)753-4700 04/20/94 504 West Chapman,Unit L Orange 92668 (714)532-4852 73055 DATE CROBERT KAHN .JOHN KAIN & ASSOC . ROBERT KAHN ,JOHN KAIN & ASSOC . s A4101 BIRCH STREET 4101 BIRCH R SUITE 100 1 SUITE 100 ENEWPORT BEACH , CA 92660 P NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926t1�1v E D T o DUE: AM YY D 21 1994 oaoErEu N R+oNE 474-0809 n 559 94-001 7UNIT 0roEera 27"y - l EE JOB NUMBER/JOB DESCRIPTION ORIG. COPIES SIZE SQ Fr N ICE LXfENSION • TACO BELL NEWPORT PLOT PLAN 2 .500 EA 2 .50 j 0104 MASKING UNDER 20X24 1 0205 LINE NEG 1OX12 1 7 .000 EA 7 .00 0802 KP5 STAT CONT MATTE FIN 1 1 12X12 1 .0 3 .250 SF 3 .25 5133 DEL: IRV/NEWPORT BEACH 1 7 .000 EA 7 ,00 BILLED BY: HD RECEMm SUB SALES POSTPGE INVOICE 21 .28 TOMI. 19 .75 TAX 1 .53 ups TOTAL T, 23.y l • • ( INVOICE NO. ` EXPRESS EMW r I MESSENGEfl • Alfl COI1flIEfl RADIO DISPATCHED •(714) 852.9220 •(800)922.9942 r DATE JOB NUMBER AUTHORIZED BY I 5( �al�a 5�°�-�y o) E TYPE OF SERVICE—PLEASE CHECK BOX OF DESIRED SERVICE R ❑ DIRECT PACKAGE DELIVERED DIRECT—NO STOPS I ❑ 3 HOUR PACKAGE DELIVERED WITHIN 3 HOURS (CUTOFF TIME 2:00 P.M.) ❑ 5 HOUR PACKAGE DELIVERED WITHIN 5 HOURS I� (CUTOFF TIME 12.00 NOON) �t OVERNIGHT PACKAGE DELIVERED BEFORE NOON FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY.(CUTOFF TIME 6:00 P.M.) ❑ AIR EXPRESS NEXT FLIGHT OUT,DOOR TO DOOR DELIVERY ANYWHERE IN UNITED STATES.NONSTOP. BILL DELIVERY CHARGES TO: ACCL No. { NAME f 4101 Birch St, #100 ADDRESS r CITY,ZIP (714) 474-0809 PICK-UP FROM:. NAME • ADDRESS F CITY,ZIP DELIVER TO: ( • O Y\ G0.0 f E NAM U ADDRESS CITY,STATE ZIP I1�' �0�� -�-,cQ� C•A`12105 PHONE( (OLI - 3a 50 RECEIVED ^/ I X PLEASE SIGN LEGIBLY DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS: D TI EiF PI 0 L CHO. �tJ t RETURN S 13 Les. wuT.nME t I�' 0 O TOTAL GO CHARGE P"tr bss a Gariuge b Edrt B WetM x a ddfMY Carrier �aDbs Mvn9 Imn m pGryM OChec M aSwrtRs nD rG.D'S, eY ECryny.Checks atttDlea for C 0.0's. — FILE COPY Y • Robert Kahn, John Kain • & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering MR. JOHN DOUGLAS Date: 04-May-94 PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 SUBJECT: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. MONTHLY INVOICE TIME PERIOD: APRIL 1 - 30, 1994 Client Name: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Invoice No. : 3481 P.O. #: 13682 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ------------------------------------------- ----------- JOB NUMBER DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE HOURS AMOUNT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 559-94-001 TACO BELL (1400 PCH) PRINCIPAL $110 4.0 $440. 00 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ASSOC. ENGINEER $80 8. 0 $640. 00 ENGR. TECH. $35 4. 5 $157.50 ADMIN. ASSIST. $35 1. 0 $35. 00 • -SUBT-----OTAL---LABOR---------------------------------------------------------$1--,-272---.50--- DIRECT COSTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRO $0. 00 COUNTS $157 . 30 OTHER - DELIVERY $0.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $157. 30 TOTAL INVOICE THIS MONTH $1,429.80 RE BY /Z / PLANNING DEPARTMENT ..� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - AM MAY I p 04 PM -1[an 'nc; D:rac.or 7i8i9j][00111211i2i3i41516 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 05/02, 1994 08:47 FROM TOM CQRROLLIPHOTO INC. TO 474002 P.02 • INVOICE CLARK B. GLENN INVOICE NUMBER 0005 1426 WARMLANDS AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92084 INVOICE DATE 05/02/94 (619)941-0855 3S1k: 569-87-9536 6 RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4101 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 100 f NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 'Avolce- ATTN: CARL BALLARD CUSTO1, ��01 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT JOB LOCATION: DANA POINT, CA • TACO BELL PARKING COUNT (04/27/94) 5:00 PM- 6:30 PM= 1.5 HRS (04/30/94) 11:00 PM- 1:30 PM= 1.5 HRS TOTAL: 3.0 HRS 3.0 HOURS @ $12.00 PER HOUR =$36.00 INVOICE AMOUNT $36.00 x 1 . 1I •'�� • NOTE: Numbers DO NOT INCLUDE 12 spaces next to establishment that lie accross from the other dcpartment stores. Thank you for your business. •If there is ever anything I can do for your busincss,fecl frcc to contact me anytime. Please keep the following numbers for your reference. Business: 6I9-941-0855 Bus. FAX: 714-493-0758 Thank.you, • Clark B. Glenn MAY 02 '94 12:03 BRETT nQURLIME 114-897-3284 • P. 10 J. INVOICE KAREN BENNETT 5t77 FERNHXLL CIRCLE, APT . U 1-flliq;�:N�'I'i�i'.� C�L_i•tiJta< �.:�1 'd'::'l..};• it SS# t-56-41-7529 RKJK 8c ASSOCIATES, 'INC. 4101 BIRCH STREET, LiUITE 10b NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: SOB KAHN INVOICE NUMBER: 0005 INVOICE DATEi April :50, 1993 CUSTOMER JOB NO. : 559-94-001 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT JOB LOCATIONi Taco Bell . Huntington Y'each TRAFFIC COUNTS - 04/27/94 - lli30 AM - 1 : 00 PM - 04/27/94 - p: 00 PM - 6:30 PM JOB LOCATION: Taco Boll , Costa MwsA TRAFFIC COUNTS - 04/29/94 - 11s'0 AM - 1: 00 PM 04/20/94 - 5:00 PM - 61Sti PM t:34/w.0/V4 - 11: 30 AM - 1 : 00 PM 7. 5 HOURS @ *12/HOUR = # S9. 00 INVOICE TOTAL S 89. 00 `/ I • q7,�o e • NAY 02 '94 12:02 BRETT AQUALINE 114-897-3284 • P.9 INVOICE THOMAS BENNETT 1172 FEERNHILL CIRCLE:, APT. c, HUNTINGTON nSACH, CA 92649 (714) 177-9694 SS1k 040-50-6803 RKJK k ASSOCIATES, INC. 4101 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 10o NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: BOB KAHN INVOICE NUMBERS 0004 INVOICE DATE: April 30, 197.� CUSTOMER JOS NO. s 559-94-001 --------------------------------------------------•----.------- DESCRIPTION AMOUNT _- ----•-_-.._.. ------...-..... ----------------••--•--------------- JOB LOCATEON; Taco Bell , Huntington Owach • TRAFFIC COUNTS - 04/30/94 •- 11 : SCE AM - 1 :00 PM 1.5 HOURS V $12/HOUR = # 18. 00 - YV- INVOICE TOTAL 618, 00 XI • I Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. � Transportation Planning • Traffic/Acoustical Engineering April 15, 1994 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. John Douglas APR 181984 PtA Planning Department 7 819i1U�ll���1i2i314t5t6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Q Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Taco Bell (1400 Pacific Coast Highway) Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Douglas: INTRODUCTION The firm of ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit this revised proposed Agreement to provide a traffic impact study for the proposed Taco Bell located at 1400 Pacific Coast • Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development would be located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway directly adjacent to the existing Balboa Bay Club. The project would include 1989 square feet of building with 68 indoor seats and approximately 16 outdoor seats. Based upon our discussion with Rich Edmonston (City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineer) , a traffic impact study following the City's required traffic phasing ordinance would be required in addition to a field analysis of queuing requirements for Taco Bell facilities located in coastal communities. SCOPE OF WORK The following Scope of Work is proposed by ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for this study effort: 1. Meet with the City to finalize scope of work and to obtain existing traffic counts, cumulative projects and study methodologies. 2. Based upon the City's traffic phasing ordinance and City approved trip generation rates, calculate the projects peak hour and daily trip generation. Existing peak hour traffic counts will be obtained from the City documents. 3. Determine the project's trip distribution and traffic . assignment to the adjoining roadway system. 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 • • it Mr. John Douglas . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 15, 1994 Page 2 4. Conduct one percent analysis for up to six (6) study area intersections as designated by the City. 5. Determine traffic volumes and levels of service at up to six (6) study area intersections for cumulative conditions with the project. 6. Identify any required traffic mitigation measures at study area intersections. 7. Review stacking requirements and circulation adequacy for similar Taco Bell facilities located in coastal communities. We would propose to review the queuing and internal circulation at the following three (3) sites: • 17th Street at Newport Boulevard • Dana Point on Pacific Coast Highway • Huntington Beach on Bolsa Chica Street • Queuing and circulation impacts would be reviewed as follows: • Weekday 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM • Weekday 5: 00 PM - 6:30 PM • Weekend 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM 8. Based upon the field study, identify potential queuing requirements for the proposed Taco Bell. 9. On-site circulation and parking recommendations will be made including site access and internal circulation. 10. Summarize the results of the study in traffic impact report. 11. Attend additional coordination meetings with the City and project proponent. 12. Optional trip generation study for Taco Bell facilities. Field traffic counts will be obtained for two Taco Bell sites to determine appropriate AM/PM peak hour trip generation rates based upon local conditions. Two hour counts will be taken during both the AM and PM peak hour periods for two weekdays. PROFESSIONAL FEES The fee for the work outlined in this proposal is based upon . • personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in the attached Exhibit A. The fixed fee to accomplish the above Scope of Work J n Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 15, 1994 Page 3 Tasks 1 - 10 is $6,500.00. The cost for Task 11 will be on a time and materials basis based upon Exhibit A. This cost for optional Task 12 would be $660.00. Three copies (two bound and one original for the client's use) of the project report would be prepared. Monthly billings from ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. will be based upon the attached Exhibit A - BILLING RATES FOR ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. . The proposed fee does not include attendance at public hearings/meetings, which may be required to secure approval of the project. If these are required and requested, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. would be happy to attend these meetings and billing would be based upon the billing rates included in Exhibit A. The Client agrees to limit the Design Professional's liability to the Client and to all .construction Contractors and Subcontractors on the project', due to the Design Professional's negligent acts, errors, or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of the Design Professional to all those named shall not exceed $50,-000 or the Design Professional's total fee for services rendered on this project, whichever is greater. In the event that a lawsuit is brought for the enforcement of any of the terms of this agreement, the prevailing party should be entitled to attorney fees and costs in addition to any damages. TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the Taco Bell Traffic Impact Study will take approximately 15 working days to complete from the date of authorization, and date of receipt of data essential for the study. Additionally, any delays resulting from circumstances beyond our control, such as weather, shall extend the time schedule. QUALIFICATIONS ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is located in Newport Beach, California and specializes in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering for governmental agencies and the business community. The firm principals and associates have over Soo years of combined engineering and planning experience throughout Southern California at the regional, local and • individual project levels. The experience of the firm's personnel in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering Mr. John Douglas CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 15, 1994 Page 4 provides the special skills necessary for determining practical and meaningful traffic solutions. Resumes of key personnel within the firm are attached. This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this project. This proposal is valid for sixty days, if signed by the client. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. /� , ,� `Cc.\ Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal • RK:nad/3999 JN:559-94-001 Attachments xc: Scott Duffner, FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVAL Approved by: Aziz 14. Aslari Title: Associate Planner Firm: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Date: 4-26-1994 III -- - -------- -- PUq & SE.ORDER . PAGE 1 �aEWPORe CITY OF N PORT BEACH PURCHAS13A82R NUMBER III O 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD i P.O. BOX 1766 GI.., NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659-8915 . ,FOR N`r PHONE: (714) 644-3118 --- PORCH.ORDER DATE I DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. I VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION 04/28/94 0966 ATTN: ROBERT KAHN VENDOR ROBERT RAHN. JOHN PAIN & ASSOCS. SHIP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4101 BIRCH STREET TO PLANNING DEPARTAIENT SUITE 100 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIF. f12663 CONFIRM. BLANKET FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT N it NET 30 DAYS F.A.B. DESTINATION QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE I COMMODITY EED—E ..j UNIT PRICE EXTENSION PROVIDE. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED TACO BELL TO BE LOCATED AT 1400 PACIFIC COAST HIIGHWAY IN NEWPORT BEACH. PER YOUR PROPOSAL DATED 4/I5/94 . CWNTACT. JOHIi� DOVQL,AS•- PLA`INNING PVPARTPIENT ( 714) Z44-8725 4 .ft1t STUXaI 006�a — t, 6.`rl)rd.0000 G.,IIi1i.00 ITEM IrO'fff1t TRAVVIr $TUDY' AS D.rMeRIB'1~`D ARC1�E 'II • i TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER W ^q /*C6Fl Y/Ag1i, C.500.00 ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECT ACCOUNTF-7 AMOUNT 010 2306 �� 1;.500.00 TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER G, 500.00 hyali,FCL�E Aecapinnc•ollhn nNertiyegisev..d'o tell ladendaemuntorby derr%and whotoonppprting Ithsu pnnipdfor as ,revers. ey pcc�phnn lhlnnrtlf6lhxp Il.ryvxnd,..hI,hnrah�•Ah@hp Msreed and Or Lrme Incantation Older Co tha One those Issued hied by the xidn ul@M Cgnlnrt8urchom Ordw TM1a only Dvmabnq v'pngamns ihpt will by pppllceh�nto the inl:rpre0hon p/@rp epnlrzelpre those lsfiped b,mo BY City of Nnwpgn lt,acM1 IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Articles ea•.ored b)thin PerMme Order or Contract must contort()to applicable Cal OSHA Standard:•andror other appropriate la•veh regulations•rules,and coda of Federal Oovemmont and the Stale of California.Show ac a ccpamto each any rct ill saks tax,uco tea or Fcdeml nx app!cablo to this purchase This order subject to Caafomin calos lay.All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CRY will pay any salesfuso tan on all purchases ahlpped from ouFofmtato.All purchases upd tmn;ponauon Merges are exempt from F@tleml secs()tan NOTE All purchases are F.Os dcsunauon unless otharwbo authouzM Chmgec for empm@nl1 are to to froight prepaid and oddLA to the Involce(shown as a toparnto item)whore So authorized Do not Include pectoral bdnsportetion tax A Newport Beach bu.^inons license may be required to conduct busmen()In the City. ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY PURCHASE CITY OF aEwaoRr REQUISITION � .� ` NEWPORT � @� BEACH P.O.No.: Date: April 26, 1994 (if Reserved) _ Dept: PLANNING Suggested Vendor: Ship To: RohArt Kahn, John Kain k Accnriatac Transpnrtaion Planning- - 4101 Birch St. . Suite 100- Newport Beach, CA 92664 --- Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit Price Amount Budget# 1 Traffic Study Analysis for: 6500.00 6.500.00 010-2300 Taco Bell 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy rc .r 'Comments: Sub Total $6500 deposited into acct, 010-230Q_,4-22-9k Tw Total Date Required; F.O.B. Terms Code Amount PRO (Department Read or person authdrized to execute requisitions) PURCHASING MANAGER - FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding$2,000)