Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS116 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 10, 1998 INDEX Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. CONTIkUED BUSINESS 20. REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVERS FOR NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER Newport (NAC)BUILDING ADDITION (contd. from 7/13/98). Aquatic Center/ Fee Waiver Mayor Edwards announced that, since the City Council meeting of July 13, (40/62) 1998, a meeting was held with representatives of the Newport Aquatic Center,residents of Dover Shores, staff, Council Member Noyes and himself. Motion by Council Member Nover to 1) receive updated report from staff on discussions with the NAG,and Dover Shores representatives; 2) approve the request of the NAC fora waiver of their building permit fees, building excise tax; and 3) direct staff to ret}uest an appeal of the NAC for their Fair Share Fee requirement in accordance'with the NBMC. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: i Ayes: Thomson, Debay, O'Neil, Glover, Noyes, Hedgeb,,, Noes: None Absent: Mayor Edwards Abstain: None 21. BRECKENRIDGE GROUP (JOHN GANTES, APPLICANT) - 5180 Ord 98-20 BIRCH STREET - PROJECT INVOLVES THE APPROVAL OF AN PCA 876 AMENDMENT TO THE ROLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY UP 3635 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL Traffic Study116 RESTAURANT USES IN OFFICE SITE "G" AND TO PERMIT Roll Center EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT THE Planned ROLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE Community/ NBMC; ALSO INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF 5180 Birch Street THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL (94) OF A USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAKE-OUT RESTAURANT USE AS SPECIFIED IN THE ROLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT WITH A WAIVER OF A PORTION OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AND THE APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEMAND STUDY [USE PERMIT NO. 3635, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 116,PLANNING AMENDMENT NO. 8761. Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil announced that this item was before the City Council at their meeting of July 27, 1998. Timothy Strader, 3801 Inlet Isle, owner of the property at 5180 Birch Street, stated that he and Mr. Gantes, owner of the Breckenridge Group, were both in attendance to answer any questions. Council Member Hedges mentioned the discussion of the traffic study at the prior City Council meeting regarding the parking availability at the site. Council Member Hedges referred to another traffic study done for a development at Campus and Irvine that he felt was inadequate, and asked how this current study was different. Volume 52-Page 148 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 10, 1998 INDEX Transportation and Development Services Manager Edmonston explained that a key difference in the traffic study done for this site is that the site involves fewer uses. In addition, due to its proximity to nearby businesses, the site was projected to have more walk-in traffic than the other site. Mr. Strader confirmed for Council Member Hedges that his economic assumptions for the site include walk-in traffic supporting the businesses. Mr. Strader added that studies show that the current businesses at the site get 30%to 40%of their business from walk-in traffic. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil to adopt Ordinance No. 98.20. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. C�IRRENT BUSINESS 22. \AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL POLICY G-1. Council Policy G-1 Council Member Glover informed the City Council of the situation in (69) District 3 where there are no sidewalks and many of the trees are not identified in the City's inventory. Council Member Glover also stated that District 3 has a great deal of private development and renovation. Many of the trees thgt are removed during the process are City trees that have not been identifiedl�s such. Council Member lover requested that staff address this issue and begin notifying anyone pulking a demolition permit that they can not remove City trees without a permi6,Council Member Glover further requested that staff review the computerized,inventory of trees in the area bounded by Newport Boulevard, Coast Highwaytpover Drive and 16'h Street. Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil suggeste�that Council Member Glover's requests are issues separate from the G-1 policy. Council Member Glover concurred and stated that she would bring the issue back to the City Council at the next meeting. Yvonne Houssels, Vice-Chairman of C(mmunity Associations Alliance, , President of Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association, stated that she has been working with staff for over fAk years on a policy that will balance the needs of preserving the views *hile also maintaining the attractiveness of City parkway trees. Ms. 'Houss'gls stated that governing documents are in place to preserve the views in marry of the developments, and that this requirement can be met while still prov?ding for an attractive area with an abundance of trees. Me.Houssels conclude&• y stating that the G-1 policy before the City Council should be approved as drafted. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 E. Ocean Blvd., stated that she wol ed on the formulation of the original G-1 policy,which later needed some a ''ustments. Ms. Linhoff stated that she feels any changes should be done hot and maintain consistency. Ms. Linhoff specifically believes that th rent policy before the City Council should be changed to include a requirei3lent that written verification be provided of any notification sent, not jus k,a verbal confirmation. Ms. Linhoff also believes that the current policy should Volume 52-Page 149 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 27, 1998 INDEX 19. BRECKENRIDGE GROUP (JOHN GANTES, APPLICANT) - Ord 98-20 5180 BIRCH STREET — PROJECT INVOLVES THE APPROVAL OF PCA 876 AN AMENDMENT TO THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY UP 3635 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL Koll Center RESTAURANT USES IN OFFICE SITE "G" AND TO PERMIT Planned EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT THE Community/ KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE 5180 Birch St. NBMC; ALSO INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF (94) THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAKE-OUT RESTAURANT USE AS SPECIFIED IN THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT WITH A WAIVER OF A PORTION OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AND THE APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC AND PARKING DEMAND STUDY [USE PERMIT NO. 3635, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 116, PLANNING AMENDMENT NO. 8761. City Manager Murphy pointed out that the Council received a supplemental staff report which suggests that traffic study condition 2 be modified. He explained that the fee is the percentage of the construction of the improvements called out in the traffic study for the intersection of MacArthur and Jamboree. He noted that the staff report explains the relative contribution as it relates to the improvement at that intersection and this is the percentage of the number of trips related to the dollars required to do the improvement. The $5,000 ceiling is the fair share contribution by the developer. Public Works Director Webb explained that it is estimated that the costs of the improvements will be approximately $500,000 and this would be roughly 1% of the costs. Planning Director Temple further explained that the condition as originally imposed by the Planning Commission would have provided for the Traffic Engineer to assess the rough proportionality and to come up with a proportional fee. The applicant, after that action, asked staff to come up with some parameters around which that determination would be made and requested that there be a not-to-exceed number included. The City Traffic Engineer looked at the possible cost and came up with a range between $3,960 and$6,600 and he recommended that the proportional fee of 1.32%be assessed, but that it not exceed $5,000. She noted that $5,000 was selected as the not-to-exceed amount because it was about half way in the range. Mayor Edwards opened the public hearing. Timothy Strader, 840 Newport Center Dr., Suite 420, explained that he was the original representative at Koll Center Newport in 1972 when the original PC text was adopted by the City. He said he is also a representative and owner of Koll Center Newport A. He noted that when he purchased the land it had the Carrows Restaurant on it with 7500 square feet in one building. The City required 75 parking spaces at that time or approximately 1 per 100. To put it into perspective, he said they are reducing the intensity of use down to 5400 square feet, so if the formula were 1 per 100 they would be providing 54 spaces, but they are really providing 63 spaces, as required by ` Volume 52 - Page 127 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes t July 27, 1998 INDEX and 50% of the employees are in the public safety divisions, which are . essentially untouchable, He said it is no wonder that Council Member Noyes discovered that what is left over for repair and maintenance has the City in a state of crisis. After this, he said he hopes the Council rethinks the unicipal organization and financing top to bottom. lion by Mavor Pro Tem O'Neil to approve the MOU between the City and the l karine Safety Officers Association which covers the period from January 1, 199 through June 30, 1999. Council I1 ember Hedges said that he thinks what is remarkable about this agreement 's that it is unremarkable in the context of public safety type agreements. He said it is not unusual to see this,type of thing. He noted that unfortun tely the first time the public gets a look at these MOU's is when they are resented to the public in a completed form at the conclusion of negotiations w 'ch are discussed in closed session. Therefore,the public is deprived of the b Refit of the give and take and opinions exprtessed by individuals on the Qity Council. He said he did not realize that an agreement had been reached to cut substantial lump sum checks to these employees. He said he c�oesn t believe the Council pushed, on behalf of the taxpayer, hard enough fir alternative methods of providing the same services (contracting with o er cities, looking to the private sector for these services, etc.), and now it is blearly impossible to do that because they have been successfully integrated ial a public safety function. With Council Member Hedges diss nting, the motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS Charles Griffin, 732 Bison Avenue, provided the City Council with information that he provided to the Board of Supervisors regardin alternative plans for runways at El Toro and asked for their support in promoting t ' 'H said this alternative plan would be more acceptable for residents to the south aeast of the airport and noted that the present plan and layout of the runways "ink derivative of the existing layout. He reviewed the runway separation requirementb and justification for them. He also provided an analysis to Council and noted that'\' the layout plan is not approved than airport grant funds will not be available from• he FAA. PUBLIC HEARINGS MENDMENT TO REVISE SECTION 20.67.035(B) 0 18. A THE NBMC TO Ord 98-19 RE ADOPT POLITICAL SIGN REGULATIONS (AMENDNT 874). PCA 8.74 Political Sign Mayor Edwards opened the public hearing, and hearing no testimony, closed Regulations the public hearing. °`h (68) b Motion by Council Member Debav to introduce Ordinance No. 9{8.119 for Amendment 874, and pass to second reading on August 10, 1998. .A Without objection, the motion,carried by acclamation. Volume 52-Page 126 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 27, 1998 INDEX the City. If you take the reduction in intensity of use from 7500 square feet it is really a 27% reduction. He submitted that a drive-through restaurant requires fewer parking spaces than a full sit-down restaurant. He pointed out that he included a letter with the staff report indicating that he looked into the complaints of the Wienerschnitzel made at the Planning Commission meeting and submitted a minute excerpt from February 10, 1983 where Wienerschnitzel requested a reduction of 29 parking spaces for their location when they were adding 850 square feet. He said that they submit that the problems that exist on the site with one of the owners, who originally indicated he wasn't going to oppose their proposal, is because of the waiver granted to Wienerschnitzel. He said the Wienerschnitzel site is designed so that the stacking from their drive-through interferes with the parking for Mr. Horning's office building. He also noted that they have controlled parking since they own their own separate parcel and they have their own gate. They indicated that in the past they have utilized the gate to prevent people from Wienerschnitzel from parking in their parking lot. He pointed out that the Council also received a letter from Rockwell Semiconductor wherein they take issue with the parking reduction. He stated that the experts hired by the City to do the study have set forth their conclusions based on an extensive study. There was no extensive study for the Wienerschnitzel waiver, but simply a letter from them. On behalf of the Breckenridge group, he said they are willing to accept the staff recommendations. He stated that the request for the not-to-exceed number is so that Mr. Breckenridge can get his loan in order to finance this operation. In response to Council Member Debay, he stated that the Planning Commission looked at the concerns raised by Mr. Horning, and the project has been redesigned. He further noted that the Planning Commission had some concerns about the speed of traffic that has been observed. Based on that, he talked to the developer who has agreed to install speed bumps. He stated that the best way to fix Mr. Horning's problem is to require Wienershnitzel to redesign because they are his problem since they are right in front of his office building. Jim Caulfield, Galardi Group, 4440 Von Kerman Avenue, franchiser of the Wienerschnitzel restaurant group and the tenant of the subject property, stated that they are opposed to a major competitor locating next to them because a competitor the size of a Burger King would damage their business. He said they have operated the Wienerschnitzel there for 20 years and their experience has been that whenever a competitor comes into the area, their business goes down. He said that, however, if it were only a Burger King that were locating on this property, they probably wouldn't have a basis for being here. If there were not the second restaurant, the amendment to the development agreement would not be required which allows them to have 2 restaurant buildings on this property. Those two buildings will hold 3 different restaurant concepts. The parking waiver wouldn't be required and the TPO waivers and contributions wouldn't have to occur. He said the real problem is being created by the second building on the property. He noted that he provided the Council with a letter outlining their concerns. He explained that the average Wienerschnitzel restaurant has half the sales of the average Burger King restaurant. He said that in addition to the facts in the staff report, there are other facts that bear directly on the parking issue — actual observations of what the actual parking is for Burger Kings in the Volume 52 -Page 128 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes t July 27, 1998 INDEX vicinity and not the Burger King in Santa Ana, which is the subject of the parking study. In addition to the parking.problems, he noted that there are some site problems, which he pointed out on a site plan that he explained to the Council. He noted that there are four lanes of traffic southbound on Jamboree and the lane that turns into the Wienerschnitzel and Newport Federal Building is an acceleration lane for traffic entering from Birch onto . Jamboree. He said the difficulty is that the more traffic that is brought to the site, the more difficult the access is. He said they believe that the two buildings is what really creates the intensity. He said they also have issues with the access from Birch Street. He noted that the Burger King drive- through exits onto Birch Street. He also pointed out that the proposal shows stacking for seven cars, however there are letters and studies showing that the Burger Kings in the area are stacking 9 to•19 cars. He said that based on the parking issue, traffic issue, and intensification of the use of the property, this is a case of too much on too little and they believe the solution would be to simply approve the Burger King or have it redesigned to not include the second building. Council Member Hedges questioned Mr. Caulfield about whether the Wienerschnitzel would be willing to have their use permit reviewed to consider whether or not the code required parking should be provided on site, or to make modifications to the building to bring it into compliance with the Newport Beach code. Mr. Caulfield explained that they sought and obtained a parking reduction. Based upon the City's parking study, he said it appears that they have not exceeded the capacity of their parking as it is now. He said that it was an objective standard that was based upon an evaluation of what fast food restaurants did and in this case it can be evaluated specifically since they know what restaurant is going in. He noted that on a national sales average Wienershnitzel's average sales as a chain are 20% less than Burger Kings'. In response to Council Member Hedges' question about whether trip generation should be based on gross sales rather than the quantities of products sold, Mr. Caulfield stated that the number of trips is a function of gross sales and' how much each person spends. He explained the "check average" and volume of sales. Council Member Hedges stated that perhaps the Council should look at the use that Wienershnitzel is enjoying and,call that up for review in the context of the approval for this project and lookat all of them to see what needs to be done on,site for all the businesses to make the whole corner work. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that this would be amending a development agreement that was executed 26 years ago, which was reflected in CC&R's that were in effect in 1978 under which the properties were purchased. He said he doesn't know what their use permit Would have to do with amending development agreements. He said his interest is in preserving the business they have at that site. He stated that they sought and obtained waivers 15 years ago and he doesn't know if reviewing use permits that occurred 15 years ago would be productive. City Attorney Burnham stated, that the City.generally would not have the Volume 52-Page 129 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 27, 1998 INDEX ability to review a use permit unless the permit provides for such review. Tom Wooldridge, 1735 Corbett Highlands Place, Arroyo Grande, owner of the property located at 4501 Jamboree which is leased to the Galardi Group who operate the Wienerschnitzel restaurant, said his property abuts the restaurant located at 5180 Birch Street. It is his understanding that the owner of that property wants to tear down his restaurant and proposes to replace it with three restaurants, one of which would be a Burger King with a drive-through service and an additional building would house two additional full-service small scale restaurants. Based on his notice, the owner wishes to amend the Koll Center Planned Community development regulation allowing him to triple the amount of restaurants from 1 to 3 restaurants on his property. The present restriction is 2 restaurants for both properties. He explained his past history as a law enforcement officer and his duties and responsibilities representing the Police Department at the City planning meetings and working with the traffic engineer. Without adequate vehicle circulation and parking, there will be a major pedestrian safety problem. He said that in his opinion the proposed project lacks adequate parking and may cause a traffic circulation problem. He said he purchased his property based on the fact that the CC&R's, along with the City regulations, were protective of his investment and were drafted to maintain and control the design and integrity of the development. Having a dining and fast-food restaurant appeared to be a favorable balance between the two properties, but replacing the dining restaurant with a Burger King plus two additional restaurants will create a major parking problem and have a detrimental affect on their business. He noted that the Burger King alone will generate double the vehicular traffic compared to the Wienerschnitzel. He said his tenant was forced to post their parking stalls due to the fact that customers eating at the dining restaurant would park on their property and vice versa. He asked that the City Council consider the detrimental affect the proposed development will have on his property by replacing one dining restaurant with three restaurants. He requested that the Council deny the waiver of any parking requirements for this project. Rich Bluth, Director of Facilities, Rockwell Semiconductors, 4311 Jamboree Road, stated that Rockwell has operated the facility since the early 1960's in that location. He said they have only one concern related to this project, which is described in their letter, and it relates to the parking. He said that Wienerschnitzel was granted a parking waiver at the time it was developed. When Taco Bell was built adjacent to the 4000 MacArthur property a waiver of 11 spots was granted- to that project as well on the basis that walk-in dining would create a discount in terms of parking required. He said it has been their observation that Taco Bell is extremely successful and parking is fully booked during the peak times, which is evidenced by the traffic study submitted for this project. This project is asking for a waiver of 15 spots and their concern is that people will park on their lot and go to the Burger King since their property does not have controlled parking. He noted that this project can clearly be built within the code required parking and therefore he requested that Council consider that. He said they have concerns with the liability from people transgressing their property who don't belong there. He reiterated that their concern is only parking, it does not relate to the traffic effort or analysis, and only because they feel parking will end up on their Volume 52 -Page 130 i r . City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 27, 1998 INDEX site. Hearing no further testimony,Mayor Edwards closed the,public hearing. In response to Council Member Debay's question about whether the other two adjoining restaurants are a Starbucks and a bagel shop, Mr. Strader reported that they are limited-use, 25 seat, small coffee and bagel type operations. Council Member Debay questioned whether the peak hours for these restaurants would be different than for the Burger King. Bryant Bryson, Director of Operations and 'Development, Breckenridge Group, said that as an operator they are concerned with the other uses as well. While looking for secondary tenants for the two smaller uses, he said they are looking for something to be complimentary to their business. As far as the Burger King he said approximately 10-16% of the sales come from the breakfast period, 35-40% in lunch and dinner depending on the type of location. He said based on the location it would'be more skewed to lunch. He said it is their intent to find tenants that would compliment them and allow them to phase parking in and out so there wont be a need for the type of parking presently being required. :He said they are negotiating with a coffee house, however it has not come to fruition yet. He said that as an operator they don't want another use that will be heavy lunch or dinner because that would just damage the Burger King's business. Council Member Hedges noted the problem with the parking at the Starbucks at Campus and MacArthur. He requested that the Traffic Engineer walk the Council through the methodology used to determine the conclusion on the analysis for this project. Motion by Council Member Hedges to continue this matter to August 10, 1998 in order to get the questions related to parking and stacking answered. He said he is not convinced that the Planning Commission made the right conclusions based on the analysis. He also requested that the Traffic Engineer and consultant be present at the meeting. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Debay,Hedges,Mayor Edwards Noes: Thomson, O'Neil, Glover,Noyes Absent: None Abstain: None Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil said he doesn't feel it is appropriate for the City to make decisions which deal with regulating competition between various business enterprises. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil to introduce Ordinance No. 98.20 amending Boll Center Newport Planned Community, and pass to second reading on August 10, 1998; approve Use Permit No. 3635 and Traffic Study No. 116 with the modified condition#2 as presented, including an override of Volume 62 -Page 131 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 27, 1998 INDEX the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, subject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A." He said he believes the findings and conditions are rather extensive and allows for further review of access and parking. He said staff still has the jurisdiction to review the full issue of traffic circulation. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Debay, O'Neil, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Edwards Noes: Hedges Absent: None Abstain: None FONT HUED BUSINESS 20. 1998-99 BUDGET AND BUDGET CHECKLIST (contd. from 6/22/98). 1998-99 Budget �y Manager Murphy explained that the Council has the written staff (40) report that was given to the Council at the meeting of June 22, 1998, as well as thee\minutes from that meeting. On June 22, 1998 the City Council adopted\he budget, deferred action on a majority of the checklist items and after disNssion focused on finding additional dollars for capital improvementgprojects asked that he return with a plan to address the issue. He said his iTmmendation in the staff report can be summarized as undertaking another review of the City's operating expenses, reserves, and assets in order to find dollars for the short-term and for the long-term. The approach that he suggested is to simultaneously undertake a number of efforts. The first is to"it ntify in each infrastructure system (roads, storm drains, water & sewer, ete.Z,the appropriate level of funding needed to keep the infrastructure in good repair and condition. He said he indicated in the staff report that many of the m ster plans have been completed, but there is still some that need to be done.\Second, would be to identify the timetable needed for funding for each of tlls, systems. This will vary year to year depending on what the particular need is in a particular area based on the master plan. Third, to re-examine Ue current dollars towards capital, examine the City assets, the possibility o4ggrants, and the reserves that the City currently has for use in capital improvements. Most importantly, the one that will be the most time-consuming, is� o re-examine how to squeeze more dollars out of the operating expenses. T&pggested approach is also to return in January of 1999, the mid-point in t$ new fiscal year, to visit where things stand in the new fiscal year, where the state budget has ultimately resolved as it relates to VLF, where the Citylt ands with revenue and expenses, and to look at what additional dollars can be allocated during the current fiscal year towards capital improvements. INsaid there is a reasonable chance that could very well occur. He said he also suggested a manner for handling the checklist items. He noted that thereNare 23 items that he has broken down into several categories. Category A are items that Council took action on on July 22, 1998, and his proposal is that tho"s'Vould stand as approved. Category B are items which fit in the category of additional capital improvements and he has suggested that they be held,in abeyance for six months and can be reconsidered after the revenues are, looked at in the current fiscal year, as well as the expenses, to see if they can Volume 52-Page 132 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 27, 1998 INDEX be funded, in addition to looking at the more comprehensive picture. Category C are those items which were added to the checklist and are currently in the budget for funding capital improvement projects. He suggested that those items proceed. Category D is to approve as recommended in the checklist. Category E are three issues that don't fit into aN}y of the other categories and the City Council needs to take an individual von@ on these items. He noted that after many years of downturns the economy is doing well, the standing in the marketplace as far as salaril&nefits has been addressed, over the years the expenses in terms of mainten nce and operation have been held down, the capital improvements have held-,steady, and reserves.have been restored, but now it is time to look again witNn emphasis on the capital improvement program. He explained that he is proposing an aggressive program over the •next six months to undertake that,effort for the short-term, but more importantly for the long term. Council Member ' oyes stated that he thinks the timeframe should be shortened to about t ee months and the items that aren't approved tonight should be made actionNtems and not just part of an update. He said he also a. believes there are opportunities in the government culture to provide employees with a sense oj;pride and satisfaction in the job that they do and part of that is to instill in°Cthem the need to be very productive, see their organization be productive a d to lend a hand to that in some way. He said he thinks almost every employee probably has some idea or concept that would save the City money or Improve service to the citizens. He said he believes the employees in the fielkare more responsive to the citizens and the ones in the buildings are more responsive to the corporate culture. He suggested that the employees work out into the field more. 1 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil to acc' t the recommendation of the City Manager to receive and file the report,' to direct the City Manager to undertake the review as outlined and repo'rback to the City Council on a periodic basis on the status of the review, an �to consider additional capital improvement allocations for the 1998.99 fiscal'Wear. His motion included changing the January 1999 date to November 199.8 to make it 90 days. On the checklist items, his motion included no further discussion on the three items in Category A since they have already been approved; hold the items in Category B for abeyance for 90 days; approve the;•items in Category C since they were budgeted; and hold D and E in abeyance fb 90 days. Council Member Glover reported that she believes she can get some private funding for the bridge flags, however she can't get that with}90 days. She voiced concern about holding the funding for the West Newp rt Channels, noting that it is an embarrassment to have beaches and channels closed in Newport Beach. She spoke in opposition to the funding for the Balboa parking lot because she doesn't believe the answer for the peninsula?is to add more parking spaces. She said she would also like to see more legal analysis like to see the City consider i done on the oil field program and she would also hk P g >3' sellingoff the rental property at the Balboa Yacht Basin. She spoke< m P P Y support of the funding for the book collection. 11 Council Member Debay said she feels that this process is unwieldy and Volume 52-'Page 133 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX ey will keep the trees trimmed for the neighborhood. Mr. Wood stated t y have made efforts to meet with people, and the plans have been on 'e with the City at least 45 days. Commi ioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Wood if they could delay for two weeks. stated everybody is here and they could set up a time and place, per ps at the property, to meet with them. Commissioner Ridgeway sta d he believes it is a property rights issue. He stated he is opposed to so a of the extreme compromises that were proposed in signing any agre ents. Chairman Selich clos the public hearing. All the Commissioners we in favor of supporting a continuance. Chairman Selich reopened th Public Comments. Mr. Wood stated Mr. San Miguel ill go along with the continuance. A sign-up sheet would be provided to homeowners to sign-up. Motion was made by Commissioner Fu r to continue Variance No. 1222 and Coastal Residential Development Pe it No.24 July 23, 1998. Without objection and by show of hands,Mot n Carried. Commissioner Gifford stated a continuance is nted for everyone to have an opportunity to have a better understandi of the project, and the effect of the variance request Ms. Gifford state she would like to ask all to honor Mr. Wood's request to sign up with hi and also if they are planning to appear to speak about this again sh suggests they have attended the session. Commissioner Adams stated, if they would like C mission representation, he would be willing to attend any session or m t with any of the neighbors, and feels all of the Commissioners would be illing to do that. SUBJECT: Breckenridge Group(John Gantes,applicant) Item ? 5180 Birch Street Amendment No.876 • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 • Use Permit No.3635 Traffic Study No. 116 • Traffic Study No.116 Approved The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80-seat Burger King 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Restaurantwith drive-through service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq.ft.building divided into two lease spaces for two,full-service small-scale restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft. each. The project involves the approval of: • an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites)and; • amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code,and; • A use permit for the establishment of a take-out restaurant use as specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces,and; • the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study. Transportation Services Manager Rich Edmonston stated this project was subjected to the standard traffic analysis required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated that result indicated two intersections would be impacted, and under the Ordinance, it would require some mitigation. One of those was the intersection of Jamboree and Campus. The mitigation there would is the re-stripping of assignment of lanes on Campus Drive,which we have had a preliminary discussion with the City of Irvine, which controls that intersection, and they did see any problems going forward with that mitigation. Mr. Edmonston stated the second mitigation is at the section of Jamboree and MacArthur. In that case they are adding thirty some trips to that intersection in the morning, which is enough to cause the I.C.U. to increase one notch (over the City's acceptable level of .90) which requires mitigation. A preliminary view of that location suggests there are three different mitigations that might be made, two of which would specifically help mitigate their traffic in the morning. All three of these have been identified preliminarily as very expensive mitigations,probably each one in the range of several hundred thousand dollars, and one of them clearly over a million dollars. Mr. Edmonston stated they are in the process of hiring a consultant to provide more information in terms of cost, and the extent to which right-of-way may be required. He stated because they believe the cost of that improvement is not proportional to the impact of these 30 to 40 cars. What is suggested as a condition in this case, is that the re-stripping mitigation at Jamboree and Campus be done prior to occupancy of the project;and that this applicant would contribute a prorated share for the cost of the identified improvement at MacArthur and Jamboree. At this point there is not a dollar amount to share as to what that condition will translate into; but believe it will be proportional to their impact. Mr. Edmonston stated the question has been raised if this improvement is covered by the Fair Share fees,and he stated it is not. 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Mr. Edmonston stated they had the traffic consultant study other fast food sites in Irvine,as well as,the Weinerschnitzel next door to this site,in terms of traffic in peak hour that was walk-in versus parking and coming and using the drive-throughs. He stated they believe, as a result of that study, the applicant scaled back the size of the project. Mr. Edmonston stated he is comfortable at this point that the parking that is provided on-site should be adequate for both the Burger King and the free standing building that has two restaurants proposed. Commissioner Adams stated he noticed the traffic report discussed the drive-up queuing lane and made a statement that it had a 7-car storage. He asked if that is adequate and if there was queuing study done to back- up that claim. Mr. Edmonston said he did not believe there was. He stated he believes it refers to the amount of storage that is available in the drive-up facility before it begins blocking other parked cars. Mr. Edmonston stated it is fairly common in fast food facilities in Newport to have drive-up where the line does extend past that and snake through the parking lot. He stated,in this case,there is quite a bit of additional storage before it ever backs up to any adjacent property with common access or out to the public street. Commissioner Fuller asked if there is reciprocal access or a common drive- way from Jamboree. Mr. Edmonston stated the drive-way is actually on the Weinerschnitzel parcel;this parcel does not have Jamboree access;it only has access from Birch Street. Commissioner Fuller asked if there is an easement or something we have to ingress and egress. Mr. Edmonston stated to his knowledge there is not a recorded that the City is a party to. He stated it is his understanding that there are cross-easements,and the site plan as presented to us and as shown in the staff report, does have aisle ways that are continuous with that adjacent property. Commissioner Fuller asked if the same owner owns both properties. Mr. Edmonston stated he does not know. Commissioner Adams wanted to follow-up on his question regarding the storage for the drive-through. He asked if we are requiring them the on- site signage to be reviewed by Traffic engineering; and also can the Burger King traffic that enters from Jamboree Road,how are they going to be signed to get to the drive-through;are they going to go along the aisle closest to Jamboree or will they be taken around the new food service site around the back. Also do we have discretion over that circulation? Mr. Edmonston stated the answer to the first part of Commissioner Adam's question is he does not believe they have looked at signage for this site up to this time. Commissioner Adams asked if that could be a condition,and Planning Director Temple stated we could have that as a condition. Chairman Selich stated it is understanding that the Weinerschnitzel next door has a waiver for 29 parking spaces,and wanted to know the basis for 16 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX that waiver. Ms. Temple stated that part of the waiver was based in storage in the drive-through lane, however they did not research the specific findings that the Commission made in that waiver. Planning Director Temple made a commentary to clarify the circumstances of this particular application. Ms. Temple stated Mr. Edmonston described in detail some of the specifics of the traffic study as noted in the Staff report. The project does not technically meet the criteria to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance with a simple majority. Ms. Temple stated that, in order to be fully approved and recommended to the City Council, this project would require a unanimous vote of those persons present of this Commission since the Ordinance requires a 4/51h majority of all members eligible to vote. She noted that while absent,Commissioner Kranzley is still eligible to vote. Ms.Temple stated she has been informed by the City Attorney that 6 vote plurality is required unless one or more of the Commissioners must excuse themselves because of conflict of interest. She stated that should the Commission not be able to achieve that level of majority in this particular action but still have the majority to approve the Zoning Amendment and the Use Permit, those would still be valid approvals and would move forward to the City Council with the recommendations for approval on the City Amendment, and the Use Permit, but with a non- approval on the Traffic Study. Ms. Temple stated that could still be handled at the Council level,however,at the Council level it would still be required to achieve that some majority of 6 or 7 eligible votes to actually be approved. Ms.Temple stated this is the first time in many years which they have been confronted with this particular issue but she believes that they have provided within the staff report reasonable rationale for override of the TPO in this case Public Hearing Opened Timothy L. Strader, the owner of property at 5180 Birch Street stated he wanted to compliment the staff on their extensive analysis in the staff report. Mr. Strader stated he purchased the property approximately a year and a half ago when it was operated as a Carrow's restaurantwhich was 7500 sq. ft., per the Use Permit from the City, and the City required 75 parking spaces for that use. Mr.Strader stated in this particular case,this is a reduction in intensity in an existing restaurant because they will end up with 5,401 sq. ft., not 7500 sq. ft. Mr. Strader stated, in this case, they are installing 63 parking spaces. He stated,in answer to Commissioner Fuller's question that yes there is a reciprocal easement between Weinerschnitzel and his property. Mr. Strader stated there are minor impacts that this project creased based upon the assumptions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and they respectfully request that the Commission seriously consider an ability to proceed so they can take it to the Council. Mr. Strader stated they have started to work on this project with the Staff last 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX February,and Mr. Gantes has, under the City requirements,paid the cost of the traffic and parking consultants. He stated they request the Commission adopt the Exhibit A findings with the conditions of approval. Mr. Strader stated, to the extent the Staff is able to come up the actual costs that might be applicable to this particular property,they may have the numbers prior to the final hearing so they can put the numbers in their financial performa. Commissioner Adams asked if there are any prospective tenants for the parcel. John Gantes,Franchisee of Burger King stated that,at this time,they have a proposal from Starbucks for one-half of the space, and there is no one lined up for the other half. Commissioner Adams asked staff if they are comfortable with the trip generation and parking characteristicsof the traffic study. Mr. Edmonston stated that, in this particular case, Starbucks would be competing with Burger King for customers looking for coffee and a light breakfast and did not particularly concern himself with that. He stated they have a standardized ratio which is used for small scale,full-service restaurants but did not look at what the particular tenant might end up being other than the half of the building that might be occupied by Starbucks. Commissioner Ridgeway stated there was a letter of objection to the project and he wanted to make sure Mr. Strader had a copy of it. Mr. Strader stated he picked up a copy of it this evening and wanted to point out that the final paragraph is not correct. Mr. Strader stated that the CC&R's do not require the property owners' consent. He stated the CC&R's and declarant is the AEfNA We Insurance Company, and it requires their approval of the architectural plans and has nothing to do with the property owner's consent. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr. Strader has a letter from Der Weinerschnitzel,and Mr. Strader stated he does. Mr. Strader stated he thinks this project will improve rather hinder their operations. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Edmonston if they considered the ITE manual has suggested anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the traffic that is on a system would be drive-by and use operation of fast food. Mr.Edmonston stated on page 14 of the Traffic Study,in Table 4, based on an examination they looked at,they allowed for 45 percent for Burger King and 20 percent for the other uses. He stated that, in addition to that, they did try to quantify the walk-in aspect, but these are the numbers used in the Traffic Study. Planning DirectorTemple stated she would like to remind the Commission, in approving the project, the full service, small scale category would provide for small restaurants of a much more conventional nature. She stated they did not look for specifics for what they think might occur now, 18 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX but to what the entitlement is and what could happen there in the long term and try to assess those credits in that light. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Strader (because he is familiar with the history in the area), why Weinerschnitzel was granted a waiver for 29 spaces. Mr.Straderstated he did not recall what was in the staff report at that time. Commissioner Ashley asked regarding the Traffic Study stated it might be difficult getting into the property if westbound and asked to what extent do these types of traffic conflicts interfere with ingress/egress that might be related to the office uses that would be adjacent. He asked if this is something that we should be concerned about. Mr. Edmonston was something they asked the traffic consultant to look at, and one of the things that is a little unusual in a traffic study is there are different distribution patterns for inbound and outbound because,on Birch,there is a center median island that blocks a left turn off of Birch into the drive- way. He stated that, similarly,if you exit and want to get back into the area you have to go down Jamboree to a median opening and come back. Mr. Edmonston stated that most of those would happen at the signal light intersections,and there is capacityto accommodate that. Jim Caulfield,Franchiserof Weinerschnitzel restaurant,which is leased from Mr. Woolridge, stated that both Mr. Woolridge and the owner of the adjacent office building have requested continuances of the hearing. Mr. Caulfield stated that because of the length of the package, the report being 125 pages long,it does not give them the opportunity to deal with the issues presented when they have less than ten days, three of them being a holiday. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Caulfield, aside from the opportunity to digest the entire report and perhaps have other items he wanted to mention,she asked if the principal area of concern has to do with parking and traffic movement on the site. Mr. Caulfield stated also that they believe as owners of the adjacent properties have rights under the CC&R's which are being amended. Chairman Selich clarified they are not dealing with CC&R's here. Commissioner Fuller asked staff who commissioned the traffic and parking study,was it developer paid for or selected by the City. Planning Director Temple stated, as required by the City's policies, the Traffic Ordinance Phasing analysis is done under contract by the City, funded by the applicant; and in this particular case, a combined traffic and parking study was done under City contract funded by the applicant. Commissioner Fuller clarified that the City selected who the consultant was who prepared the reports. Ms.Temple stated that is correct,and the consultant responsible to the City for its content. 19 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Chairman Selich asked Mr. Caulfield if he was aware of the waiver of 29 spaces. Mr.Caulfield responded that he was not. Mr. Strader stated that, from the standpoint of the request for a continuance,this matter will have to go to the City Council and there will be adequate time for these people to study the matter and make a presentation at the City Council. Mr. Strader asked for a decision this evening if it was any way possible. Public Hearing closed Commissioner Ashley stated that the project is asking for 15 spaces which is below Code standard. He stated the uses are well balance and the uses being proposed are reasonable. Commissioner Ashley stated he has no objection to the application. Commissioner Gifford stated she does not have a problem in terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. She stated that the people come in from Birch Street and go over to the Der Weinerschnitzel drive-through lane and block the end of the parking lane. Commissioner Gifford stated people coming through also seem to be in the middle of the road there, not allowing for right turns down that parking lane. She stated there were pedestrians who have to walk in all the traffic lanes,and this is her area of concern. Commissioner Fuller stated they have a letterfrom Newport Federal,who is adjacent to the Weinerschnitzel who said they were not noticed,and they just found out about it today. He asked staff if they had been noticed. Planning Director Temple stated they mail to the owner of record on the Assessors rolls. She also stated, after looking it up in the files, that in this case it was directly noticed to Newport Federal at 4425 Jamboree so they should have received it. She stated they are typically mailed out ten days before the hearing. Commissioner Adams also agrees there is no problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance but is uncomfortable with the site plan. He is concerned about the pedestrian traffic also. Commissioner Ridgeway also agrees with Commissioner Adams in that he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated his problem is the on-site parking. Commissioner Ridgeway stated the waiver for the Burger King project is 15 versus 29 for the Weinerschnitzel, but when looking at in totality in the cumulative impact, it is 44 cars. He stated he is looking for a way to approve it because it is a good use of a corner that has been under utilized. 20 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Chairman Selich stated he would like to hear Mr. Edmonston's comments regarding on-site circulation. Mr. Edmonston stated when the traffic engineering consultant reviewed it, he indicated in his report that seven spaces in the drive-through lane were a workable number. He stated there is a considerable amount of overflow stacking from that standpoint before it would get out to that main aisle that would block to from Der Weinerschnitzel. Mr. Edmonston stated, in that regard, the Commission and Council have,on other projects,conditions that require the applicant or owner to take whatever steps are necessary to insure that the back-up from the drive-through does not obstruct the street. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Edmonston's professional opinion, given the constraints on this property,if this is a reasonable site plan for the property circulation wise. Mr. Edmonston stated he has not spent a great deal of time looking at this and trying to figure out if there are alternatives. He stated given the layout of trying to have some parking that is away from the Weinerschnitzel,it looks like a reasonablygood site plan from that perspective. Commissioner Adams asked if he had any comments on pedestrian access. Mr. Edmonston stated he did not think there was an attempt to quantify the direction the pedestrians are coming from. He stated there are connectors from the sidewalk on Jamboree shown in the site plan. Mr. Edmonston stated the access from the driveway at Birch is not as clear. He stated there is a condition that does require further review of access and parking by his office and typically that is the point where they look at opportunities for sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities. Planning Director Temple stated the project currently exceeds landscape standards and the plan does show sidewalks on both Birch and Jamboree with connections to the property. Chairman Selich stated he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance aspect of it. He stated he was concerned about the parking but thinks it is a good use of the property and would be inclined to support it. Commissioner Fuller stated he would support this project. Motion was made by Commissioner to approve Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635,and Traffic Study No. 116 and recommend to City Council. Without objection and by show of hands,Motion Carried. EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Amendment No.876,Use Permit No.3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX A. Planned Community Amendment No. 876: Adopt Resolution No. 1470 (Attached),recommending to the City Council the approval of PC Amendment No. 876, increasing the number of restaurant sites in Office Site"G"to three sites and,permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koli Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No.3635 Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is designated for "Administrative,Professional& Financial Commercial' uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistentwith this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed,and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of propertywithin the proposed development. 4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size, off-street parking and wall requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (eating and drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirementsif the Planning Commission approves this application, for the following reasons: • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. • The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations. • The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators. 1. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses,which primarily function during daytime hours. 22 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX 2. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060of the Municipal Code. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive-through food service and waive a portion of the required parking will not,under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use. • The project will not result in any significant environmental impact. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of the Koll Center Planned Community. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use, which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan. • That the off-street parking spaces that exist in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. • The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the Parking Demand Study. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage(63 spaces)shall be provided on-site. 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take-out restaurant (Burger 23 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX King)shall be limited to a maximum of 2,531 sq.ft. 4. The development standard pertaining to off-street parking requirements and perimeterwallsshall be waived. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m.and 12 midnight,daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved. 7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits,the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 8. The area outside of the food establishment,including the common walkways,shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces. 10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive-through lane shall be relocated so that it does not block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive-through lane. 11. The final design of all on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 12. All employees shall park on-site. 13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 14. No live entertainmentor dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 24 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX 16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on-site and off-site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit,causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Standard Reauirements 1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems,unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 4. The projectsholl comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located 25 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX in compliancewith the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L so that it does not block sight distance. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,Community Noise Control. 9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate),or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top,which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters,if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape,walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-fourinches in height. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in 26 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights-of-way. 16. No temporary"sandwich"signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way,unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. C. Traffic Study No. 116 Findinas: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major; 'primary-modified; or 'primary' streets; however,the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the applicant shall have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the City Traffic Engineer shall determine,and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 27 r�gWa�Dpl. CITY OF AORT BEACH HWring Date: July 27, 1998: o/►/•).} COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Marc Myers • °+< a 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (949) 644-3210 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (949)644-3200;FAX(949)644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL: Breckenridge Group(John Gantes,applicant) 5180 Birch Street PURPOSE: The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80-seat Burger King Restaurant with drive-through service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq. ft.building divided into two lease spaces for two,full-service small-scale restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft. each. The project involves the approval of. • an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites), and to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the • Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. This hearing also includes consideration of an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the following related applications: • A use permit for the establishment of a take-out restaurant use as specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces,and • the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study. ACTION: 1. Conduct public hearing; AND 2. Sustain the recommendation and actions of the Planning Commission: a) Introduce Ordinance No. 98-_, amending Koll Center Newport Planned Community, and pass to second reading on August 10, 1998;and • b) Approved Use Permit No. 3635 and Traffic Study No. 116, including an override of the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance(4/5ths majority required),subject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit"A." • OR 3. Deny Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No 3635 and Traffic Study No. 116 with the Findings set forth in Exhibit"B." LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 3,Map Book 198,Pages 27 and 28 ZONE: P.C.(Koll Center Planned Community) OWNER: TimothyL. Strader,Newport Beach City Council Action The project requires City approval of an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community text,a Use Permit and a Traffic Study. The amendment requires City Council action since it is a legislative act. However,the Planning Commission's actions on the Use Permit and Traffic Study, including an override of the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, do not require • considerationby the City Council unless they are appealed or called up for review. On July 22, 1998,Mr. Thomas Wooldridge filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Use Permit and Traffic Study. Four areas of concern are discussed in the appeal letter, including the amendment to increase the allowable number of restaurant sites,the parking waiver, waiving the traffic mitigation requirements and the nature of the proposed site plan. They feel that the applicant is overburdening the property by putting two restaurant sites on one lot. The correspondence is attached for the Council's review. Summary of the Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applicationon July 9, 1998,at which time it voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. An excerpt of the draft minutes of the Planning Commission, and a copy of the staff report prepared for their consideration are attached for the information of the City Council.The two most significant issues ,in this case, waiver of off-street parking and the override of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, are discussed in detail in this report. In making its decision,the Planning Commission took into consideration a number of key features of the application,as follows: • The waiver of requiredparking spaces, • • The number of spaces provided for stacking in the drive-throughlane, Amendment No.876 Page 2 • The overall on-site vehicular circulation,and • • The override of the TPO. The Planning Commission voiced concern about convenience food uses congregating in close proximity to one another,availability and usability of parking,and on-site circulation. In taking its action, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that the nature of the new restaurants,when combined with the specific conditions of approval and based on the findings of the Traffic and Parking Demand Study,would result in a reduced parking demand and would not have a significant impact on the area. This was due.to the following factors: 1. The Traffic and Parking Demand Study was prepared by professional Traffic Engineers in the industry by a firm contracted through the city. Based on the information and analysis presented in that study, the City Traffic Engineer concluded that site access, on-site circulation and parking as proposed are adequate for the site. 2. Since additional stacking space for vehicles can be accommodated in the parking lot preceding the entrance to the drive-through lane, the proposal met the City's minimum standard requirements. 3. The Planning Commission suggested that the applicant re-evaluate the on-site circulation of the proposed project for a means to provide more desirable vehicle drive-through stacking configuration acceptable to the City Tragic Engineer. 4. The Planning Commission did not voice concern regarding the override,considerations of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance because the actual traffic increase generated by the project is • low,and the analysis in the staff report showed how consistency with the spirit and intent of the TPO could be found. The Planning Commission was aware, based both upon testimony from the public and individual experience with parking in the area, that there is a circulation problem on this site. They felt that through approval of this application a measurable improvement could be made,while recognizing that the on-site circulation could be further improved with help from the City Traffic Engineer. Waiver of Off-StreetParldng Since the required number of parking spaces could not be provided on-site for the proposed restaurant uses, a parking demand study was prepared to determine the parking demand consistent with other fast food take-out restaurants in the area. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 15 parking spaces. Chapter 20.66.10 states that a use permit may be approved by the Planning Commission,or the City Council on appeal or call for review, to modify or waive the number of off-street parking spaces required by the terms of this chapter if one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. A municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site or sites. • 2. The site is subject to two or more uses and the maximum parking requirementsfor such uses do not occur simultaneously. Amendment No.876 Page 3 3. A parking management plan for the site has been approved by the Planning Commissionpursuant to Section 20.66.100(B). • 4. The Planning Commission or City Council makes the followingfrndings: a) The parking demand will be less than.ihe requirement in Section 20.66.030. b) The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. It is possible to make finding number 4(a) in this case. Page 3 of the Parking Demand Study, located in Appendix D of the traffic study attached to the Planning Commission staff report, presents a comparison of parking requirements in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code (utilizing a standard requirement of, 1 parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area,plus one space for each peak time employee for a fast-food restaurant)to the actual parking demand based on field measurement of similar uses in the area. The parking demand study indicates that one ,parking space for each 59 sq.ft. of gross floor area plus two spaces would be adequate for the subject restaurant,due to the amount of walk-in patrons expected from the neighboring office uses and Newport Harbor Municipal Court. Additionally, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive- through lane is provided to insure adequate drive-through lane capacity for queuing to insure that all on-site parking spaces can be accessed freely. The Planning Commission did consider whether the addition of more convenience food uses could change the overall parking demand for the area,calling into question the conclusions of the parking • analysis. Their discussion was based on the practical experience the City has had in shopping centers with a high number of convenience food businesses (Back Bay Court, Westcliff Plaza, Harbor View Center). These shopping areas have had parking problems,particularly when food uses congregate in close proximity to one another. It is possible that these groupings result in an expansion of the market area beyond that of a more limited number of food service facilities. Should the City Council determine to overrule the Planning Commission's waiver and use the established parking requirements for take-out restaurants at 1 parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area,plus one space for each peak employee,then the requirement would be 78 parking spaces and the applicant would be required to redesign theproject to comply with these standards. A redesign of this nature is likely to result in a reduction in the square footage of the project. Traffic Stud y I A traffic study was prepared to analyze the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and Council Policy L- 18. The City Traffic Engineer identified five intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. Each of those intersections are identified on page 22 and on Exhibit A of the traffic study attached to the Planning Commission staff report. The traffic study indicates that the proposed project will have an impact on the level of service at the following two intersections: Jamboree Road at Campus Drive and MacArthur,Boulevard at Jamboree Road. The project increases the AM . peak hour ICU value from .92 to .93 and from .94 to .95, respectively. However, the following Amendment No.876 Page 4 improvements (shown on Table 9), will reduce the ICU value to less than 0.90 and mitigate the • project impacts. For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive, the existing westbound lane configuration should be re-striped to include one left turn lane and one shared through and left turn lane,one through lane and one right turn lane. For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road, an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard should be provided. The re-striping improvement at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive is a fairly small requirement from a cost point of view. It is, therefore, an appropriate condition to attach to this project approval. The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, however, is a widening project of substantial cost and complexity. As a result, the analysis was presented to the Planning Commission in relation to recent court decisions regarding the imposition of conditions whose costs are not"roughly proportional"to the project's impact, as well as from the typical Traffic Phasing Ordinance methodology. Rough Proportionality The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road has not yet been designed and the actual cost of construction has not been estimated. The City's Traffic Engineer has, however, indicated that the improvement is substantial in nature, requiring the acquisition of right-of-way and the widening of a street. Since the project under consideration only contributes 2 trips to the critical movement which already has 376 (less than .5 % of the total), which causes • the ICU to increase from .94 to .95, burdening this project with the full cost of this improvement could be considered not roughly proportional to the project's traffic impacts. Should the City approve the project with the improvement requirement, it is possible that the applicant would challenge the legality of the condition, and perhaps call into question the validity of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Provisions The basic standard for approval of a project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is summarized below: 1. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any "major," "primary-modified" or "primary"street, or 2. The project is required to construct major improvements to the circulation system such that. • An unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any intersection for which there is an identified improvement, and • The benefits to traffic circulation resulting from the major improvements substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted, but unimproved intersections;and • There is an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at • impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at those intersections, because of improvements required of the project. Amendment No.876 Page 5 In order to comply with this standard contained in the TPO, the improvements identified in the traffic study must be made conditions of approval, because they are feasible. The TPO does provide for relief from the requirement to make a feasible improvement identified in the traffic study if certain findings can be made, as follows: 1. The time and money to complete the improvement is so clearly disproportional to the size of, and'traffic generated by, the project that it would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of the improvement; and' 2. There is a strong likelihood construction of the improvement will commence within 48 months from the date of project approval. This finding cannot be made unless the following has been accomplished.' • Conceptual plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to permit preparation of cost and funding estimates, • Cost and funding estimates have been prepared, • The improvement is consistent with the General Plan, • An account has been established by the City to receive contributions to the project, and 3. Approval of the project is conditioned upon the payment of a fee to fund the project the amount of which is determined by the Traffic Engineer to be proportional to the project's traffic when compared to other traffic anticipated • from other development which will occur from the date of approval to completion of the improvement, and 4. The financial contribution outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. In this case, staff is of the opinion that findings 1, 3 and 4 can be made, since the cost of the improvement is considered by the Traffic Engineer to be clearly disproportional to the project's impact, a proportional fee could be established, and the project's contribution to the overall function of the intersection is relatively small. However, finding 2 cannot be made at this time, because improvement plans, cost and funding estimates and establishment of an account to receive funds have not been completed. Therefore, this project does not qualify for approval pursuant to these findings, and could only be approved by 4/5ths of the members of the Planning Commission eligible to vote (6 affirmative votes). Due to the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission in regards to the traffic study, the City Council must also achieve a 4/5ths I majority for the traffic study to be approved. The project received the required majority to override the TPO from the Planning Commission. There were two reasons for their action. First, there were facts present which provided sufficient rationale for approval, consistent with the intent and spirit of finding 2. Growth Management Area 8 (GMA-8), of which the City is a member pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Program, has initiated study of improvements to the intersection of MacArthur • Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has been authorized to AmendmentNo.876 Page 6 retain a consultant to design and provide cost estimates for improvements which will satisfy the • TPO requirement for this project. It is also the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that it is highly likely that the improvements can be accomplished within a 48 month time frame. So, while strict compliance with finding 2 above could not be found, an exception to the TPO was found justified by the Planning Commission in this case since compliance was more a matter timing related to the design of the improvements, rather than an inability to complete the improvement within the necessary 48 month time frame. The second reason for the override was the small amount of traffic generated by the project to the critical movement which triggered the ICU increase at the intersection,resulting in the improvement requirement. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD MARC W. MYERS Assistant City Manager Associate Planner A 4��7-314 Attachments: Appeal with attached correspondence Letter from Legacy Company in response to letter of appeal Draft Ordinance Exhibit"A"-Findingsand Conditions of Approval . Exhibit"B"-Findings for Denial Excerpt of draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated July9, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report Letters of opposition received by the Planning Commission Site plan,floor plans and elevations F:\users\pin\shared\lcitycnl\1998\0727\A876rpt • Amendment No.876 Page 7 07/21/98 T6li 18,02 FAX 8954810627 WON 11 NOOL.DRI'000 � Iguol FAX MR.T OMASCorbett H.Whlands DGE 1735 Corbett Highlands Place Arroyo Grande,CA 93420• Date r Number of pages including cover sheet To; � From: MR. THOMAS H. /J WOOLDRIDGE (i 1735 Corbett Highlands Place � f; , Arroyo Grande, CA 1 93420 Phone Fax Phone � ��� ,� O • CC. Phone 805)473-0216 Idol? Fax Phone (805) 481-0627 A. ��ill C�� �tllL ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please comment i 77 • I Gf� • � �g1pIMA- H BUFMR Galardi Group OSTAND July 17, 1998 City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY Members of the City Council PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658 AM JUL 11 1998 PM Re: 5180 Birch Street Project 71819110111112111213141818 Dear City Council: I am an officer of Galardi Group, Inc., the franchisor of the Wienerschnitzel restaurant chain. Galardi Group leases the real property and improvements located at 4501 Jamboree from Thomas Wooldridge,the owner of the property (the "Wienerschnitzel Property"). The Jamboree Wienerschnitzel was built in 1978 at the same time that Galardi Group relocated its corporate headquarters to Newport Beach in the Koll Center Newport • Office park. We occupy the same office space today. On July 1, we were advised by Mr. Wooldridge that on that day he had received a notice of a hearing before the Planning Commission on July 9 regarding the referenced project (the "Burger King Property"). I personally obtained a copy of the staff report on the project after the fourth of July weekend. As you know this report is 124 pages in length and includes parking and traffic studies. These reports are dated as early as February, so it is obvious that this project has be in the planning stage for many months. I discussed this matter with Mr. Wooldridge and Chuck Horning, President of Newport Federal, the owner of the office building on the parcel south of the Wienerschnitzel Property (the "Newport Federal Property"). They each submitted written requests to the Planning Commission for a continuance of the hearing to allow time to review the reports, etc. and stated that they were opposed to the project based upon the information they had. At the Planning Commission hearing, I again requested a continuance, but the matter was considered and approved. have submitted the Staff Report to outside experts for review and comment. I will not have their responses by Friday, July 17, to submit with this letter, but will submit any • 4440 VON KARMAN AVE.SUITE#222,NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660• PHONE(714)752.5800 FAX(714)851-2615 July 17, 1998 • Page 2 additional comments when received. Subject to further information as stated, our objections to the project are in four areas: 1. Amending the Development Agreement to increase the allowed number of restaurant sites on the Burger King Property from one to two. 2. Waiving 20% of the Code Required parking. 3. Waiving the required traffic mitigation requirements. 4. The proposed site plan. 1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Development Agreement approved by the•city in 1972 provided for one restaurant on each of two parcels included in the total site. The total site included the Newport Federal Property, the Wienerschnitzel Property, the Burger King Property and another office building, which fronts on Birch street and is located'behind the Burger King Property (the "Birch Property"). • In 1978 CC&R's were recorded affecting all four parcels which limited the restaurants to two, consistent with the Development Agreement. In order to amend the CC&R's, 75% of the owners must consent. Based upon the letters from Newport Federal and Mr. Wooldridge, this requirement cannot be met. At the Planning Commission hearing, a commissioner stated that this was a matter between the parties. Assuming that is correct, it begs the question -should two restaurant'buildings be allowed on a site where only one is now located?The owners of two of the three adjacent parcels directly affected by this amendment are opposed. The owner of the Birch Property has not yet taken a position, but that parcel will not suffer the same traffic burden as the other two parcels. As discussed later in this letter, many of the problems in the proposed development flow from locating two buildings (from which three separate restaurants will operate) on a site a little'larger than an acre. 2. PARKING WAIVER The proposed development requires 78 parking spaces under the current city code, but only provides 63. The applicant commissioned a parking study which included the • July 17, 1998 Page 3 adjacent Wienerschnitzel facility, the Taco Bell just south of the property and a Burger King located in Santa Ana. The study reviewed the number of spaces used in each restaurant during the three hour lunch period during three days of the week prior to Easter. The average parking demand per 1,000 square foot of restaurant was computed for each restaurant. These averages were then averaged and this ratio applied to the proposed Burger King. This average of an average resulted in a conclusion that 45 spaces would be sufficient parking. The report also recommended that the drive thru lane accommodate 7 cars, based upon the firms "previous studies". The "previous studies" of the firm is contrary to the actual number of cars stacking in. the two nearby Burger Kings surveyed. As discussed below, this survey showed 9 to 13 cars in the drive thru lanes. In comparing parking requirements, usage, etc between competing fast food chains.it is important to understand the typical sales for each concept. In the June 22, 1998 issue of Nations Restaurant News, a trade publication, the top 100 chains in America are listed. Among the sandwich chains Burger King has a 16% market share of the top 100 market, second to McDonalds with a 35% share. Taco Bell is third at 9.5%. The average sales per unit for Burger King is $1,100,000 per year, Taco Bell is $972,000. • Wienerschnitzel is not in the top 100 chains (Wienerschnitzel total restaurants -293, Burger King -7,400, Taco Bell -6,700) but has a sales average of$510,000 per year. On July 8, 1 caused a parking study to be made of the Burger King restaurants located on Bristol and Birch in Newport Beach and Main and Harvard in Irvine. Attached is a copy of this study. These Burger Kings present a very different picture from the Santa Ana Burger King on which the applicant's parking and traffic study are based. The parking lots were full, drive thru lanes were overflowing (9 cars and 13 cars at times) and customers leaving or using adjacent parking. The nearby Taco Bell (which on average does 20% LESS in sales per unit than Burger King) had a 62 car peak on their lot. The Wienerschnitzel had a 34 car peak in its lot (its average sales are HALF of Burger Kings). To conclude that 45 spaces is sufficient for the Burger King does not appear to be supported by industry statistics or local experience. The Staff Report states that to waive the code parking requirements the Planning Commission must find the "The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030". On the basis stated above, we submit that such a finding cannot be made. If there is insufficient parking for the Burger King what will happen? Most likely, those customers will use adjacent parking (Wienerschnitzel/office buildings), use the drive thru (in this site plan -thereby blocking the limited parking spaces available) or leave • July 17, 1998 • Page 4 (hopefully to the Wienerschnitzel!). The additional restaurant building will have two different restaurants using 50 total seats. 18 spaces are required and provided for this building. The Staff Report suggests a possible coffee & bagel use - Starbucks & Brueggers?? Each of these chains also has substantial sales (customers) who can't use the drive thru, so they will compete with the Burger King customers for parking. Is there a solution? The site is adequate in size to accommodate a Burger King and its anticipated traffic-but not TWO RESTAURANT SITES With three different restaurants. 3. TRAFFIC STUDY The city selected.RKJK&Associates to prepare a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis study for this project. The report is dated.May 12. This same firm was previously selected by the Applicant to conduct a Trip Generation Study ( report dated February 23) and the parking study discussed above (report dated April 20.). The TPO report prepared for the City recommended mitigation which included adding a turn lane at MacArthur. Due to the cost of this improvement, a waiver was proposed which must be • approved by six of the Planning Commission members. Most of the planning commission stated at the hearing that they had "no problem-with the TPO". But the facts according to the TPO Analysis is that a current level of unacceptable traffic will be further worsened by this project. Again, since all of the expert reports were prepared by applicants Engineering firm and presumably based upon their parking studies of the Santa Ana Burger King and "previous studies"the assumptions in the traffic analysis may be inappropriate to the Burger King at this location. 4, SITE PLAN It is difficult to understand the conclusion of Applicants Engineering firm and the city staff that the site design is satisfactory. Each of the following areas pose significant issues with-respect to the existing uses and safety of customers: A. Ingress/Egress There are two access points to the three parcels fronting Jamboree: !. An alleyway accessible only from eastbound Birch street traffic: and ii. A curb cut on southbound Jamboree directly in front of the •' • July 17, 1998 Page 5 Wienerschnitzel restaurant. Northbound Jamboree use this curb cut after a U turn at the traffic signal at Jamboree and Birch. Given the volume of traffic on Jamboree vs. Birch, it should be apparent that most traffic will use the Jamboree curb cut. There is no deceleration lane on Jamboree to access this cut (there is such a lane at the Jamboree access to the Taco Bell), and the three parcels are screened from the street by a substantial landscape berm. Furthermore, traffic destined for the Newport Federal Property south of the curb cut must make an immediate left turn to enter the office building parking lot. The addition of hundreds of cars per day to this curb cut to visit the Burger King and the proposed two new restaurants will pose a severe hazard to the existing uses. Further those cars leaving the three parcels for southbound travel on Jamboree must also exit from this curb cut. Those who desire to leave for northbound travel on Jamboree will likely exit the Birch street alley. At that point they will converge with the Burger King drive-thru traffic, as they exit the drive-thru lane, and any traffic entering the sites from eastbound Birch. The Birch street alley access, although used less, will experience similar congestion. • The traffic exiting the property will compete with the drive-thru traffic exiting the lane, the traffic entering the property from Birch, and the cars attempting to park in the spaces behind the Burger King restaurant which back up into the alley. Due to reciprocal easements, this access point can also be used by Wienerschnitzel and the office building customers. It would thus appear that both ingress/egress points are going to be substantially congested by this project. The proposed project is not creating this access situation. However, the combination of a restaurant which is a part of one of the highest volume and largest fast food chains in the world and a separate building with two restaurants and 50 seats will create an intolerable situation. B. On Site Traffic Circulation The proposed drive-thru lane will stack 7 cars. The study done of nearby Burger King restaurants shows a peak need for 9 to 13 car stacking. Assuming that this Burger King is successful (the Burger King national sales average is 20% higher than Taco Bell and the nearby Taco Bell has 60 peak cars in the lot at lunch), there is insufficient stacking and cars will spill out into the lot. The result will be blocked or inaccessible parking in the spaces next to the drive thru and blocked traffic circulation in the parking area next • ul 17 1998 J y • Page 6 to the Burger King. Due to the nearby office buildings, substantial walk in traffic will be:present on the site. Based upon national sales averages, Burger King will capture the majority of these customers. These walk in customers will be competingWth the increased traffic from both the Burger King and the new restaurants. Because the Burger King is located in the corner of the lot, all traffic entering on the Jamboree�curb cut destined,for Burger King must drive the length of the lot to reach the drive thru, across the access paths of pedestrian traffic. 17 of the proposed 63 parking spaces are located adjacent to the Birch alley. The use of these spaces will require crossing the Birch street alley to enter and leave the parking spaces, creating further congestion.: CONCLUSION This project is a case of attempting to put "too much on too little". Either of the restaurant buildings could be located on the property and provide adequate parking and site traft control. Limiting this development to one restaurant may eliminate the • need for waiving parking requirements, waiving mitigation requirements and amending 20 year old agreements. To be sure, two restaurant buildings is to the financial benefit of the property-owner, but to the detriment of the adjacent owners, tenants and their customers. We respectfully request that this project as presently proposed by denied. G ardi Group, Inc. mes D. Caul lice Preside, cc: Thomas Wooldridge Chuck Horning Nelson Mamey (owner of the Birch Street Property) Tim Strader • . • dGWB • lNofes From On July 8th two local Burger King �• / The Field restaurants were visited in order to �. establish the lunch time traffic at a typical Burger King restaurant in the Newport Beach area. The following are the results compiled by Doug Koegeboehn, Jason Gibbs, and Chris Caulfield. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at (714) 86�-0404. Results from the Burger King on Bristol and Birch in Newport Beach: Number of 8 (11:00) employees Number of 23 total (2 handicapped) • parking spaces 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12.00 12:15 12:30 12:45 1:00 Number of cars 9 12 19 21 23 22 21 22 20 in parking lot Number of cars 3 2 5 9 5 9 3 5 9 in drive-thru Additional Notes: • At times there were not enough spaces. Therefore, people pulled alongside curbs. • An employee cam@ outside to assist the drive-thru line by taking orders. . He came out at 11:35 and was still there when I left at 1:00. • Many cars entered and left because there was no parking. l 20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92714 (714) 863-0404 PAX (714) 863.0933 Results from the Burger King on Main and Harvard in Irvine• • Number of 6 (11:00) employees Number of 38 total (2 handicapped) parking spaces 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 Number of cars 13 17 36 36 34 in parking lot Number of cars 2 2 10 13 8 in drive-thru • Additional Notes: • Cars were parking at nearby establishments because there were not any spaces left in Burger King's parking lot. Jul -20-98 O2 : SOP Westmont • P . O2 is The legacy Company July 20, 1998 City of Newport Beach Member of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92958 Dear City Council: As the owner of 5180 Birch Street, I am writing in opposition to the letter of the Galardi Group dated July 17, 1998. 1 have met with represcntatikes of both adjacent office buildings and they do not oppose our application. • The real problem with the Galardi Group project is in their intensive of a small site. Enclosed is the staff report from the Newport Beach Planning Commission dated February 10, 1983 in which the Galardi Group asked for and received a parking waiver of 29 spaces based upon their own parking survey. Any problem with their site is a direct result of the parking waiver given to the Galardi Group. The Planning Commission approved this project unanimously and we request your apprc,,al of' this project, The staff report containing the traffic and parking studies support such a conclusion. Very truly yours, 1 Timothy . -trader ,rLS:car Enclosure cc: Janies D. Caulfield • Thomas Wooldridge Chuck Horning Nelson Mamey 84C r`,;GWOOr1 Conter Drive, Suite 420. >,ewport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 719.6365 • Fox (714) 719.6366 Jul -20-98 02 : 50P Westmont P .03 I •�¢�1�4 t'J�.! t:]) 4 't.(tjij: •�K};;�•. Pir,S°M•%71J' Mr a,!t }�_ •;••:M1•4? ;i lF:h, ;.ti., �,a r d.Cl';•.S ) ],:,A :G•f rON.:ihS4•t l]YS�,l�lJ•.'u.{•5•'1 .r l ,` .N[( • (`;a ay., •' ,, ,;•', a i�Yl NF 'll N%�'% a •'^ i.i iif•• t.:l�,: r s )5[l^{C Tlf' 4 i^P'`'�.'1t�i�•{,fy"�• [II�:��• • ,l�'.,%: p/.•C •tv;:�, '^'r ' •, ••, �r. ' ! ' ,. ':•• �. t ^:•.l.;,X. i;RY'1,aitl �"�'1;1 „!,,�h�,, v'(a; •/..S„�.'n'�'.;• ,: Planning cfmr.Lalo:Maitinq fabruasj+•10;'19ej!�+4•`;';,Y,�!'',r�,,�t�Sy.•.. ti1.:`),.Q4';r1{�� ..�'tiI`. ,iYi,1,;'t•.:fj[�,;b•• '• ,• ••�•,' , •• .,n zta� No: ,:. ••' "�pf,>�7i.%i' ! j'^ ' r1,;t ,`. `• 7i9aA: :i'6 ''i"; • +.'r, M41f� 'J>;,ti13'.3 CM Or NVOMRT OfACN :^ • '!? 'r't'• Tee[ Planninq Conmisaton 1 f"I ' .Pluvtinq Department S''eJDC:I ,Oei Permit No. 2797 (Amended) (public Neering) •. •` • + c:;.'. llsqueic'..tb•Wend A previously appi'ovid•uaa piitil,whieti ''t''":!')• ii allowed ' the establishment • of]'.a ?•teks-out, roodj:'i; Y.' utgblishrnsnt (Der wienerachnittel) in t Ca he Roll nter"•••i'''!ijA:j?.:.,,)iy k ° • '.Newport Planned Cot= nity, -The proposed 'sa.endeent 1s % "•,n,t to allow the addition of in outdoor meting area to,the ,ej •'eRlatinq,'rastautant and a request to Naive a portion,at '."•.'�+ '•;,:•i :*"the-'- requlred off-street•• parking;';spaces•' for ;.maid nor LOCATION[ Parcel 2'of Parcel Map No. 108-27 fRiiubdirimlon No, '�,;`�• ••'..',,;: 557) located at 4501 Jamborst ,Reed, ' on the Borthwsterly fide of v'arborse Rosd, bmtvvsn*;ii h ..... > street and MacArthur Boulevard, :in the aoll•�Centsr ' ^.]••: , Newport Planned coataul,lty. • i �: � t '�1a .),u•, '�.. ....•. ......-.-... .•. . _+...... ,. .fir; ]••i `' tpA !;.�. • APPLtCAMTI .,oar xianorrehnitasi, Sncorporatsd,AMswport 6eich��-'• '^''?;�°�f��^'�j) O1fNLR2 The,Roil Company, Newport Beach Aimiitatlon •• •, t r This to a request to amend a praVloualy approved Use Permit which ••� rr permitted the •sstablLjhvvnt of a Der wieperachnittel take-out food {.• restaurant in the Roll Center Rovport Planned Community. it This Asrndment requeeta approval of the addition of a now outdoor ! satiny area to the existing farllity and a request to waive a portion ; of the required off-street parking spaces. I0 accordance with section {(: 21, Permitted Uses, Oraup I., a., a of the Roll Center Planned .` cuerunity DMIOPment standards, a restaurant facility in permitted in d: •Office Site G', subject to the securing of a use parmit. Use Permit , procadorst -are outlined In Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Each ' �• Municipal Code, . .r ?uEm(tennanea).�sonlficines 7 !�• c' )riS'�'D�ojeot hIs'.4 n`rtviewid and it has been-,determined •to be• • 'n '� t:�ategor1a117..14anpt•; undsr•'class .1 ..ax Ltlnq 'raclittlu)., frow:tha*, .c ! lrMents;of(eha Cilifnrnls tnyirowantel•�jualitY Act,,.1 dal AK ^'•��'�ifY�r' „p; 1) 1 r� y]'. .t. J•:+..f 4 ;� ,••,/ .. ty[4:i�Y;� ) '�ipt f A r • Jul -20-98 02 : 51P Westmont P .04 ,(� .,•�>�,,! C}C�{��f.�y�„"J:et' >\`y+, 1 � I,'}�• hp •�,` t•3 (� F�� •�f:n 1�\!'N ar4n1�r .,.�.T''�}tl;. ^;�`<jtNN•r�l �I'e��N�,}' � n` L',j'Yj,{'y<��i£'< ' •��•/%'�r�T Yl,:�t;,•.'�.',''«,',`,�.. rf\ IP'�:;`l;�t byy��,, • 1 �}•"i'lY � y{` •Y,.' \x �!;J: a•, 1•''•'•,•••.,( ing Coetiiati tin .2;,••1 7:;£�.I <:.Ill•� {,11 ,, ivr((y ", , 1 � •.:lip �<.n' I 1 • lill,!1�, 1,1, Y:i. �. �%. �,\ '1 .,7:'`: }i'• Conformance rtth'the Caneral Plan The 'Lend!Oae' Rlement ot 'the Central Plen s ' for%, •J' ,'�1r'••�, , •: ",Administrative, professional, and financial commerc1• an4 "Retail §,�':;•;a'Y'•; Quignate the site i■ and service Commercial" uses. The subject raataurant conforms with r: the uses permitted, L 'sC r<T, . Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use 'the "per ktener■chn ttrel" take-out restaurant, related drive-through \ ' "•'•• lane and parkinq are located on the ro ert P p y. To the north, s y'+'4 Aax Far'■ Restaurant and related parking nreet to the teat, scrim k: 1 Jamboree Road 1a a portion of the University of California, Irvine, ••'� � property! and to the south and vest are commercial office And •,:;;r , Y ,4 "Industrial uses And related parking areas, :&�; 1,.�;••:•;;• At its ratting of July 15, 2976, the Planning Commiaston approved vet ,.: •k Darnit ' No, 1797, a request to eeta611 th the per kisnerschnitrel 1'•'•�'`!'• ,i object .,• •; take-out and -drive-through restaurant on the a �. K findings made And conditions of a royal 1 Pjunctio The •.;yj'{'PP imposed in conjunction with ;., granting this requeat are set forth in the attached excerpt iron the ^'• rinutes Of the Planning Comission meeting of July 15, 1976, •�' ^•• J1ni1 ■Is f The existing Der xianersehnitsei facility contains approsiwataly 2,245 ' eq.tt. of groat floor area with a 6301 sq,tt, Interior dining room, „AF! serving sad kitchen areas, An office, And reatrooms, , The applicant Is , ,•;,'r v...,..,.. ., Proposin7•to add approximately 65ot sq,ft. of axter3or dining &rest td..,,......... the restaurant, including that area where there arm currently tour',(•• &wAll tables and benches, There will be no other changes in any of the Currant operational characteristics of the restaurant as a reaalt 'Yr„ ,of the proposed Addition, No increase in the maximum number of aight ''•i ���;• employees it Anticipated during the pesk hours, which art from ::100 `Jv a.m. to 21CO p.m, ,•. 1 �1• Drive in and Outdoor Rattaurent Rt irement■ �•'t. r (' 1 r' • chapter 20.72, Drive in and Outdoor RoeGnuzantn, of the Newport poach ,?�+�;' •• Municipal Coda wet adopted in 1967 by the City in order to give the ;,�Ma• Planning Commission the opportunity to review any proposed 'take �! I restaurant throu h the us, d 4 penult procedure, Devalopment standard■ 1, Are included in Chapter 20.12 to ensure that Any proposed development would be aesthetically COMPAt3ble to adjoining properties And streets, y ' said development standards include specific requir■mtnts for building Y6{: ■tthAcks, parking and traffic circulstion, wells surrounding the h R\•r take-out restaurant &its, lan46cApin9, exterior Illumination, signing, * underground utilities, And storage, ) µ:• '' ■ecti6h''20,72.170 of the M n$cfpil Coda states that e P1anning •i,��� ":CO ataelon shall have the right to waiys or moally any the she above t,\.•,.,.�„ ntioned •davelopgsnt 'standards for "take-out" restaurants If such •' ','�uoditicatlan or .We've'vill,Achieve eubAtanttxlly-,tha arm" It IV end•:jol ;:'J'0;4�%•,?ty� •`• '••y, I,thAniNill.ttl"s\\tJricr.T=SstrplfanCWwith•���SA ivndi4l n�ea or lmprgv"srntsb 4j1.F'y:'I s 'W t7 ' rt `• =:t". ••,1 �t}�^. ',^•t:-{°'G,� {�:(y{�,t(�'�jA ,i,•L ���r7�1 t Jul -20-98 02 : 52P Westmont P .US •, '/k 'r;/i ^.(elf' �Ih .'�f4%O'•)1 tl�;�'i Re P .,r 5. raP T01 •,�t 4Co#Q r t 1.% ♦ •pl k,l. 0 ri, !I:! lti:• . rya •r7Y r:%�••; .{. •...f•'.r.kui I, iT r�•R f t•, '•T.- ,.. �j.,: ra •1Jdv::, %.ufl'r'IrGY) At ;th:. time tlae 'sermii Mo;"1797 'vie 'ipproved 1 by Ilhe' planning '• •'%:;'i (il a' :Consnleelon, -it WAS determined shot the 'waiver of .the development•• ',?,lr'��'.• R°c Standards pertaining to wails, and portion$ of the parking and signing °r�'t:3•;; r,qulremantS would not be detrimental to adjoining properties. tuft • it;`. ,is of the opinion that the proposed addition will compliment the other Cceoercial uses on the adjoining propertlss, and has no abjection to '•l• ' waiving a portion of the required parking spaces in conjunction with request. 'tJ• this r .� nee (iced Atf-Strait Parking r. . •`,7 • . The Municipal code requires one parkins space for each employee on ;+ 3 6 duty during peak hours and one parking space for each SO sq.ft. of gross floor arse within a take-out restaurant facility unless modifie4 ••.}t: ` �,.: •or waived by the planning Comisalon.,. 8lxty-eight (68) parking spaces '••h`,Iti ii. would therefore be required, since there will be maximum of eight (e) employees on duty during peak hours, and there is approximately 2,995r ••` '•7�'' sq,ft,;of floor area proposed for the take-out restaurant (2,1451. ' `. sq.ft. existing * 850t eq.tt. proposed e•2,995t sq.tt.•• So sq.ft. ♦ 8 •'••�''� i; 'employees a 68 Spaces). . �. The plane submitted lndleate i total 'of 71 parking spaces on the site. The tar the drtvo-through Window can also arrommodate at least eight additional vehicles for a, total of 29 #pace@. In .,''•:^� addition, Covenants, Conditions,. and Restrictions (CcsR's) have been 1. recorded, .providing for common vehicular access to each of the n• r•, adjoining str■atal and reciprocal parking on the subject property and. ,• the three adjoining sites. A total of 29 s acre (GU r P required minus ]9 • 's,r;i:• +1,provided) must therefore be waived if this application 1S approved as! ' requested. ,r_'',.;,• + ` The applicant has submitted the results 'ot s survey conducted •to- determine the percentage of patrons arriving at the facility by toot. "'• . A copy of the full report is attached tot Camrslssion review. In Summary, the results of the Survey indicate that nearly three-fourths ' tl,+' (71.411 of the restaurant's customers cam for lunch 11100 a.m. to 4`•' 2+00 p.m.) and approximately ons-fourth 123.71) of those lunch time •, t patrons arrive by toot. r. dtaff has observed the lunch tim operation at the Site and the .�. results of the Survey ors ■cCurats, Customers that perked their y,• vehicles and consumed food on the premises ware spending approximately 20 minutea at the Site. Thnse patrons who wont inside the facility to order food to-go spent approximately five minutes inside before "�• >1 leevinq. Parking space turn-over was good, with spaces available •.� s on-site throughout most of the peak ported. The drive-{hrougn window operation Sleo tuncticned wail end did not intert•tre with the parking ry>r lot circulation, The City Traffic kngineer he@ indicated that he bns :d no objections to the proposed expansion and waiver of the required i parking specie, Inasmuch a there data not appear to be a problem with '^•.-the Current:operation# an4. In addition, then are adequate parking facilities in surrounding parking lot$ for short term parklnq, The v, ; ;•,,: :'•waiver of parking spaces ig ronsistsnt with other Spprovaln granted by " tjfe: ►Tannin c yf;;i,",is g•,� oauluton' In. conjunction with other takeout and ;'• ,7`��ariri•thrw 'tact. .ills cierra't•.,. .., ,.fi".. :,�► . . g�j us►nta:ln .. .. , 1ff9 J[ :\ j, ! , •,M'i. •}A.: 'i�"1Afi ^I.I I)) +(':. ,... 1 ., . . ., 1; :'r ��{�„�.�,+'!w 4 �$ �b4'�,T 4 �a��''�":',; �•':.• may,,., / t 1,< Y w �%Kr`'�i � ai f\,,r�c)i4:•i P .i.✓. 'f�Jit}l� . Jul -20-98 O2 : 53P Westm nt P .O5 :Nf�"h{j,'.:S,.j}1'Of,"�j �f r,f� p• oms ii on .- ,y1 ''! •'Y::�r;:f'.v:r, !`ll�,jh p}•..r,� i!^'rn/i•"C• )i'.di Y'. .r ^Ii'":XIS" dyy+. i,II R.a.��yy / ♦ .< t �1.M1tr n�J'T'',th;;.'1+ 't��} 1:M�1: }C.;�'+����+•,r�j:lr�)�iq't+ !rri7•.1r7(:ny7t(Y'ry� P �. �. :7A ' 'J+�,• ': `•_�1'i(l'('„ ' r��'T•'•'�f'�!tf':j+.:i,�:•; r';�''�,';••'.. a..',:' r �yp/•r'�Nr r�„j\ +ti�"+T.t f�•�%�hYA '�'�,•II +.;, ;...;Speci!!a Sndfngi"and hacommendatlon:!'•(•1�-=:i r+ yi, 7„•i� 14 ,,,rij� .•,I. ::i(.'I� •t.y'.. , . „•. r. .. ' r. .N J•'tI. Y!, IJ.,,..jr1,; f d !h4 + � MEN •.'Section'40.80.060 0!•the• .:):: 25::'.'• �+t z�.. 1; �• d.•;, i•:;' tSixport'Seacli Hunlel I ••`'""" •h �ilr+4}+,; rder to grant any uee pareit, the Alanninq Coerol Onpr"IdillndathaLiru''r��'."'''/'�'•%+,' li�••'� Che.�atabiishro.nL, maintenance.or :operation,of-the ose;:oe:buildin n'fr '1••a'„'! applied for will not, under the circumstances of•the a q •' +'a'r'::r,:• be 'detrimental to the health':, eatetyr peace,. nocals)rtcomt rtc�and�:a�',-��.,•• ', 'J' '• M;: General welfare of persons residinq or working in the nfighborhood of .�:7•n• "Ouch pr6Poae4 use or be detrimental or injurious to r ••t•:" iafprovemente in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city... r fir` e5 beaff• rat+xmends • epprovel of 0se Parmit NO, 1797; (Anonded) ;,an �; q%1%:• •" �I' ' �• .kuggests that the Planning Cosmission take ouch action sublact tti the)::'+ ^'J! r•"'q.•.a.;.; findings and conditions as set forth in Exhibit •A+�•attsched;;shoo } •'r'the com ton wishto 1 3•}' Lxhibit tA" Qany.thSe application, the ilndinga outllnedwin '; I•i}+t %.ant Qun]eatad. i' :''. ,�}• %lI i - + 1 :: : `t'• .AWiN:1MD►paP?}+FrrP :7 • •:)t: )'+:.;v}Y "61, ♦''i'f'•l-l' •JANEe Dr' 1TENIClCEII,'Di!.afar •'' • CIS tieBy6r' • '•' �i. .. N. i. y�+l+ 'ijS••i'�dirr 1 f . C 410 cqbltor• r . . :i rY��` ':�•'N r rQ';'^{1`i}7 ., ;AsaocSate;Planner. .Ty. , 1 r.`t;(ti.; .�i�f• •;'�•1'f • ALtachmintot , Lxhiblt "A' . �. • `;� f•P. �r' Lxhibit ."L" .� Vicinity Nap .,., e• rxcarpt from minutes ca of Planning CoiseSon % ,`«.. . . ._ . . Xseting or July 15, 1976, •• I •• •. hutsurant Survey end Data Sheet rxi It Ing Floor plan h Plot Plan, Floor Plan and fievation v •;f :V n � Yi :) ' +'t .:. .,i,•lC;l.'y ^: ''iY'Y;•jn.•�i.t;•;" .:y' t rr• •,•:'.• •� .. {I' �•;." •�itl•�'I a ^!•rI y.,��.y ti;:.• :'/',;', :'. :' �1:•'•• •.j ,r.•.'.'. '\' .. ,!'1' ',;.�'�r1 y, T M•d'•�l+fif iC'j'•••.,. .,t �'��d:4'�} f•� 1 •,/• Y�,. ,.., 'lr• non ,, , � 11t,.}f:� Y3''•ti�'.�''• y•uC\�i� •••`eN��,1.: ,i3,,. {^ �•�. r `' r 'T s�I�tq•�+ f. 1�h 'V. r 4 ,( Vif M J,:ik.�.Jw ' r VY ;: L�Po :•a•i:y Y�• • kS j.:�':�n '�' r�''. Jul -20-98 02 : 54P Westmont - P.07 S��P4fgjlYt \ i�r .r, •; �1°n ')1 t " PA;��J �,. r.: '!� M• •/1 i ) 1 i. t n :!) �f\} v > •`" .'tr. ,n ,6� TOt:T,ypp9,;'i yA1a�4 Cocfltshoe'�S,t. 1•� 'k•,: • '.,!•.,, ! �),yr�„y;,`k. • ,�C, .:.:•t,i' Yrv�'.t: '•, 'i �4i:,'.r y�-.�• Y , . ;r,:,.,i n•�i �,../.. 2XHIMT "A' N� J ';.C� QS, •�:1 2 ,�1.,., .. .. lr,::w'•j.i(L),i':/r,.,•.�4 A tr• .�!,. ,,F '�':•(i ••• 1i}:1 ,:i�,r ' - ,'�l,:L,r 'ij r .•rrND:NC9 AND COMMONS OP APFXTA$. •.� ;i�7r '7:• ', 'n" 1.y . ". J]L PCNMIT NO. 1797 (Amended) ,' "•�•i,: ,•t That the proposed development is conelttent With ; �.: the General Plan, and Is cospatible With ; •,t,' surrounding land uses. Adequats off-street parking spaces and traffic •.,•.• . circulation are being provided for the proposed ?W davelopoent. "+ •'�1^i, =• •O. . :he Police btrartibent has indicats4 that they y do ' ' >' • . , ("• not conterfplste any pt'obl"s. • ,,,'rr '<•,r,+,t.' .That the waiver of a portion of the parking •••IVaJ. ;'ler% Mquireuents for the e%panda4 take-out restaurant .�`•, :f� -,r. ,:, . facility will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. •r,) ( t cf . The approval of Gu Permit No. 1797 (Aatlnded) will • � not, under the eireumstanc■■ of this ease be 4N. dotrit■antal to the health, eafttys poses, sorale, f' •k• cimfort and ••''i "'general weifs:a of persons rafdin9 :,r , •,r,.j • . 'and Working Sn the neighborhood or be detrlwntal ..if,;: ';.a; or Injurious to property and improveronta In the !•' ;•,IX neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. , e CONDMCMI •.t"+Ye(�f 1. That davaloptsent shall be In substantial ;¢;. conformance With the approved plot plan and floor < (r _ '`,,• ' ' plan. yr. ' 1, That a portion of the r■4alrod off-street parking J,y ?� spaces ,I.e. 49 spaces) aie valved. C,' )• That ell applicable conditions of approval of the original Vea Permit No. 1797 +hall be a+•tlntained. J ,�fi$•r a ' '; � r v r '• '�h,' i%.Ili •�„ li1'iir fif' S �`' yi:`i}iQ.7•+1.'i.(.•• •. '+' •ail ri �'bt , `1'LI, tf ) Z5' fi};il;�tr•n q:.;.r.,.. '•f . Al t�s�•n«Yi }(t rr•,',l,)C� r h)+t. �1C >it ie 1' I;'1'r..'SI'ti.•'e' 'i J ' •"•�Yr LY•1•i N , , f SS xl•1.y . t�t+r' 7 '.IY•it; j i �:'4 �:"• ���jf,\ r 0 1 f .. ..� .Se.r,F,. • —.Wow • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE RESTAURANT SITES IN OFFICE SITE G TO THREE SITES, AND AMEND THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO PERMIT EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, on August 10, 1998, Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 1998, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held public hearings regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS,the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The allowable number of restaurant sites in Office Site G of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations shall be 3 restaurant sites and the written text shall include the provision that the approval of eating and drinking establishments (Restaurants,Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be subject to the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. All sections of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations that refer to the establishment of eating and drinking establishments (Restaurants, • Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be amended to include the following text: ",..subject to the procedures,regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,in each case." The following sections shall be amended'to include the aforementioned phrase to the text. The changes shall be made to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations including,but not limited to the following sections: • Section II,B,,4 (page11) • Section II,Group I,D (page 25) • Section II,Group I,G.,2 (page 26.1) • Section II,Group V,A. (Page 27) • Section II,Group VI,A., 1.,a.,b. (Page 27) SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30)days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on July 27, 1998, and adopted on the 10th day of August 1998, by the following vote,to wit: AYES,COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No.3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 A. Use Permit No. 3635 Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is designated for "Administrative,Professional & Financial Commercial" uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction),and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by • the public at large for access through,or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size,off-street parking and wall requirements,meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants(eating and drinking establishments)and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application,for the following reasons: • Wails would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subj ect property. • The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations. • The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators. 5. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses which primarily function during daytime hours. 6. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive-thru food • service and waive a portion of the required parking will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of • persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious•to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use. • The project will not result in any significant environmental impact. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards-of the Koll Center Planned Community. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan. • That the off-street parking spaces which exist in the common•lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. • The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the Parking Demand Study. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63 spaces)shall.be provided on-site. 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take-out restaurant(Burger King).shall be limited to,a maximum of 2,531 sq.ft. 4. The development standard pertaining to off-street parking requirements and perimeter walls shall be waived. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendmentto this use permit. 6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment.to this use permit is first approved. , • 7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces. 10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive-thru lane shall be relocated so that it does not block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive-thru lane. 11. The final design of all on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 12. All employees shall park on-site. 13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current • business owner,property owner or the leasing company. 14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on-site and off-site trash,garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit,upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit,causes injury,or is detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090Aof the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Standard Requirements • 1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building.Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the ,Building Department and the Public Works Department. 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located in compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L so that it does not block sight distance. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works • Department. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,Community Noise Control. 9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside-and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right-of-way,unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times,except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters,if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. • • • 13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights-of-way. 16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site,to advertise the food establishment,unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. • B. Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generatedtraffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major,' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportationfacilities. 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportionalto the size of this project and therefore,not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: • 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the applicant shall have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the City Traffic Engineer shall determine,and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. .�a • EXHIBIT"B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF Amendment No. 876,Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. The proposed project would be detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and be detrimental to the general welfare of the City because the project site cannot provide off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. 2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code since the project does not provide off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. 3. The parking demand for the proposed project will not be less than the parking requirement in Section20.66.030 of the Municipal Code. 4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community DevelopmentPlan since Office Site G only allows two restaurant sites. City of Newport P Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX SUBJECT: Breckenridge Group(John Gantes,applicant) Item 7 5180 Birch Street Amendment No.876 • AmendmentNo.876 Use Permit No.3635, • Use Permit No.3635 Traffic Study-No.116 • Traffic Study-No.116 Approved The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80-seat Burger King Restaurant with drive-through service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq.ft.building divided into two lease spaces for two, full-service small-scale restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq.ft.each. The project involves the approval of: • an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site"G" (the current limit of two restaurantswiil be increased to three restaurant sites)and; • amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code,and; • A use permit for the establishmentof a take-out restaurant use as specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces,and; • the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study: Transportation Services Manager Rich Edmonston stated this project was subjected to the standard traffic analysis required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated that result indicated two intersections would rbe impacted, and under the Ordinance,it would require some mitigation. One of those was the intersection of Jamboree and Campus. The mitigation there would is the re- stripping of assignment of lanes on Campus Drive, which we have had a preliminary discussion with the'City of Irvine,which controls that intersection,and they did see any problems going forward with that mitigation. Mr. Edmonston stated the second mitigation is at the section of Jamboree and MacArthur. In that case they are adding thirty some trips to that intersection in the morning,which is enough to cause the I.C.U.to increase one notch(over the•City's acceptable level of .90) which requires mitigation. A preliminary view of that location suggests there are three different mitigations that might be made, two of which would specifically help mitigate their traffic in the morning. All three of these have been identified preliminarily as very expensive mitigations, probably each one in the range of several hundred,thousand dollars,and one of them clearly over a million dollars. Mr. Edmonston stated they are in the process of hiring a consultant to provide more information in terms of cost, and the extent to which right-of-way maybe required. He stated because they believe the cost of that improvement is not proportional to the impact of these 30 to 40 cars. What is suggested as a condition in this case, is that the re-stripping mitigation at Jamboree and Campus be done prior to occupancy of the project;and that this applicantwould contribute a prorated share for the cost of the identified improvement at MacArthur and Jamboree. At this point there is not a dollar amount to share as to what that condition will translate into; but believe it will be proportional to their impact. Mr. ( 13 �a • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Edmonston stated the question has been raised if this improvement is covered by the Fair Share fees,and he stated it is not. Mr. Edmonston stated they had the traffic consultant study other fast food sites in Irvine, as well as, the Weinerschnitzel next door to this site, in terms of traffic in peak hour that was walk-in versus parking and coming and using the drive- throughs. He stated they believe, as a result of that study, the applicant scaled back the size of the project. Mr. Edmonston stated he is comfortable at this point that the parking that is provided on-site should be adequate for both the Burger King and the free standing building that has two restaurants proposed. Commissioner Adams stated he noticed the traffic report discussed the drive-up queuing lane and made a statement that it had a 7-car storage. He asked if that is adequate and if there was queuing study done to back-up that claim. Mr. Edmonston said he did not believe there was. He stated he believes it refers to the amount of storage that is available in the drive-up facility before it begins blocking other parked cars. Mr. Edmonston stated it is fairly common in fast food facilities in Newport to have drive-up where the line does extend past that and snake through the parking lot. He stated, in this case, there is quite a bit of additional storage before it ever backs up to any adjacent property with common access or out to the public street. Commissioner Fuller asked if there is reciprocal access or a common drive-way from Jamboree. Mr. Edmonston stated the drive-way is actually on the Weinerschnitzel parcel; this parcel does not have Jamboree access; it only has access from Birch Street. Commissioner Fuller asked if there is an easement or something we have to ingress and egress. Mr. Edmonston stated to his knowledge there is not a recorded that the City is a party to. He stated it is his understanding that there are cross-easements,and the site plan as presented to us and as shown in the staff report,does have aisle ways that are continuouswith that adjacent property. Commissioner Fuller asked if the same owner owns both properties. Mr.Edmonston stated he does not know. Commissioner Adams wanted to follow-up on his question regarding the storage for the drive-through. He asked if we are requiring them the on-site signage to be reviewed by Traffic engineering; and also can the Burger King traffic that enters from Jamboree Road, how are they going to be signed to get to the drive-through; are they going to go along the aisle closest to Jamboree or will they be taken around the new food service site around the back. Also do we have discretion over that circulation? Mr. Edmonston stated the answer to the first part of Commissioner Adam's question is he does not believe they have looked at signage for this site up to this time. CommissionerAdams asked if that could be a condition,and Planning DirectorTemple stated we could have that as a condition. Chairman Selich stated it is understanding that the Weinerschnitzel next door has a waiver for 29 parking spaces,and wanted to know the basis for that waiver. Ms. Temple stated that part of the waiver was based in storage in the drive-through lane, however they did not research the specific findings that the Commission made in that waiver. • Planning DirectorTemple made a commentary to clarify the circumstancesof this 1 14 1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX particularapplication. Ms.Temple stated Mr: Edmonston described in detail some of the specifics of the traffic study as noted in the Staff report. The project does not technically meet the criteria to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinancewith a simple majority. Ms.Temple stated'that, in orderto be fully approved and recommended to the City Council,this projectwould require a unanimous vote of those personspresent of this Commission since the Ordinance requires a 4/51h majority of all members eligible to vote. She noted that while absent,Commissioner Kranzley is still eligible to vote. Ms.Temple stated she has been informed by the City Attorney that 6 vote plurality is required unless one or more of the Commissioners must excuse themselves because of conflict of interest. She stated that should the Commission not be able to achieve that level of majority in this particular action but still have the majority to approve the Zoning Amendment and the Use Permit, those would still be valid approvals and would move forward to the City Council with the recommendations for approval on the City Amendment, and the Use Permit, but with a non-approval on the Traffic Study. Ms.Temple stated that could still be handled at the Council level,however, at the Council level it would still be required to achieve that same majority of 6 or 7 eligible votes to actually be approved. Ms. Temple stated this is the first time in many years which they have been confronted with this particular issue but she believes that they have provided within the staff report reasonable rationale for override of the TPO in this case Public Hearing Opened Timothy L.Strader,the owner of propertyat 5180 Birch Street stated he Wanted to compliment the staff on their extensive analysis in the staff report. Mr. Strader stated he purchased the property approximatelya year and a half ago when it was operated as a Carrow's restaurant which was 7500 sq. ft., per the Use Permit from the City, and the City required 75 parking spaces for that use. Mr. Strader stated in this particular case, this is a reduction in intensity ip an existing restaurant because they will.end up with 5,401 sq.ft., not 7500 sq. ft. Mr. Strader stated,in this case,they are installing 63 parking spaces. He stated,in answer to Commissioner Fuller's question that yes there is a reciprocal easement between Weinerschnitzeland his property. Mr. Strader stated there are minor impacts that this project creased based' upon the assumptions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance,and they respectfully request.that the Commission seriously consider an ability to proceed so they can take it to the Council. Mr. Strader stated they have started to work on this project with the Staff last February,and Mr. Gantes has, under the City requirements, paid the cost of the traffic and parking consultanls. He stated they request the Commission adopt the Exhibit findings with the conditions of approval. Mr. Strader stated, to the extent the Staff is able' to come up the actual costs that might be applicable to this particular property, they may have the numbers prior to the final hearing so they can put the numbers in theirfinancial performa. CommissionerAdams asked if there are any prospective tenants for the parcel. John Genies, Franchisee of Burger King stated that, at this time, they have a proposal from Starbucks for one-half of the space,and there is no one lined up for the other half. • �3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Commissioner Adams asked staff if they are comfortable with the trip generation and parking characteristics of the traffic study. Mr. Edmonston stated that, in this particular case, Starbucks would be competing with Burger King for customers looking for coffee and a light breakfast and did not particularly concern himself with that. He stated they have a standardized ratio which is used for small scale, full-service restaurants but did not look at what the particular tenant might end up being other than the half of the building that might be occupied by Starbucks. Commissioner Ridgeway stated there was a letter of objection to the project and he wanted to make sure Mr. Strader had a copy of it. Mr. Strader stated he picked up a copy of it this evening and wanted to point out that the final paragraph is not correct. Mr. Strader stated that the CC&R's do not require the property owners' consent. He stated the CC&R's and declarant is the AETNA Life Insurance Company,and it requires their approval of the architectural plans and has nothing to do with the property owner's consent. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr. Strader has a letter from Der Weinerschnitzel, and Mr. Strader stated he does. Mr. Strader stated he thinks this projectwill improve rather hindertheir operations. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Edmonston if they considered the ITE manual has suggested anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the traffic that is on a system would be drive-by and use operation of fast food. Mr. Edmonston stated on page 14 of the Traffic Study, in Table 4, based on an examination they looked at, they . allowed for 45 percent for Burger King and 20 percent for the other uses. He stated that, in addition to that,they did try to quantify the walk-in aspect, but these are the numbers used in the Traffic Study. Planning Director Temple stated she would like to remind the Commission, in approving the project,the full service,small scale category would provide for small restaurants of a much more conventional nature. She stated they did not look for specifics for what they think might occur now, but to what the entitlement is and what could happen there in the long term and try to assess those credits in that light. CommissionerSelich asked Mr. Strader(because he is familiar with the history in the area), why Weinerschnitzel was granted a waiver for 29 spaces. Mr. Strader stated he did not recall what was in the staff report at that time. CommissionerAshley asked regarding the Traffic Study stated it might be difficult getting into the property if westbound and asked to what extent do these types of traffic conflicts interferewith ingress/egressthat might be related to the office uses that would be adjacent. He asked if this is something that we should be concernedabout. Mr.Edmonston was something they asked the traffic consultant to look at,and one of the things that is a little unusual in a traffic study is there are different distribution patterns for inbound and outbound because,on Birch,there is a center median island that blocks a left turn off of Birch into the drive-way. He stated that, similarly,if you exit and want to get back into the area you have to go down Jamboree to a median opening and come back. Mr. Edmonston stated that most of those would happen at the signal light intersections,and there is capacity to accommodate that. • 16 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Jim Caulfield, Franchiser of Weinerschnitzel restaurant,which is leased,from Mr. Woolridge, stated that both Mr. Woolridge and the owner of the adjacent office building have requested continuances of the hearing. Mr. Caulfield stated that because of the length of the package,the report being 125 pages long,it does not give them the opportunity to deal with the issues presented when they have less than ten days,three of them being a holiday. CommissionerGifford asked Mr.Caulfield,aside from the opportunityto digest the entire report and perhaps have other items he wanted to mention,she asked if the principal area of concern has to do with parking and.traffic movement on the site. Mr. Caulfield stated also that they believe as owners of the adjacent properties have rights under the CC&R's which are being amended. Chairman Selich clarified they are not dealing with CC&R's here. Commissioner Fuller asked staff who commissioned the traffic and parking study, was it developer paid for or selected by the City. Planning Director Temple stated, as required by the City's policies,the Traffic Ordinance Phasing analysis is done under-contract by the City, funded by the applicant;and in this particular case, a combined traffic and parking study was done under City contract funded by the applicant. Commissioner Fuller clarified that the City selected who the consultant was who prepared the reports. Ms. Temple stated that is correct, and the consultant responsible to the City for its content. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Caulfield if he was aware of the waiver of 29 spaces. • Mr.Caulfield responded that he was not. Mr. Strader stated that,from the standpoint of the request for a continuance,this matterwill have to go to the City Council and there will beadequate time for these people to study the matter and make a presentation at the City Council. Mr. Straderasked for a decision this evening if it was any way possible, Public Hearing closed Commissioner Ashley stated that the project is asking for 15 spaces which is below Code standard. He stated the uses are well balance and the uses being proposed are reasonable. CommissionerAshley stated he has no objection to the application. Commissioner Gifford stated she does not have a problem in terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. She stated that the people come in from Birch Street and go over to the Der Weinerschnitzel drive-through lane and block the end of the parking lane. Commissioner Gifford stated people coming,through also seem to be in the middle of the road there, not allowing for right turns down that parking lane. She stated there were pedestrians who have to walk in all.the traffic lanes,and this is her area of concern. Commissioner Fuller stated they have a letter from Newport Federal, who Is adjacent to the Weinerschnitzel who said they were not noticed, and they just' found out about it today. He asked staff if they had been noticed. Planning Director Temple stated they mail to the owner of record,on the Assessors rolls. She also stated, after looking it up in the files, that In this case it was directly noticed to Newport Federal at 4425 Jamboree so they should have received it., • ` '17 i • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes ) July 9, 1998 INDEX She stated they are typically mailed out ten days before the hearing. Commissioner Adams also agrees there is no problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance but is uncomfortable with the site plan. He is concerned about the pedestrian traffic also. Commissioner Ridgeway also agrees with Commissioner Adams in that he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated his problem is the on-site parking. Commissioner Ridgeway stated the waiver for the Burger King project is 15 versus 29 for the Weinerschnitzel,but when looking at in totality in the cumulative impact, it is 44 cars. He stated he is looking for a way to approve it because it is a good use of a corner that has been under utilized. Chairman Selich stated he would like to hear Mr. Edmonston's comments regarding on-site circulation. Mr. Edmonston stated when the traffic engineering consultant reviewed it, he indicated in his report that seven spaces in the drive- through lane were a workable number. He stated there is a considerable amount of overflow stacking from that standpoint before it would get out to that main aisle that would block to from Der Weinerschnitzel. Mr. Edmonston stated, in that regard, the Commission and Council have, on other projects, conditions that require the applicant or owner to take whatever steps are necessary to insure that the back-up from the drive-through does not obstruct the street. Chairman Selich • asked Mr. Edmonston's professional opinion, given the constraints on this property, if this is a reasonable site plan for the property circulation wise. Mr. Edmonston stated he has not spent a great deal of time looking at this and trying to figure out if there are alternatives. He stated given the layout of trying to have some parking that is away from the Weinerschnitzel, it looks like a reasonably good site plan from that perspective. Commissioner Adams asked if he had any comments on pedestrian access. Mr. Edmonston stated he did not think there was an attempt to quantify the direction the pedestrians are coming from. He stated there are connectors from the sidewalk on Jamboree shown in the site plan. Mr. Edmonston stated the access from the driveway at Birch is not as clear. He stated there is a condition that does require further review of access and parking by his office and typically that is the point where they look at opportunities for sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities. Planning Director Temple stated the project currently exceeds landscape standards and the plan does show sidewalks on both Birch and Jamboree with connections to the property. Chairman Selich stated he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance aspect of it. He stated he was concerned about the parking but thinks it is a good use of the property and would be inclined to support it. Commissioner Fuller stated he would support this project. Motion was made by Commissionerto approve Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635,and Traffic Study No. 116 and recommend to City Council. • 18 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried. EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Amendment No.876, Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 A. Planned Community Amendment No. 876: Adopt Resolution No. 1470 (Attached), recommending to the City Council the approval of PC Amendment No. 876, increasing the number of restaurant sites in Office Site "G" to three sites and, permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koil Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No.3635 Findings 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial'uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistentwith this designation. • 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction)',and Class 5(Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). 3. The design of the proposed Improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the,public at large for access through, or use of propertywithin the proposed development. 4. The restaurant,development standards as they pertain to site size, off- street parking and wall requirements,meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants(eating and drinking establishments)and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application,for the following reasons: • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. • The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations, • The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators. 1. The,proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses, • 19 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes ) July 9, 1998 INDEX which primarily function during daytime hours. 2. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive-through food service and waive a portion of the required parking will not, under the circumstancesof the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use. The project will not result in any significant environmental i impact. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of the Koll Center Planned Community. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use,which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan. • That the off-street parking spaces that exist in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. • The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the Parking Demand Study. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage(63 spaces)shall be provided on-site. 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take-out restaurant(Burger King) shall be limited to a maximum of 2,531 sq.ft. 4. The development standard pertaining to off-street parking requirements • and perimeterwalls shall be waived. 20 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 9, 1998 INDEX 5. The hours of operation shall be limited,to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subjectto the approval of an amendmentto this use permit. 6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendmentto this use permitis first approved. 7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways,shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces. 10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive-through lane shall be relocated so that it does not block sightdistance of patrons leaving the site from the drive-through lane. 11. The final design of all on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 12. Alfemployees shall park on-site. 13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 14. No live entertainmentor dancing shall be permitted in conjunctionwith the permitted use. 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunctionwith the proposed operation. 16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage Into the sewer system and not Into the Bay or storm drains,unless otherwise approved•by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 17. The operatorof the food service use shall be responsiblefor the clean-up of all on-site and off-site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding Vicinity • I 21 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX for compliancewith this condition. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace,morals,comfort,or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090Aof the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Standard Requirements 1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District . 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant • where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works i Department. 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirementsof the Uniform Building Code. 4. The projectshall complywith State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of-Chapter20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located in compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L so that it does not block sight distance. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public • Works Department. 22 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1998 INDEX 10, Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure(three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top, which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained - dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 14. Intersections of public streets and, private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, • landscape,walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights-of-way. 16, No temporary"sandwich"signs,balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted,either on-site or off-site,to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordancewith the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right- of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department In conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachmentagreement. C. Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in. . t 23 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 9, 1998 INDEX accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineerand found to be in compliancewith the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more'major,"primary-modified;or'primary'streets;however,the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportional to the size of this project and therefore,not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects • impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. S�SBJECT: A Request of the Planning Director for Direction in Item 8 the Determination of Gross Floor Area in New \ Development A Request of the �\ Planning Director in the Give direction to tall regarding a floor area determination for a project a 221 Determination of Gross Heliotrope,and for Rical patio design. Additionally,if desired,give direction for Floor Area in New staff to study potential aM dments to the Zoning code related to the definition of Development gross floor area. Planning Commission Ms. Temple stated, in brief, the is es presented here are both related to what directed Staff to study constitutes gross floor area as provide or in the Zoning Ordinance are incurring further. problems at the Staff level as to what is a is not counted. She stated Staff is requesting the Commission authorize them do further study and perhaps suggestproposed changesto the code in this reg Mr. Jeannette stated he has pictures of various prof s that he has done throughoutthe City going back as many as 15 years ago, an ' dicating how they were able to park more cars on the site without creating an addi al square foot of buildable area because they were left open. In discussions Mr. nette had in the past with previous Planning Directors,he stated their thoughts ba ' ally fell behind the concept that, if a space were at least 50 percent open, that, 1 hat • case, meant the wall two sides or a side a rear were open to the extent that ea 24 ct SEW r CITY OF NORT BEACH HearinfWate: July 9, 1998 i A COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 7 ., PLANNING DEPARTMENT o _ = SSooNEWPORTBOULEVARD Staff Person: Marc Myers NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92656 . (949) 644-3210 (949)644-Vt ;FAX(949)64-32bo Refer to City Council: . Automatic REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant) 5180 Birch Street PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80-seat Burger 'King Restaurant with drive-thru service. The second structure will be,a 2,510 sq. ft. building divided into two lease spaces for two, full-service small-scale restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft. each. The project involves the approval of: • an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the • current limit of two restaurants will be increased tathree restaurant sites) and; . • amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the'Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code,and; • ,A use permit for the establishment of a take-out restaurant use as specified.imthe Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces,and; • the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study. ACTION: Approve,modify or deny: • Amendment No. 876 • Use Permit No. 3635 • Traffic Study No. 116 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 3,Map Book 198,Pages 27 and 28 ZONE: P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community) • OWNER: Timothy L. Strader,Newport Beach Points and Authority • • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' uses. A restaurant is a permitted use within this designation as a support commercial use. The Land Use Element allocates a maximum square footage for Office Site "G" in Koll Center of 81,372 sq.R. The additional restaurant site will not increase the square footage of Office Site "G" above that which is allocated by the Land Use Element. • Environmental Compliance(California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). • Use permit and restaurant development standards, procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. • Waiver of off-street parking requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code. • Traffic Study requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. • • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 2 VICINITY MAP .s .f J1 g' tt g� I;t, l • S lL_ _ — (�o Rrh I Amendment No. 876, 'SuiWect Property and Surrounding Land Current Development: Is an existing 7,500 sq.R one-stdry restaurant with subterranean parking to be removed. To the north: across Birch Street is the Newport Harbor Municipal Court: To the east: is Cal-West Credit Union office building and related parking. To the south: is an existing Weinerschnitzel Restaurant with drive-thm lane and related parking. • To the west: across Jamboree Road is a vacant parcel,outside the City limits. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 3 ANALYSIS • Amendment to Koll Center Planned Community The Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations identify the subject property as Office Site "G," and allows two (2) restaurant sites within the site. The amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards, as proposed, will increase the allowable number of restaurant uses permitted in Office Site "G" from two to three. This amendment is required to accommodate construction of the two proposed restaurant buildings where one currently exists. The proposal also includes the addition of eating and drinking establishments throughout Koll Center Planned Community subject to the standards and requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. This will allow staff to regulate eating and drinking establishments within the food service facility through the subsequent review and approval of a Planning Director's Use Permit. This will insure that those uses will be compatible, in terms of peak parking demand,with the take-out restaurant. Changes to the land use limitations do not include any increase in the existing entitlement of the site or statistical area. The intent of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations, as set forth within the P.C. Text, is to provide for the development of hotel with banquet and convention facilities,a small retail and service center, service stations, restaurants, and a site for the Courthouse,with the balance of the acreage developed as a business and professional office park emphasizing open space. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Koll Center Planned • Community since the proposed project is providing support commercial uses which are similar to that which is existing, but at a smaller scale. The proposal also provides landscaping per the requirements of Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations. Additionally, the proposed Burger King and Food Service facility will contain a total of approximately 5,041 sq. ft. compared to the existing 7,500 sq. ft. restaurant to be removed. Use Permit The project site is located in the P.C.District. The adopted P.C. Development Regulations for Koll Center Newport allow drive-thru or take-out restaurants subject to the approval of a use permit.The proposed take-out restaurant with drive-dint food service complies with all of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations with the exception of off-street parking requirements. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic and parking demand study for the proposed food uses. The key issues analyzed by staff are the adequacy of the proposed parking and compliance with the Restaurant Development Standards contained in the Zoning Code. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 4 Project Characteristics Table • Burger King Food Services Restaurant Building Building Gross Bldg Area(sq.ft.): TOTAL: 2.531 sq.ft. 2,510 sq.ft. Net Public Area': Interior Dining Area: ' 1,295 sq.ft. 570 sq. ft.each(1,000 sq.ft.or less) SUBTOTAL: 1,295 sq.ft 1,140 sq.ft. Other area: Restroom,kitchen, storage and service areas: 1,236 sq.ft. 1,370 sq.ft.(685 sq.ft.each) TOTAL AREA: 2,531 sq.ft. 2,510 sq.ft. Required Parking:take-out Restaurants:J 60 spaces Full Service Small-Scale: 18 spaces(9 spaces each) Provided for Subject Restaurant: 45 spaces(+7 in drive-thru) 18 spaces TOTAL Parking Provided on-site: 63 spaces Parking Study Recommendation: 45 spaces 18 spaces I sp./59 rsq. ft.gross floor area 1 sp./3 seats(25 seats max.) plus 1/peak employee+2 (WAIVER OF 15 SPACES) NO WAIVER PROPOSED Live Entertainment: NO NO Dancing: NO NO Outdoor Dining: NO NO Valet Parking Service: NO NO Number of Employees: Approx.9 total I Approx.10 total Hours of operation: 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.daily 1 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.,daily The subject site contains a gross square footage of approximately 45,205 sq.ft. The site is,currently occupied by a 7,500 sq. ft. building,previously used as a high turn-over sit down restaurant, which will be removed if this project is approved and implemented. A Burger King fast-food restaurant and a food service facility are proposed for the site. Also located on the site is a Weinerschnitzel take-out restaurant with related off-street parking. As shown on the site plan, the new Burger King building will be located along Birch Street facing Jamboree Road, on the corner. The food service facility building will be located between the Burger King building and the Weinerschnitzel Restaurant building, fronting Jamboree Road. Access to the new buildings will utilize the existing entries off Jamboree Road and off Birch Street, Z Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility. • 'Based on 1/50 sq.ft.of gross floor area,plus one for every peak employee Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 5 0 • The Koll Center Planned Community establishes that off-street parking requirements for take-out restaurants, or any eating and drinking establishment with drive-through or drive-up service, shall be in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code requires 1 parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area contained within the building or in any outdoor area capable of being used for the purpose of serving food or beverages and one parking space for each employee on duty. Based on the proposed 2,531 sq. ft. of take-out restaurant and assuming 9 peak employees, 60 parking spaces are required for the proposed Burger King restaurant. The parking requirement for the other food services building is based upon the City requirements for a full service small scale restaurant. The parking requirement for these facilities is based upon i space per 3 seats, for a total of 18 spaces. The required amount of parking spaces (18) are provided on-site for the food services facility. It is anticipated that at least one of the food services will be a breakfast oriented restaurant such as a bagel or muffin shop which would have its peak parking demand occur in the early morning. This would not conflict with the Burger King since the fast food restaurant will have a noon hour peak demand. The total parking required for the entire site including the Burger King and the food services facility is 78 spaces. Waiver of Off-Street Parking Requirements Since the required number of parking spaces could not be provided on-site for the proposed • restaurant uses, a parking demand study was prepared to determine the parking demand consistent with other fast food take-out restaurants in the area. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 15 parking spaces. Chapter 20.66.10 states that a use permit may be approved by the Planning Commission to modify or waive the number of off-street parking spaces required by the terms of this chapter if one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. A municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site or sites. 2. The site is subject to two or more uses and the maximum parking requirements for such uses do not occur simultaneously. 3. A parking management plan for the site has been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 20.66.100(B). 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: a) The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.03a • b) The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 6 It is possible to make finding number 4(a) in this case. Page 3 of the Parking Demand Study, • located in Appendix D of the attached traffic study, presents a comparison of parking requirements in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code (utilizing a standard requirement of 1 parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space for each peak time employee for a fast- food restaurant) to the actual parking demand based on field measurement of similar uses in the area. The parking demand study indicates that one parking space.for each 59 sq.ft. of gross floor area plus two spaces would be adequate for the subject restaurant, due to the amount of walk-in patrons expected from the neighboring office -uses and Newport Harbor Municipal Court. Additionally, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive-thru lane is provided to insure adequate drive-thru lane capacity for queuing to insure that all on-site parking spaces can be accessed freely. The Planning Commission could also determine that the addition of more convenience food uses could change the-overall parking demand for the area, calling into question the conclusions of the parking analysis. This conclusion could be based on the practical experience the City has had in shopping centers with a high number of convenience food businesses (Back Bay Court, Westcliff Plaza, Harbor View Center). These shopping areas have had parking problems, particularly when food uses congregate in close proximity to one another. It is possible that these groupings result in an expansion of the market area beyond that of a more limited number of food service facilities. Should the Planning Commission uphold the established parking requirements for take-out restaurants at 1 parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space for each peak employee,then the requirement would be 78 parking spaces and the applicant would be required to redesign the project to comply with these standards. A redesign of this nature is likely to result in a • reduction in the square footage of the project. Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants, as outlined below. Those development standards include specific requirements for restaurant sites, building setbacks, off-street parking, traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, lighting (exterior illumination), underground utilities, supply storage and refuse storage. Section 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code states that any of the development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if strict compliance is not necessary to achieve the purpose or intent of the standard. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 7 Development Standards • REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Sue Site shall be sufficient size and configuration to Waiver. The project complies with setbacks curb cuts. satisfy all requirements for off-street parking, landscaping and refuse storage requirements of the Koll setbacks curb cuts, walls. landscaping and refuse Center Planned Community District Regulations which storage as provided by Section 20.82.040 of the are more restrictive than the provisions of the Zoning Municipal Code. Code, but does not comply with the minimum site size requirement since the project does not satisfy the requirement for off-street parking. Setbacks: 30 foot setback at Jamboree Road and Birch Street. Complies. The project provides 55 R. from Jamboree zero setback at interior lot lines and 10 foot setback Road. 30 R. From Birch Street and 140 ft. between between buildings per Kell Center PC District buildings. Regulations; to protect the public health, safety and welfare or to insure compatibility with uses on contiguous properties (per Section 20.82.040 A-2. NBMC). ofj-Street Off-street parking in accordance with the provisions Waiver. A parking demand study has been conducted Parking. of Koll Center PC District Regulations(I spaces per which finds that 1 space for each 59 sq. ft.of gross floor 50 sq.ft.of gross floor area plus one per employee). area, plus 2 spaces will be adequate for the Burger King restaurant. The food service facility complies with the parking requirement of 1 space for every 3 seats established by the Code. Circulation: Parking areas and driveways to facilitate tragic and Complies. The tragic circulation has been reviewed and circulation of vehicles on and around the facility and conceptually approved by the City Traffic Engineer. to provide adequate sight clearances. . B'alls(adjacent A solid masonry wall feet high shall be ercded on Waiver. The requirement to provide a 6 foot high wall at to the interior all interior property lines of the subject property. the interior property line would adversely impact the property lines): Walls 3 fat in height shall be erected between the shared drive access which serves the adjacent restaurant on-site parking areas and the public rights-of-way. site. No walls are proposed between the on-site parking and the public rights-of-way.However,staff believes that the intent of the requirement is satisfied by the perimeter landscaping and increased setbacks along Jamboree Road. Landscaping: 10%of entire site, 3 foot wide landscape area shall Complies. The requirement of landscaping for an area be provided to screen the parking area from the equal to 1009 of the site is adequately addressed by the public right-of-way(alley).A 3 foot wide landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community area adjacent to the interior property lines shall be District Regulations which govern the entire project. The provided. project provides 28%site landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement. A landscape plan for the entire project is required and will be approved for the project. Lighting: Parking lot and site illumination height and intensity: Complies. to minimize the reflection of lights to the streets and neighboring properties Utilities All utilities required to be undergroundcd. Complies. Supply Storage Supply storage to be contained within a building. Complies. Refse Storage Refuse storage outside of a building shall be hidden Complies. The site plan identifies two separate trash from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height enclosures for the project,one for each building,screened with self-locking gates. from view by 6 ft.solid masonry walls. Staff is of the opinion that the on-site development standards as they apply to site,off-street parking . and wall requirements should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application, Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Papl' since the granting of the waiver will generally achieve the same results as would strict compliance with the requirements of Chapter 20.82. . Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal 'Code and Council Policy L-18. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections are identified on page 22 and on Exhibit A of the attached traffic study. The traffic study indicates that the proposed project will have an impact on the level of service at the following two intersections: Jamboree Road at Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road. The project increases the AM peak hour ICU value from .92 to .93 and from .94 to .95, respectively. However, the following improvements (shown on Table 9), will reduce the ICU value to less than 0.90 and mitigate the project impacts. The required improvements are as follows: For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive,the existing westbound lane configuration should be re-striped to include one left turn lane and one shared through and left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road, an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard should be provided. The re-striping improvement at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive is a fairly small requirement from a cost point of view. It is, therefore, an appropriate condition to attach to this project approval. The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, however. is a widening project of substantial cost and complexity. As a result, staff presents this analysis in relation to recent court decisions regarding the imposition of conditions whose costs are not "roughly proportional" to the project's impact, as well as from the typical Traffic Phasing Ordinance methodology. Rough Proportionality The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road has not yet been designed and the actual cost of construction has not been estimated. The City's Traffic Engineer has, however, indicated that the improvement is substantial in nature,requiring the acquisition of right-of-way and the widening of a street. Since the'project under consideration only contributes 2 trips to the critical movement which already has 376 (less than .5 %of the total), which causes the ICU to increase from .94 to .95,burdening this project with the full cost of this improvement could be considered not roughly proportional to the project's traffic impacts. Should the City approve the project with the improvement requirement, it is possible that the applicant would challenge the legality of the condition, and perhaps call into question the validity of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3633 Page 9 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Provisions • The basic standard for approval of a project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is summarized below: 1. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any "major, " "primary-modified"or "primary"street; or 2. The project is required to construct major improvements to the circulation system such that: • An unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any intersection for which there is an identified improvement; and • The benefits to traffic circulation resulting from the major improvements substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted, but unimproved intersections;and • There is an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at those intersections, because of improvements required of the project. In order to comply with this standard contained in the TPO, the improvements identified in the traffic study must be made conditions of approval, because they are feasible. • The TPO does provide for relief from this mandate if certain findings can be made, as follows: 1. The time and money to complete the improvement is so clearly disproportional to the size of, and traffic generated by, the project that it would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of the improvement; and 2. There is a strong likelihood construction of the improvement will commence within 48 months from the date of project approval. This finding cannot be made unless the following has been accomplished: • Conceptual plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to permit preparation of cost and funding estimates, • Cost and funding estimates have been prepared, • The improvement is consistent with the General Plan, • An account has been established by the City to receive contributions to the project, and 3. Approval of the project is conditioned upon the payment of a fee to fund the project the amount of which is determined by the Traffic Engineer to be proportional to the project's traffic when compared to other traffic anticipated from other development which will occur from the date of approval to completion of the improvement, and • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 10 4. The financial contribution outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. • In this case, staff is of the opinion that findings 1, 3 and 4 can be made, since the cost of the improvement is considered by the Traffic Engineer to be clearly disproportional to the project's impact, a proportional fee could be established, and the project's contribution to the overall function of the intersection is relatively small. However, finding 2 cannot be made at this time, because improvement plans, cost and funding estimates and establishment of an account to receive funds have not been completed. Therefore, this project does not qualify for approval pursuant to these findings, and can only be approved by 4/5ths of the members of the Planning Commission eligible to vote. In the case of a seven member Commission, this ratio equates to 6 affirmative-votes. There are facts present, however, which could provide sufficient rationale for approval, consistent with the intent and spirit of these findings. Growth Management Area 8 (GMA-8), of which the City is a member pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Program, has initiated study of improvements to the-intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has been authorized to retain a consultant to design and provide cost estimates for improvements which will satisfy the TPO requirement for this project. It is also the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that it is highly likely that the improvements can be accomplished within a 48 month time frame. So, while strict compliance with finding 2 above cannot be found, an exception to the TPO may be justified in this case. • Conclusion While no specific findings are set forth in the Code for the approval of an amendment to Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plans, staff is of the opinion that the proposed changes are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan since restaurant uses are permitted uses in this area. The proposed location of the additional restaurant building and the proposed-conditions under which it will be operated or maintained are consistent with the General Plan and the purpose and intent of the Planned Community in which the site is located. Adequate parking is provided and the project is located within a large commercial office center and therefore is compatible as a support use with the existing surrounding development. Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit,the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment,maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not,under the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,and general'welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Based upon the analysis contained in.this report, it could be found that the findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed take-ouddrive-ffim restaurant since the proposed drive- thru restaurant and food service building will comply with the objectives of the Koll Center Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 11 the site as proposed. Because of the site's location in an office park planned community, there is • little potential for problems associated with hours of operation and noise generated by the proposed restaurant operation. It can also be found that the physical attributes of the proposed site improvements limited by the reciprocal parking and ingress and egress arrangements, complicate the ability to bring the property into full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code with regard to walls. In addition, staff also believes that the provisions of the Koll Center Planned Community District Regulations adequately address site requirements and provide for uniform landscape treatment throughout the center to offset the requirements of perimeter walls. It can also be found that the project meets the intent of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, because although adverse impacts to two intersections have been identified, a feasible improvement suitable to the scope of the project has been identified for Jamboree Road and Campus Drive, and the spirit and intent of the requirements to assess a proportional contribution to an improvement at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard are met. It should be noted, however, that the project does not actually meet all of the requirements for this proportional assessment, so six affirmative votes are required to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3635, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. It is also possible to make findings for denial of this project. The project's inability to provide the • required off-street parking could result in traffic and parking problems that will negatively impact the surrounding commercial uses. Also, an additional restaurant site would create a high concentration of convenience food services in that location which may result in additional traffic, parking and circulation problems in and around the site. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this project,the findings set forth in Exhibit"B"are suggested. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE MARC W. MYERS Planning Director �p Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" Exhibit"B" Appendix Traffic Study Parking Demand Study Plot Plan,Floor Plan and Elevations F:\USERStPLN\SHAREDIIPLANCON199aa7-09'+a876.DOC • Amendment No.876 Use Pertnit No.3635 Page 12 EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR • Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 11'6 A. Planned Community Amendment No. 876: Adopt Resolution No. (Attached), recommending to the City Council the approval of PC Amendment No. 876, increasing the number of restaurant sites in Office Site"G" to three sites and, permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No. 3635 Findinvs: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial' uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction),and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). • 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through,or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size,off-street parkingand wall requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (eating and drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application, for the following,reasons: • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations. • The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators. 5. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses which primarily function during daytime hours. • Amendment No.876 Use Pertnit No.3635 Page 13 I,I� 6. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the . Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive-thru food service and waive a portion of the required parking will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use. • The project will not result in any significant environmental impact. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of the Koll Center Planned Community. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed • change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan. • That the off-street parking spaces which exist in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. • The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the Parking Demand Study. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63 spaces)shall be provided on-site. 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take-out restaurant (Burger King) shall be limited to a maximum of 2,531 sq. ft. 4. The development standard pertaining to off-street parking requirements and perimeter walls shall be waived. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 14 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 am. and 12 midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. • 6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved. 7. The project shall be designed to eliminate-light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 9. All landscape island curbs at the end.of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces. 10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive-thru lane shall be relocated so that it does not block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive-thru lane. 11. The final design of all on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 12. All employees shall park on-site. 13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner,property owner or the leasing company. 14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on-site and off-site trash,garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit • or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Pemtit,upon a determination Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page15 i� that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to • the health,safety,peace, morals,comfort,or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Standard Requirements 1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located in compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L so that it does not block sight distance. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,Community Noise Control. 9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility,but not located on or within any public property or right-of-way,unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash • enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 16 dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times,except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. • 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall'be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state,and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights-of-Way. 16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site,to advertise the food establishment.unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. C. Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major,' 'primary-modified; or 'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No,3635 Page 17 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not • proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall determine,and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 18 1p • • EXHIBIT"B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF • Amendment No. 876,Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. The proposed project would be detrimental to the health, safety,peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and be detrimental to the general welfare of the City, because the project site cannot provide off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. 2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code since the project does not provide off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. 3. The parking demand for the proposed project will not be less than the parking requirement in Section 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code. 4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan since Office Site G only allows two restaurant sites. • • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 19 APPENDIX"A" • LOCATION: 5180 Birch Street, Parcel 3, Map Book 198, Pages 27 and 28 ZONE: P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community) APPLICANT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes,applicant), Rancho Santa Margarita OWNER: Timothy L. Strader,Newport Beach Expanded Traffic Study Analysis The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L-18. The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table 2, located on Page 11 of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 7 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are shown on Exhibit A, located on Page 22 of the attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis, taking • into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where,on any approach leg,project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 2%x hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the five intersections, the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-%: hour morning and afternoon peak traffic on three of the intersections and was less than 1% on two of the intersections, as indicated on Table 7, located on Page 25 of the attached traffic study. An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the above noted three intersections. As indicated in Table 8, located on Page 31 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the A.M. peak for these three intersections exceeded 0.90. • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 20 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE RESTAURANT SITES IN OFFICE SITE G TO THREE SITES, AND AMEND THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO PERMIT EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Section 2035.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by the Planning • Commission setting forth particulars of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations is,necessary in order to allow fora third restaurant site to be located in Office Site G;and WHEREAS, the proposed change to add a restaurant site to Office Site G is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated as APF, and restaurant uses are • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 21 0 • considered support commercial uses within this designation and are compatible with the • surrounding uses as a support use since it there are existing restaurant uses on the site; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations is necessary in order to regulate the establishment of eating and drinking establishments throughout Koll Center Planned Community consistent with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding Amendment No. 876 at which time this Planned Community amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations was discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan and the intent of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Guidelines; and • WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Amendment No. 876 to change the allowable number of restaurant sites in Office Site G of the troll Center Planned Community Development Regulations from 2 to 3 restaurant sites and amend the written text to include the provision that the approval of eating and drinking establishments (Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be subject to the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. All sections of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations that refer to the establishment of eating and drinking • Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 22 establishments (Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be amended to include the following text: • "...subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case." The following sections shall be amended to include the aforementioned phrase to the text, The changes shall be made to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations including,but not limited to the following sections: • Section H, B.,4 (page 1'1) • Section H, Group 1,D (page 25) • Section H, Group 1, G.,2 (page 26.1) • Section II, Group V,A. (Page 27) • Section 11,Group VI,A., 1.,a.,b. (Page 27) ADOPTED this 9h day of July, 1998•by the following vote,to wit: AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: BY: Michael C. Kranzley,Chairman BY: Thomas J. Ashley, Secretary is Amcndment No.876 Use Permit No.305 Page 23 BIRCH ST./J AMBOREE RD.BURGER KING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS Newport Beach, California A: ,` Y l v��r•j V e v I RKJ� RKIK &ASSOCIATES INC. • May 12, 1998 Mr. Rich Edmonston Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Birch Street/Jamboree Road Burger King Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis Dear Mr. Edmonston: RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit the Birch Street/Jamboree Road Burger King 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, and on-site circulation pursuant to City of Newport Beach requirements. • Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation system, with off-site improvements. in addition, the site access and on- site circulation are adequate for the project site. If you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, t RKJK & ASSOCIATESQ�o0 FESSipyq n 4,4 Robert Kahn, P.E. x NO 0555 Tom HuangtEIT Principal EXP 12/31A1 Transportation•Engineer Ar RK:TH:kgd/8005 '�gl� AFf OF CA JN:0559-98-01 Iw` TRA.WORTATION PLANNING • ';IS TR.NFFI(' ACOLSTICAL ENGI`EERING 1601 Dove Street, Sui:e 240 • Newport Beach. CA 9 0ta0 • Phone: M49 47 4-0809 • Fax: 1949) 474-0902 i BIRCH STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared by: RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Tom Huang, EIT May 12, 1998 • JN:0559-98-01 RK:TH:kgd/8005 TABLE OF CONTENTS • SECTION PAGE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 111. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Project Trip Generation B. Project Trip Distribution IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects B. Regional Traffic Growth C. Study intersections D. Determination of Impacted Intersections V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 VI. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 • A. Site Access B. On-Site Parking VIi. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDICES ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ICU WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B TRIP GENERATION STUDY (FEBRUARY 23, 1998) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C t PARKING STUDY (APRIL 20,. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D • • LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE A LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 D PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 E PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 G EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1 YEAR 2000 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 • J YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 LAND USE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS-BY TRIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION • SUMMARY (WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATION) . . . . . . . . 32 • • • BIRCH STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Burger King located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street 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 300 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 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 i 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 I their traffic are 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 . • 1 approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be • accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, the annual regional growth rate for the study area is specified by the City. With the completion of this project contemplated in the Fall of 1999, assuming approval by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 2000. 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 the AM and PM two and one-half hour peak periods 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 hours. Intersection analysis during the peak hour is performe&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 AM and PM 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 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. 2 • In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a review of on-site traffic • circulation, and site access from the adjoining street system. i 7 3 • 1 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The project site, located at the southwest corner of the Intersection of Birch Street at Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a Burger King and a food' service facility. The site location with respect to the surrounding area is shown In Exhibit A. The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as a Carrow's (high turnover sit-down) restaurant. Carrow's restaurant has recently closed and a Burger King and a food service facility is being planned for the site. The food service facility will Include two full service small scale restaurants. The project site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Municipal Court which generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the Burger King and the food service facility. As a result of this, it Is anticipated that a significant portion of patronage will come from walk-in and pass-by traffic. • As shown in the site plan (Exhibit B) the project includes a 2,531 square foot Burger King restaurant with drive-thru and a food service facility of 2,570 square feet which is anticipated to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on-site parking spaces. Entry to the site will be via the existing right-in/right out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree Road is shared with an existing W(enerschnitzel fast food restaurant and an existing office building. • 4 EXHIBIT A • LOCATION MAP k40 S � WAYNE :.:... PORT:: a .. P. a �Y' 9 p` SITE:" , moo• m T 0 s pjsr O O� Sl LEGENDa •� = STUDY AREA INTERSECTION Ob59-98-01:OtA BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beech, Colifomia k A 0 TES W- • • I EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN C� % �� ti ♦♦ a . y♦ r °Je* N . •/�fY �.4 �4 �/ y / Iq� •Vp` / N 0559-98-01:O6A, i K BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE RDAD BURGER KING, Newport Beooh, Caldamla it AS MTM W- • • 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. RKJK has previously prepared a trip generation study dated February 23, 1998 for the preliminary site plan. The trip generation study is included in Appendix "C". The distribution patterns that project trips will then use for routing through the roadway network are identified and depicted graphically in Exhibits C and D. Proiect Trio Generation The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as a Carrow's high turnover sit-down restaurant. The Carrow's restaurant has recently closed and a Burger King and a food service facility is being planned for the site. The food service facility will include two full service small scale restaurants. The project • site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Municipal Court which generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the Burger King and the food service facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a significant portion of patronage will come from walk-in and pass-by traffic. As shown in the site plan on Exhibit B, the project includes a 2,531 square foot Burger King restaurant with drive-thru and a food service facility of 2,570 square feet to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on-site parking spaces. The existing and proposed uses for the site are quantified in Table 1. The trip generation rates used for this study are included in Table 2. Trip generation has been based upon trip rates which occur during the peak hour of the street, which • 7 EXHIBIT C PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION • -.-.JOHN �. :.' WAYNE ' AIRPORThJ� M/cy��S�NO n ui P Q 20 . '1• y9 �i,� J �A t5 GS s�o`sT'J ksP ; 30 R 5 pR SIT ,;a 5. A s ``Z 30 I Q `.�i ti OGUC 15 o oQ�� 0 O 9Q� 30 5 5 LEGENDt 5 10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT f 0559-98—Ot:OSA BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Narport'Btaoh, Calilomia Asm� li)W n EXHIBIT D • PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION S � AI RP ORT • ti Q. o,Q Mi P Q- c0� 30 20 02 �� C= rS 90 ��O J r �Ol J � Roti sa r� s sr 55 5 N a 40 + 5 30 45 H SJ. S �iS 5 O . Ski O� 10 ' Sl 4 LEGENDa 5 10 = PERCENT FROM PROJECT 5 0559-98-01-04A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beech, Colitomie ��j W- O TABLE 1 • LAND USE SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CATEGORY SIZE (TSW Existing Use Carrow's High Turnover Restaurant 7,500 Proposed Uses Burger King Fast Food W/Drive•Thru 2.531 Food Service High Turnover Restaurant 2,570 TSF = thousand square feet of building. 10 • • TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES PEAK-HOUR RATES AM PM LAND USE UNITS IN OUT IN OUT DAILY High Turnover Sit-Down TSF 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 130.34 Restaurants Fast Food Restaurant TSF 25.43 24.43 i 17.41 16.07 496.12 W/Drive Thru .w ' • 11 usually occurs between 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM, This is typical practice in the City • of Newport Beach and Orange County. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 3. The trip generation included in Table 3 does not take Into account pass-by or diverted and additional pedestrian oriented trips which are a result of the specific location of the site. The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip-ends per day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed uses would generate 1,591 trip-ends per day with 149 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicles per hour during the PM peak.hour. In order to properly assess the net difference in trip generation between the existing and proposed uses, the actual net trip generation must be determined. This takes into account both the overall trip generation and the net trip reduction as a result of pass- by/diverted trips and walk-in trips. RKJK utilized the factor of at least 45 percent for the pass-by/diverted and walk-in traffic for the fast food restaurant and approximately 20 percent for the high turnover sit-down restaurant and full service small scale restaurant. The net trip generation for both the existing Carrow's restaurant and the proposed Burger King and the food service facility is shown in Table 4. The Carrow's restaurant would generate a net trip generation of 782 trip-ends per day with 55 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 65 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed use would generate 959 net trip-ends per day with 88 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 70 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. 12 • • • I TABLE 3 ! PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Carrow's 36 33 49 33 978 PROPOSED USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Burger King 64 62 44 41 1,256 Food Service 12111 17 11 335 ! TOTAL 7673 1 61 52 1,591 DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 36 33 49 33 978 Proposed Use 76 73 61 52 1,691 Difference +40 +40 +12 +19 +613 ! 13 • TABLE 4 • NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS-BY TRIPS EXISTING USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Carrow's 20 29 26 39 26 782 PROPOSED USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY EFood King 45% 35 34 24 23 617 • ervice 20% 10 9 14 9 268 45 43 38 32 959 NET DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 429 [ 28 39 26 782 Proposed Use 43 38 32 EE DIFFERENCE 17 -1 +6 7 14 • The net difference in trip generation between the proposed and existing use of the site is also shown in Table 4. The proposed use would result in a net increase in trip generation of 177 trip-ends per day with 33 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 5 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, based upon the ITE Trip j Generation, rates. 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 the morning and evening two and one-half hour peak periods. Proiect Trio Distribution . Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The inbound and outbound trip distribution patterns for the project are graphically depicted on Exhibits C and D. The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, project related AM and PM traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits E and F. The existing AM and PM traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits G and H. 1 • 15 f i EXHIBIT E • PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES s � .::.;::JOHN ••:•"•:•:�:" tea. AIRPORT• h�J� yF<S°y a � 00 IN • � �Oy9 ot�" ape 4'yyA p �..:;:::..;•..� l 0 � 1 � � f 0559 96-01.07A kKj BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Colifamia INC. 1 F /�•; EXHIBIT F PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .... OHN ::::...: :•:•:•WAYNE-:::::' :... AfRPORT ::: o rod J iRoy op OGF A SI I Es'r.♦♦ ��GJ~QV N1 i 0559-98-01:OBA BIRCH MEt3' JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Coli amto NJ 'EXHIBIT G • EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES S � . WAYNE•::•:' .. AIRPORT •� 'L9 Q•2- JO cq�A rpt J cy R sr 9P y Sr S ITE - r O � 0559-98-01.02A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Caldmrva �, EXHIBIT H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES* s � WAYNE'. s' :AIRPORT:: �J� �2yFcsO�° • a / La /r 4 C lob � 'icy Dy { FI N 0559-98—OI:OJA BIRCH STR JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING. Newport Beach. CaGtomia Afm1m NC. 19 • 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 Phasina.Ordinance Committed Proiects 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 committed projects are listed in Table 5. Pursuant to the City staff, 80% of the trip generation is assumed for all the committed projects at one year after the opening of the proposed project as a result of the potential interaction of these projects. i I • 20 , J TABLE 5 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST • CURRENT PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 121 Newport Village 00%Occupancy 124 Civic Plata 00%Occupancy 125 Corporate Plata it West 12%Occupancy 129 Hoag Hospital Extension 2%Occupancy 134 Interpretive Center 00%Occupancy 142 Hoag Hospital Expansion 00%Occupancy 147 Balboa Bay Club Expansion 00%Occupancy 148 Fashion Island Expansion 00%Occupancy 152 Fletcher Jones Mercedes 00%Occupancy 154 Temple Bet YAHM Expansion 00% Occupancy 155 Corona Del Mar Plata 00%Occupancy 157 Ford Development 00%Occupancy ISO TLA Ddve•Thru Restaurant 00%Occupancy 555 CIOSA-Irvine Project 00%Occupancy 910 Newport Dunes 00%Occupancy 930 City of Irvine Dev. 009E Occupancy r • • 3 i 21 h H • Renional 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 percentages are shown in Table 6. The future analysis year is Year 2000, and the existing counts are taken at Year 1997. For the approaches on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a growth factor of 1 percent per year for 3 years, which is a total of 3 percent, has been used in this study. 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. These following intersections have been designated by the City staff for possible analysis in this report, and they are also shown on Exhibit A: Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) • Birch Street (EW) • Bristol Street North (EW) • Bristol Street South (EW) • 22 r TABLE 6 . REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES' PERCENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANNUAL GROWTH, JAMBOREE ROAD LAllAIISegmentsCARTHUR BOULEVARD Segments 1 • ' Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. • 23 • MacArthur Boulevard INS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) 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 AM and PM two and one-half hour peak 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 7. Analysis worksheets for each intersection are included in Appendix "A". The results of the analysis indicate that AM project volumes will exceed the one percent threshold at the three following intersections: Jamboree Road INS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) • Birch Street (EW) 24 q6 TABLE 7 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY • PROJECT VOLUME GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT OF PEAK HOUR VOLUME INTERSECTION AM PM Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Yea No • Birch St. (EW) Yes Yes • Bristol St. N. (EW) No No • Bristol St. S:(EW) No No MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: Yes No • Jamboree Rd. (E1M 25 • • MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) Only one intersection, Jamboree Road at Birch Street, exceeds the one percent threshold for the PM peak period. • i 26 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • This section of the report presents the peak hour intersection analysis for the intersections 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 Year 2000 traffic volumes for the study intersections are shown on Exhibits I and J. The traffic volumes are based on existing traffic volumes, annual regional growth and the trip generation for the proposed and committed projects. For the approaches on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a growth factor of 1 percent per year for 3 years, which is a total of 3 percent, has been used in this study. The results of 27 • EXHIBIT I • YEAR 2000 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES S � JOHN ,a. WAYN E :. . AIRPORT: w a �oy9 o�\y ,p2 cq' A,p �s9 OF � GS r �Sp° SJ fi9p ; S Sr Off, 03 e� 0 0559-98-01:D9A R 1(JI(___ BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING. Newport Beoea, Califomia !Ass"TFS NG EXHIBIT YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME :...JOHN::" WAYNE AIRPORT . : 1r C v:•:{^i �GJ�Qv �i A `✓ : G C 0 4, f C T r • 0559-98-0S:SDA BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING. Newport Btach. ColJomo �� K- 29 • the Year 2000 ICU calculations are presented in Table S. The Year 2000 ICU worksheets are included in Appendix "B". As shown in Table 8, the ICU for the following two intersections will exceed 0.90 for the AM peak hour: Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) However, with improvements shown on Table 9, all the analysis intersections will not exceed 0.90. The required improvements are listed as follows: For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive: • • Restripe existing westbound lane configuration to include one left turn lane, one shared through and left lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. ' For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road: • Provide an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard. • 30 TABLE B • YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION) 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 Jamboree Rd.INS)at: • Campus Dr.(EM 1 4 0 2 3 0 1.S 1.5 i» 1 2 1 0.92 NAs 0.93 NA • Birch St.(EW) 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 i» 0 1 0 10.56, 0.60 0.58 0.61 MacArthur Blvd. INS)at: • Jamboree Rd.(EWI 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.94 NA 0.95 NA 1 • ' r 1 ' 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; >> - From Right s intersection Capacity Utilization In Year 2000 with regional growth and committed projects traffic. NA . Not applicable(Project traffic team than 1%of total traffic). 1 r 31 • • • TABLE 9 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATION) 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 I PM Jamboree Rd.INS)at: • Campus Dr.(EW) 1 4 0 2 3 0 1.5 1.5 1>> 1_5 1_5 1 0.83 NA3 0.84 NA • Birch St.(EWI 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.S 1>> 0 1 0 0.56 0.60 0.58 0.61 MecAnhur Blvd. (NS)at: • Jemborae Rd.IEWI 1 3 1 1 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.87 NA 0.87 NA i When aright turn is designated,the tans can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there meet be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L - Leh;T - Through; R - Right; >> . Free Right; 1 - Improved Lanes Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 2000 with regional growth and committed projects traffic. 3 NA - Not applicable(Project traffic leas than 1%of total traffic). 32 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 and on-site circulation. Site Access As shown on the site plan (Exhibit B), the project is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Birch Street at Jamboree Road. Access to the site will be from the existing right-in/right-out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree Road is shared with the existing Wienerschnitzel fast food restaurant and an existing office building. There will be no significant problems related to site access. However, certain movements may require additional maneuvers or detour routes. Traffic entering the site southbound from Jamboree Road will turn right at the driveway on Jamboree Road. The returning traffic will exit at Birch Street and turn left at the Jamboree Road/Birch Street intersection to go northbound on Jamboree Road. Traffic entering the site'northbound from Jamboree Road will make a U-turn right at the Jamboree Road/Birch Street intersection and then a right turn at the driveway on Jamboree Road. The returning traffic will exit at the driveway on Jamboree Road. Traffic entering the site eastbound from Birch Street will turn right at the driveway on Birth Street. The returning traffic would require a detour route, because no u-turns are permitted on Birch Street. Therefore, the return traffic would exit at Birch Street, 33 • I • • • turn left at the Jamboree Road/Birch Street intersection, and then turn left the Jamboree Road/Campus Drive ,intersection to go westbound on Campus Drive. Another possible detour route is to exit at the driveway on Jamboree Road and then make a right turn at MacArthur Boulevard to return to Birch Street. On-Site Parkins RKJK has previously prepared a parking study dated April 20, 1998 for the project. The parking study is included in Appendix "D". Based on the findings of the parking study, the Burger King would require 45 parking spaces and the two full service small scale restaurants would require 18 parking spaces. Therefore, the total parking demand for the entire site is 63 parking spaces. Since the current site plan shows 63 parking spaces, the project does provide adequate parking. i 34 i SUMMARY • The proposed project would be located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. There is an existing 7,500 square foot building previously used by Carrow's restaurant, and this building will be removed by the project. The proposed project will include a 2,531 square foot Burger King fast food restaurant and a 2,570 square foot food service facility. The food service facility is anticipated to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on-site parking spaces. Entry to the site will be via the existing right-in/right-out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree is shared with an existing Wienerschnitzei fast food restaurant and an existing office building. The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip-ends per day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed project would generate 1,591 trip-ends per day with 149 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Based on the One Percent Test, the following three intersections are analyzed for peak hour intersection operations: Jamboree Road INS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) • Birch Street (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) • 35 • Based on the peak hour ICU analysis, two intersections exceed ICU of 0.90. The required improvements for the two intersections are as follows: Jamboree Road (NS) at Campus Drive (EW): • Restripe existing westbound lane configuration on Campus Drive to include one left turn lane, one shared through and left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road (EW): • Provide an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the finding of a parking study previously prepared by RKJK (dated April 20, • 1998), the total parking demand for the entire site is 63 parking spaces. Since the current site plan shows 63 parking spaces, the project does provide adequate parking. Site access, on-site circulation and parking are adequate for the site as proposed. 36 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • • y�1,u•✓Ogr' • • .�, �s 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis . 1 ( X.j • �'`�.a"�' IfIi2tS2C11011 JAM80REE BL/CAtI DR. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Projects Direction Peak 2 112 Hour G g,=lPeak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2651 IOo 4 3 8 3.1 6 9 3 2 4-9 Southbound 4162 125 QSg S 24 S 1J 2 19 Eastbound 576 0 2.L4 O $ �O Westbound 2080 0 240 2)2 2w 23 • ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r DATE: O`�Lwuper • • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersedon JFtt WPZE BL,/CA*US DR ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winterl Spring 1997 P ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projecte j Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Now Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3920 l l O (�C) 15 5, 0 53 51 1 3 (c Southbound 3915 ( 1 7 40g 4 (, Ll-p qJ4- � (o Eastbound 1734 O "r Z 1 , 906 1 $ 2 Westbound 1444 0 $$ i , 5 32, l 5 [{ ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected • Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. (—, Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected IL�1 Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' i DATE: 1 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis o�i"o'N.r Intersection JAmPEE RD/BPcH sT ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Projects j 1% of Projected Project Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Volume PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2868 9 G I S t 3 4 s 34 2(G Southbound 3960 1 i 9 I J 15 2; 5323- 5 2 3�c Eastbound 345 O 3y S 3 5 2 Westbound 19 O Q 19 O O . ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ® Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 M Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: •• _ i 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersedon JAmPEE RD/Bl" sT • ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 PM ) Approach Existing _ Peak 2 12 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Pro ecta Puk 2 1/2 Nour Peak 272 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3389 I O?,. 909 e+S 2t - Southbound 3658 110 L 277 41957 42. 3 2 Eastbound 1210 O I 22(o I2 4o Westbound 23 Q 2 S 0 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be Iasi than 1% of Projected • Peak 2 V2 Hour Traffic Volume. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utifzalion (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. S 1 i DATE: �1,w�ggr • • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis �,�,ro�•. Intersedon JAhmom RDJm c AR'I M BLMD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 1997 A ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APpipvsd Projected I% of Projected Project Pro'acb Peak 2 1/2 Hour Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional 1 Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 21/Z Hour Volume Growth PEAK l U2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4408 13 Z 2$9 411928 49 Southbound 1024 /l Eastbound 3758 t i 3 ?s'Z U; �03 W10 8 Westbound 1904 57 2-62- 2, Z7-3 22 • El Peak Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r/ DATE: • • �. 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis II$er$ed00 JANwpRm AKPHtjR FQA-P BLVD • ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 PM ) Approach Existing Ptak 2 12 Hour Al"roved Projected 1% of Projscted Project Pro acts Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 21f2 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional j Volume Growth PEAK 2 12 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2278 (>g `Z—]5 2.) G IL I 2-( L� Southbound 3600 i V& L- Eastbound 2546 '-Z(O 3S 1 Z,`i?3 30 Westbound 5014 150 -565 -5J-I s7 3$ Project Traffic is,estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected • Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. s DATE'. 7,1 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis • c�`'ro��r lnlersnUoo BRISIOL S71= NOM W 11110WE ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average 'Winter ISpring 1997 A ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regiond Projects Puk 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1R Hour Volume G 0 PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7467 22.4- j q O 28 g 3 g Southbound 1981 29 y— 2, 33y- 23 g Eastbound _0 Q D D 0 Q Westbound _p_ O C ` ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 V2 How Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: �alW� • 0 '. 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis IniefS2CU00 BE IBRISTOL STREET NO"VJANIBOR . ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterI Spring 19 97 its ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1!2 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112'Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 IN How Volume Growth PEAK 2 M How Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6406 i q rZ S(, ur (p(I (o Z o g Southbound 4461 13(� Ll ?— S 13-7 S l $ Eastbound —0— O O 0 O Westbound —0— 0 O 0 C O ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112,Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r • DATE: PRDJECT: • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis •Jc pe'J IDORF� RD IOIQ(SeCI100 BRISTOL 111" ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 1997 Am ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APpTod Projected 1% of Projected Project Pro ecb Direction Peak 2 Hour Regional PEAK 2 1fY Hour Peak 2 112 Her Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 14 Hour Volume Vibwth ol Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4625 139 iJ1-�2 S,30 Q-, northbound 1098 33 Z`-'G 1,31 ? I L} T Eastbound 5551 v 977 G 1 2 9 (0 1 �{- Westbound '• ® Project Traffic is estimated to be loss than 1% of Projected Peak 21f2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected Peak 21)2 Hour Traffic Volume. intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i DATE: PROJECT: 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis wismL sr/JArmoREF- Pre • ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projecla Peak 2 1f2 Hour Peak 21R Hour Volume Volumee Peak 2 12 Hour Volume Growth PEAK lu 1 Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4243 (21 4 310 4, 800 800 Southbound. 2075 6 Z :g-70 2,50-T 29- �- Eastbound 6056 37 O Westbound 117/1 Project Traffic is estimated to be loss than 1% of Projected • Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be grester than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analyst is required. f DATE: Pon icrr APPENDIX B ICU WORKSHEETS • JA4305AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD&CAMPUS DRIVE 430S EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM ...».»» I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING» I 'EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED »PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lines I PKHR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/CRatio I Volume I WC I I 'I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Itatio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NL I 16001 1 1201 0.01 L� I L. 1 0, 1 ' d, 13 1 0.13 I NT 1 1 1097 1 3 3 1 14..3 1 I 9 1 1 1 .. »_ } 6400—.___ .__... ... j o.0 _ .�_._ __»._».�_ 0. 21 . .., » 0.21 I I NR 1 1 77 1 Z 1 __ .12- 1 -_»�- 1 2 1 1 _.._».». __._..— - —._ _ _�__ _ I I St. 1 32001 1 2821 0.09 1 1 0 Ct 1 O 1 0,0 I ST I I 130S 1 39 P 4-79 I 1 9 1 i I - 1 4800-..__»».._ _ - j 0.33 • -- - - O,y� I SR 1 I 273 1 $ 1 I 1 I 1 I EL 1 I Bo I p I c1(n 1 I p l 1 1 ...__.»» 1 4800_............._. ..___......._ I 0.04 • ...._._.._. _ ........__—- b,0 Co 3 -___ - 0,06 I ET 1 1 121 1 p I $ 1 I p I I I ...._.......... .....».._..»». .................. .. ........_..,.,. .....»..__... _................ .._.... _.__...».._»»_..._» .. ..........._ _._._..._ 1 I ER I N.S. I »I 2S I I WL 1 1600 1 1 36111 0.23 O I 1 o 1 0 3 0 7F 2 1 0.30 I WT I 32001 ....•...• 1. S32 1 0,17 1 0, 1 .'•.16 1 •• Q•�7.— 1. .....0 1 0,17 1 ... _._..-I............- .. ...._. ..._...-- -_,._— -.. _....... _._. � I Wit 1 16001 1 2121 0.14 1 D I O I p• If+. I 1 O.) I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.68 1 I I ............_ .................. .. ................ .................. ......._...._, .. ............... ................__........_........._ . I I EXISTING•AEG CROWTH.COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC U. I 0 .C, Z I I I ............... _—»......... ..........»._... ..........»...... .. ..........___ .. .............. ............»..__...__.». ......... » ......_..__—.._. — I I EXISTING•COMMITTED a REGIONALGROWTH♦PROJECT I.C.U. iJ Projected a project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected.project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 W Projected♦project traDiC I.C.U.w/systems'impr0vement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected♦project traffic I.C.U.with project improvements will be less than I.C,U,without project Description ofsystem improvement: PROJECT • . • ^�M • _ • FORMA d JA430SAM • I . >'ad JA430SAM • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD&CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMnTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1 Volume I V/C 1 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I Volume I 1 1 t NL 1 16001 1 1201 0.08 • 4- 1 (O 4- 1 Q, 12 1 3 1 0.13 i71` I NT i I 1097 I '�'� 1 f 43 I 1 6400 - 0.18 - -._ _- . - 0, 1 I Nit 1 I 77 I Z 1 12 1 I Z I 1 I ........... r _..____.» ..--.- -_— _ _ __..._ __ . _-__.__ 1 SL 1. 32001 I 2821 0.091 g 1 0 1 Q,Oq 1 0 1 0.01 1 1 - ST 1305 ' � 3 1 I L;.-79 I 1 9 1 __-- 1 I __—_ ) 4800 - -•--- - 1 0.33 1 SR 1 1 273 I g 1 Q I o.4 0 1 O I 1 ............. _ _....._.__ _.___._... .. .._.___ __.�__ _ __ ^ _ __.____ _ ......_�_ _.-._._ I I EL I I B0 I 0 1 q(O I !- yyyi��� Q I 1 1 ......_....._ 1 4800 -............._. .. _......_..... 1 0.04 • ............._ __._....__- O.o -•_.O 1 1 ET 1 1 121 1 1 g I ..._......_... - _........._... .....-.._....... .. ......_-.._ ....._ -._ -__...._._ _ 1 ER I N.S. I 1 2S 1 1 D 1 1(O 1 1 -7 1 1 . I WI. 1 16001 1 3621 0.23 Q 1 1O 1 1 1 1 I Wr 1 3200 1 1 532 1 0.17 1 O 1 1(p 1 1 O 1 1 I wit 1 1600 1 1 21-S 1 0.14 1 O 1 p 1 Q. 1 y- 1 O 1 0.14 1 I ...._._...— _.........._.... _ ..__._....... _ _.__._._ ......._....__ - ..___...__ -.._..._.—_ __.__......_.._ _ _........._.__.._._.... I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.68 I 1 .....-. .. ..._........... -_.......-..._ -_ ........_..........- _ I I EXISTING.REG GROWTH•COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 .33 1 1 1 I ............... ..........._... ..._..._.»... __.._ _.._ -_.�._� _ .. __ .......... — -__ __._..._ _ ..........-_- - _ I 1 EXISTING.COMMITTED•REGIONAL GROWTH.PROJECT I.C.U. 1.1 Projected.project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 �1.1 Projected.project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 �p rrojtcted.project traffic I.C.U.w/systems improvement will be Its$than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected.project traffic I.C.U.with project improvements will be Its$than I.C.U.without project -• '-Description of system improvement: --'•'-"'�•- "•..".w-'�'�_ "� PROJECT - _ - - - FORM 11 JA430SAM JA4308AH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 BIRCH STREET 4308 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM .......... .. .. .... .. ...... ... ........ .....—._ «.._.__»._ _ .._._.—.._.__................».._.»....._Y._.....� I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMIMDj' PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume 1 WC I 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I Volume t I I I NL ! 16001 1 2011' 0.13 6 t7 0.13 (3 1 0.1y' 1-Y i 1 ...._NT..». 1 4800 ................- i --- I276 1 0.27 !. ............ 1 »^2'2 G 1 I Q I I I 0.32 NR I I S 1 b i Q I Z I O 1 t ..........--- .............. ............._.. .._...... _. ..._....._.._ « ._..._.»_ _ ._.........«_..«..«.«_—......... ...._ 1 I St. 1 1600 1 1 S 1 0.00 1 p I 1 O Op 1 p 1 0.00 I I ST 1 48001 1 12541 0.26 31? 1 5,71 1 0,3 1 t 8 1 0.Scl I�C ICI I SR I N.S. 1 N 1 5751 1 1 —T I g 1 1 ............_. _... I EL 1 1 91 L tJ 1 O 1 I 2 1 1 1 ........-- 1 3200 ................. _............... j 0.03 • ............... —--_........... _ 0.03 1- I ET 1 1 3 1 O 1 O 1 Q I 1 I ................ ................ .. ................ ................. ................_ .. ...........__. ..............._ —......___._._. —•__._...- ._.___ 1 I ER I N.S. 1 1 63 1 y 1 0 1 0 I 1 2 1 1 i WL �. ............._. I . I Q 1 p 1 1 1 I Wr 16001 1 3 0.01 0 1 ........»_... j .. ................ ...............». i _»_......_. _,._......»..._« 1 f I WR 1 1 6 1 O 1 Q 1 1 0 1 1 II ......_....... _......._-- —..._........ _.......... _._....«....._ .. ._.__.— ——.........� I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.43 1 I ............... .................. .. ................ .. ..........._... .. ................ .. ................ ................ ...................... 1 1 EXISTING.REG GRC.ITH.COMMITTED W,*PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.15(0 ! I ............... ..............................._.......... .._........._ » .._...«...._«.............. _« _.«....._.......... ».....� _........«� t 1 EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. L O 58 1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 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 proles Description of system Improvement: PROJECT FORM R JA4308AM I JA4308PH • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 BIRCH STREET 4308 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM .. ................ .................. _........._..._ » .......... _._..__._— — ... .— _..»_....___...»»._..._ _ .._.._ _........—_ I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I Volume I 1 I 1 NL 1 16001 1 491 0.03 1 -_ p 1 _0Y03 1 12 1 0.11+ I NT I I ISIS I if g 1 4g5 1 I O I I 4800 - ............... ...,..---- 1 0.34 .. ...__........ .. ....__._-_ 1 NR I I 2 1 i ................ .............._. .._............. .. ........._..... _ __..._.._ .. ...__Q... .. ...........--- • 1 St. 1 16001 1 21 0.00 1 I O 1 0.00 1 i 0.00 1 I ST 1 48001 I 16S8 1 0.35 so 1 DAD I 1 .......... 1 SR I N.S. 1 I 1641 1 57 1 S 1 1 O I 1 ...... 1 EL 1 I 481 I Q I p I 1 I I ................ ) 3200•......_.._--- .. ........_._.-. ) 0.15 -...__..... .. ..........--- - �. 1 S �_.____.• _ Q.140 1� I ET I I 0 1 ................ .................. .................. .. ..._. ....... .. .._._.._ _ ..._._........ .. ..........._ 1 ER I N.S. I I IS31 I I Q I I Z I I } ................ .. ................ .. ................ .. ........._...- .. .._......_.... .. .........._.... ................. _._..__........._. » ....._...... ........._� 1 • I Wt. 1 �. 0 1 ................ 1 _..._._..-. ....._..._...- i .. __-_._.__ .. _ ..»._.._ .. I I Wr 16001 i 1 0.00 O I O 1 0 •0 O '4` O 10,00 I ................ ) ......._......... .. ................ } ..._............. .. ................. _ .. _............ » 1 I WR I I 0 1 b 1 O I I D I 1 _.......... .. ._......._._ _ ................ .. .................. » _......_............ .. .... - _.. ........_._ I I EXISTING I C.U. I 0.53 1 1 ................ .. ................ .................. .. ................ .. .......__..._ .. ...-........... ...........»..... ...................... I I EXISTING-REG GROWTH•COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC U O-(0 o .-.............. .. ......__..... .. _......._... .. ................ .. .................. ....._............._. .. ............. .. ............. 1 I EXIS TING.COMMITTED.REGIONAL GROWTH•PROJECT I.C.U. krojected♦project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 1.1 Projected•project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 1.1 Projected project traffic I.C.U.w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected♦project traffic I.C.U.with project improvemtnts will be less than I.C.U.without project Description of system Improvement: PROlEC7 . —.�_ _ —� _ --- _ ._ _ _ - FORM It JA4308PM JA427.SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E•W)6 MACARTHUR 1UN•S) 4275 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM ( I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTEOI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes 1• PK FIR 1 WC I GROWTH '1 PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I, WC I I 1 Capauty I Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I i I I 1 I Volume I ( I 1 NI. 1 1600 1 1 21S 1 0.13 1 6w 1 Ci. I 0. 1 + •--......_ _.. _._ I NT 1 1 1731 1 JrZ I BIZ I 1 O 1 p 1 I ....._......... 1 4100 ..._.__._ ...r.._._..... 1 0.43 • .....__.....« _ '..___......_._ 0•4-7 �..»....._.. _ 0.y'E IIII 1 NR ......_.__ I I 331 1 ( (] I' I SL 1 1600 r 1 79 1 0.05 _2 _ 1 _ g g 1 0, 11 _ _•7_ 1 0. 11 Nf m` a» 1 _N.S.48001 i 4 _ _ 1- - 31 D,DS 1 _r L7 109 0_1 1 0.07 ' __. 1 0.07 1 I ................ « . -— -_._._........ »_...._.»._ - ....»»._... .._............. _».....p._ .._..^. I EL 1 3200 1 1 ^.»•_. S911 0.19 I g I O3 1 �,2,Z • f✓ I O.Z� 1-* .._........... ....... . ...__........... »» » .._... _. .............._.. ..........___ __.._»«..»__ ..._.__ _.. _ __ I I ET 1 4100 1 ....... 1 1133 1 0:24 I 3Ef-- I 2fo'7 I ' 0 ."80 1 �{-• 1 0.301 1 ............... _ ..... _»... ..».. ..........._... «.»..:».4.. _.......`_�__..........».._...» _. D _ .. ...._.. » 1 i ER I N.S. 1 1 1451 I I 1 I I 1 ............... .. ............... ».._.»........ ......._...... ..........__ » - _...................... .. .........»... .. ...»...._._ I I WL 1 32001 1 1371 0.04 ( L 1 20 1 0„ OS 1 2 1 0.05 I 1 ...._.......... _......_.»_ _ _._...._. _-----..__ ......_. _ ........ .__ Wr 1 4e00 1 1 $35 1 0.11 b3 1 I 0. 1 T tl_ _...».....». ........._..». __._.......... ......»..»_». »_.......__. .. 1 h I I WR 1 N.S. 1 I 1791 1 5 1 ca 1 1 131 1 1 ............... .. ......__._. ............_.__....._»._.... ».........._.. .. ........_...... .. .............._ .._...._............ _ ..».. _ _ ........__»_ I I EXISTING I C.U. I 0.11 1 1 I ................ .. ................ .. ................ .•.•.............. . .............». .. ................ .. .................. .. ...................... .. I I I EXISTING•REG GROWTH•COMhIITrEO W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 p 1 T 1 1 I ................ ..............._ _ ___ .. ................. 7.............._ »............... ............_.»_ ........................ .. ..........__ .. .........._ 1 L1 Projected.project traffic I.C.U.will be GROWTH�PROJECT I.C.U. 1 03 I EXISTING+COMMITTED♦REGIONAL GRO_....._.... __W.._... ......_._.._ ..___.�_..__..__.......» __......__ .. ..__.....». .. I» __..»..�... __.-•.•»» ^--""'•"' less than or egwi l0 0.90 projected.project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected♦project traffic I.C.U.w/systems improvement will be be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected•project traffic I.C.U.with project improvements will be less than I.C.U.without project _._....... _._ »..._._.._. _....r__.».....»»..»...»».......».r. _..._..»_..» «._....._._-_...»....»......_ _ _.__...._ «_...._.._.. _ Description of system Improvement: �PROIECT - FORM 11 JA4275AM 0 JA427SAM • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E•W)6 MACARTHUR BL(N•S) e275 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM .. .............. _ ...._........ ..... .._.......__ ...—..»..» »_._....__. _ ....»__»•_•_•_. — --.__ ......._._ _ ( I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 WC 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume 1 WC I 1 I Capacity I Capacity I volume I Ratio 1 Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I Ratio 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 Volume i I 1 1 NL 1 16001 1 21S 1 0.13 1 (o 1 '7 1 Q, 1+ 1 0 1 04L� I I NT I t}fipO l 1738 1 5 2 1 1 12 1 O.4.0 0 1 0.40 I .._._._._. 1 4800 - ».,..__..... 1 0.e3 • ...._....._... I NR 1 1(000 1 336 1 I Q I 28 1 0. Z+ 1 .._.—....»... _............». .....----... —I'*..._--- .. _.__ __ — __ —..._...—.--——.._.._....._.._ _ ....... _ ..._._._ I I SL 1 16001 1 79 1 O.OS L I 8g 1 0 , 1 1 ' I s7 1 _....—•4800I � » I ~2e3 I 0.05 I �_O i I a I �-- ', T I 0-0-70.07 I SR I N.S. 1 1 128 1 1 T 1 y q 1 1 Q i I I ................ _ .........._.- __.__...... ___._._ - _ __.._.._ __.__...... _..._$3___ __.._ _ ......... _ ._..._._ 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 599 I 0.19 • ( g I I 0 . ZZ-* 0 I 0.Z2..1 ................ _ ..... » ...-......_.. » -.__-- -.._...__. ..___.......... .. .__.—.»_........_...._. .. ......._� _ _....— I 1 ET 1 4800 1 1 1133 1 0.24 I a+ 1 26'7 1 O .3 0 I L-f' • 10.30 1 i ER I N.S. 1 1 145 I I 1+ 1 1 (O I ................ »................ _... _..._....._ _ ......__.._ _,___........ — ___....._...__.............. .. .....».._._ .. ....__.__ I ( Wt. 1 32001 1 1371 0.04 I L, 1 `zT0 1 O .O S i Z I 0.0.5 1 I Wr 1 48001 1 535 I 0.11 16 1 l03 1 I ............. _ ..... _—..._._— ......_._._ __........--• _--......_.— .. .__.....____ »......._......»._ .. .............. .. ........_ I 1 WR 1 N.S. I I 1791 1 Jr.._ !. ........_g__ �....................... 1 I$ I 1 II ........_.... _ .............. ....... _.._ _.»........_... .. ..._..._. _.._ I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.78 1 l . ....... .. .................. .. ...................... .. I I EXISTING+REG GROIVTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I C.U. I o ,2-T I I I ......_........ .. .............._ _—`_ .. .._._.....» _ .._.........._ ....__.......... .. ......._.__»...................._. .. .........._ _ ......_._ I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 1 Q,1?7 I 1_1 Projected+project traffic I.G.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 �1_1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 �d Projected+project traffic I.C.V.w/systems improvement will be 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 — T _Description of system improvement: »•-�.T 1 PROJECT FORM I JA4275AM I APPENDIX C TRIP GENERATION STUDY (FEBRUARY 23, 1998) 5180 BIRCPST.-BURGER KINGS'OOD SERVICE TRIP GENERATION STUDY Newport Beach, California A 4 e�-CP'M U ViI i 3.• ,� A (Lee�� \ : • Igj ' MINK RROBERi KAHN•IO6 ASSOCIATES INC. • February 23, 1998 Mr. Brian W. Price Director of Development BRECKENRIDGE GROUP P.O. Box 80340 30252 Tomas, Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Subject: 5180 Birch Street, Newport Beach Trip Generation Study Dear Mr. Price: INTRODUCTION RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has completed a trip generation study for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility to be located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. The project Is located at the southwest corner of • Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street as shown in Exhibit A. The proposed site plan for the facility is shown In Exhibit B. The site currently includes a 7.,500 square foot building that was previously used as a Carrow's high turnover sit-down restaurant. Carrow's restaurant has recently closed and a Burger King and Food Services facility is being planned for the site. The project site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Court which generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the Burger King and Food Services facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a significant portion of patronage will come from walk-in and pass-by traffic. As shown in the site plan the project would include a 3,140 square foot Burger King restaurant with a drive-thru. The site would also include a Food Service facility of 2,570 square feet which is anticipated to be uses which are similar to a high turnover restaurant. The project site includes a total of 64 on-site parking spaces. The purpose of this trip generation study has been to determine the specific trip generation for the proposed site and compare it to the trip generation for the closed Carrow's restaurant. The net trips would represent the difference between the previous and the proposed uses, taking into account the project's trip generation, pass-by and walk-in traffic. The trip generation study has been completed by reviewing available documents regarding trip generation including the ITE (Institute of • TRANSPC)RTATION PLAWM, • GIB - TR-kFFIC.ACUL'STIC,AL E\GI\EERI\G 11iri1 Dove Strvvt. y., to 200 • \ed hi•^ Heau;. ( A ��'�.� Pharr, .-1- - {•(1g• •, • F:• —14- 4-4.090' • • EXHIBIT A LOCATION' MAP 0v moo• P� Jam' SITE ON 103D-98-01OfA R 5190 BIRCH ST.—BURGER KING/FOOD SERVICE, TRIP GENERATION STUDY, Newport Beach, California ►ASSOCNTkS 11C 2 EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN I 'i C • .u•� n f. J" I 103O-9e-01.02A • MD BRCH ST. BURGER KING FOOD SERVICE, TRIP GENERATION STUDY, Newport Beach, ColifomioAsm usj� 3 n- 0 Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, SANDAG Trip • Generation Report and the City of Newport Beach Trip Generation rates. A review of potential walk-in traffic was based upon a field review of the adjoining Weinerschnitzel fast food restaurant located directly to the south of the site. It is anticipated that significant amount of the project traffic will be walk-in traffic to the fast food facility. FINDINGS 1. The net difference in trip generation between the previous use (Carrow's restaurant) and the proposed Burger King/Food Services facility would be 343 trip-ends per day, with 50 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 16 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. This takes into consideration both the project trip generation, the previous and proposed uses and the potential net reduction as a result of pass-by trips. Trip generation has been determined based upon using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition and pass-by trips percentages estimated by both ITE and SANDAG. 2. It is anticipated that a significant portion of the traffic for both of these uses will come from walk-in traffic from the adjoining Newport Harbor Courthouse. A review of an adjacent fast food restaurant indicates 19% of the patrons were "walk-ins." This could even further reduce trip generation from what is • indicated in Item 1 above. 3. Based upon the City's Traffic Model trip generation factors, it is anticipated that the net difference in daily trips would be approximately 309 trip-ends per day. This correlates closely with the ITE Trip Generation rate calculations included in Item 1 above. 4. The net ITE trips and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Model trip generation factors are significantly less than the total trip generation for the site as a result of this significant amount of pass-by and walk-in trips that would occur at the site. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of trips that are produced or attracted by a project. In addition, pass-by trips represent trips that are already on the highway system that divert to the site, but have not made a special trip to the facility. In addition, due to the specific location of the proposed Burger King and Food Services • 4 • • facility which is located within walking distance to the Newport Harbor Courthouse, it Is anticipated a substantial amount of walk-in traffic would occur to the site. • The primary purpose of this study is to determine the net trips to and from the site to compare the previous Carrow's high turnover sit-down restaurant to the Burger King and Food Services ,facility. In order to do this, RKJK conducted a review of the professionalditerature to compare the trip generation rates for the site. This included the ITE Trip Generation Manual, SANDAG Trip Generation Report and City of Newport Beach Traffic Model Generation Assumptions. Additionally, RKJK generated trips utilizing the trip generation computer program developed by MicroTrans which is based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition. The existing and proposed uses for the site are quantified in Table 1. The Carrow's restaurant included 7,500 square feet of,building and is classified as a high turnover sit-down restaurant. The proposed uses include a 3,140 square foot Burger King with a drive-thru and a 2,570 square foot Food Services facility, which is classified as a high turnover sit-down restaurant. Trip generation has been based upon trip rates which occur during the peak hour of the street, which usually occurs between 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM. This is typical practice in the City of Newport Beach and Orange County. Utilizing the trip generation by MicroTrans software, RKJK generated trips for the existing and proposed uses of the site. The trip generation printouts are included in Appendix W. • The Trip Generation rates used for this study are included in Table 2. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 3. The trip generation included In Table 3 does not take into account pass-by or diverted and additional pedestrian oriented trips which are a result of the specific location of the site. The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip-ends per day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak'hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed uses would generate 1',893 trip-ends per day with 180 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 133 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. In order to properly assess the net difference in trip,generation between the existing and proposed uses,the actual net trip generation must be determined. This takes Into account both the overall trip generation and the net trip reduction as a result of pass- by/diverted trips and walk-in trips. RKJK has reviewed various publications with respect to these factors. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition included substantial documentation on pass-by and diverted trips for fast food restaurants. The ITE studies Indicated pass-by trips ranged from 25 to 56 percent with an average 5 TABLE 1 • LAND USES TYPE SIZE (TSF) Existing Use Carrows High Turnover Restaurant 7.50 Proposed Uses Burger King Fast Food W/Drive-Thru 3.14 Food Service High Turnover Restaurant 2.57 • • 6 TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES • PEAK-HOUR RATES AM PM LAND USE UNITS IN OUT IN OUT DAILY High Turnover Sit-Down TSF 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 130.34 Restaurants Fast Food Restaurant TSF 25.43 24.43 17.41 16.07 496.12 W/Drive Thru • 7 • • of 43 percent for seven (7) fast food restaurants. SANDAG, in their trip generation • report, indicates that fast food restaurants have a pass-by rate of 40 percent, while sit-down restaurants have a pass-by/diverted rate of approximately 20 percent. RKJK also reviewed the additional trip reduction which may occur as a result of walk- in traffic to the site, due to the proximity of the existing Newport Harbor Court. At the present time, there is a Weinerschnitzel fast food restaurant located directly south of the proposed project. Field observations during the noon hour indicated that nearly 19 percent of the persons entering and exiting the site occurs as a result of walk-in traffic. These persons did not drive to the site. This value is significant and would be typical for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility, due to their proximity to the near-by Newport Harbor Court. As a result of these factors, RKJK felt it was applicable to utilize the factor of at least 45 percent for the pass-by/diverted and walk-in traffic for the fast food restaurant and approximately 20 percent for the sit-down high turnover restaurant. The net trip generation for both the existing Carrow's restaurant and the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility is shown in Table 5. The Carrow's restaurant would generate a net trip generation of 782 trip-ends per day with 55 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 65 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed use would generate 1,125 net trip-ends per day with 105 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 81 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. l • The net difference in trip generation between the proposed and existing use of the site is also shown in Table 5. The proposed use would result in a net increase in trip generation of 343 trip-ends per day with 50 vehicles-per hour during the AM peak I hour and 16 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates. In order to compare the results of this analysis with data developed by the City of Newport Beach, RKJK has obtained the trip generation rates utilized in the City of Newport Beach's traffic model. The traffic model does not necessarily categorize the restaurant uses in the detail as the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It does include trip rates which do account for trip reduction due to pass-by and diverted other factors. For a fast food restaurant, a trip rate of 142 trip-ends per 1,000 square feet per day is utilized and for sit-down restaurant and value of 66.9 trip-ends per 1,000 square feet is utilized. Based upon these factors, the net difference in trip generation would be approximately 309 trip-ends per day. This value is close to the value which has been calculated and shown in Table 5, based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates. i 9 TABLE 4 WEINERSCHNITZEL NEWPORT BEACH • NOONTIME TRAVEL MODES PERSON TRIPS -DRIVE-THRU PARK(WALK-IN WALK-IN ONLY TOTAL TIMEFRAME IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 'IN OUT Noon - 1:00 PM 75 75 48 50 26 31 149 156 TOTAL In-& Out 150 98 59 305 TOTAL In & Out 49.2 32.1 18.7 100.0 Percentage (%) r I 10 • TABLE 5 • NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS-BY TRIPS EXISTING USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Carrows 20 29 26 39 26 782 PROPOSED USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Burger King 45% 44 42 30 28 857 • Food Services 20% 10 9 14 9 268 TOTAL 54 51 44 37 1,125 NET DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 29 26 39 26 782 Proposed Use 54 51 44 37 1,125 DIFFERENCE +25 +25 +5 +11 +343 l • 11 CONCLUSIONS RKJK has completed a trip generation study for the proposed Burger King and Food • Service facility to be located at 5180, Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. Based upon this study, the project would generate approximately 343 trip-ends per day more than what was previously generated on the site, based upon net trip-ends. This trip generation value can be utilized in ,determining the appropriate City traffic fees for the site. RKJK appreciates this opportunity to provide this review of trip generation for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility with the BRECKENRIDGE GROUP. Please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, RKJK & ASSOCIATES, I I? FESS10Nq� Z Robert Kahn, P.E. s NO 0555 s Principal EXP 1213V01 ' RK:nam/7814 *sf rRAFF �P* q�OF CAI���N JN:1O30-98-01 • Attachments 12 • • APPENDIX A TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS • • i Ll CARROWS • • SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 7.5 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF HIGH TURNOVER (SIT-DOWN) RESTAURANT 2/13/98 - • AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 130.34 43.77 1.00 978 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 4.82 0.00 1.00 36 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 4.45 0.00 1.00 33 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 9.27 7.46 1.00 70 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 6.52 0.00 1.00 49 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 4.34 0.00 1.00 33 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 10.86 9.83 1.00 81 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 158.37 0.00 1.00 1188 PK HR ENTER 12.60 0.00 1.00 95 PK HR EXIT 7.40 0.00 1.00 56 PK HR TOTAL 20.00 16.54 1.00 150 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 131.84 0.00 1.00 989 PK HR ENTER 10.15 0..00 1.00 76 PK HR EXIT 8.31 0.00 1.00 62 PK MR TOTAL 18.46 13.74 1.00 138 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available • Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MIOROTRANS 1, BURGER KING SUMMARY OF TRIP GILTION CALCULATION • FOR 3.14 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU 2/19/98 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 496.12 242.52 1.00 1558 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 25.43 0.00 _1.00 80 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 24.43 0.00 1.00 77 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 49.86 29.60 1.00 157 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 17.41 0.00 1.00 55 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 16.07 0.00 1.00 50 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 33.48 19.25 1.00 105 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 722. 03 295.62 1.00 2267 PK HR ENTER 30.04 0.00 1.00 94 PK HR EXIT 28.87 0. 00 1.00 91 PK HR TOTAL 58.91 23.95 1.00 185 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 542.72 206.86 1.00 1704 PK HR ENTER 34.92 0.00 1.00 110 PK HR EXIT 37.82 0.00 1.00 119 PK HR TOTAL 72.74 11.95 1.00 228 • Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS a. FOOD SERVICES AST FOOD W/0 DRIVETHRU • SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 2.57 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT W/O DRIVE THRU 2/19/98 a AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 716.00 0.00 1.00 1840 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 26.32 '0.00 1.00 68 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 17.55 0.00 1.00 45 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 43.87 0.00 1.00 113 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 13.34 0.00 1.00 34 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 12.81 0.00 1.00 33 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 26.15 10.51 1.00 67 1 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 696.00 0.00 1.00 1789 PK HR ENTER 26.73 0.00 1.00 69 PK HR EXIT 27.82 0.00 1.00 71 PK HR TOTAL 54.55 0.00 1.00 140 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 500.00 0.00 1.00 1285 PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 p PK HR TOTAL 0.00 0..00 1.00 0 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available • Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS • i r APPENDIX D r PARKING STUDY (APRIL 20, 1998) 5180 BIRCH ST.-BURGER KING/FOOD SERVICE PA RKING STUDY Newport Beach, California • � i ,s I O N �\ \ O urel \ ?. -P, S/ml P RKjK �m., W. s • RK K • ROBERT KAHN•JOHN KAIN i ASSOCIATES INC. April 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Price BRECKENRIDGE GROUP P.O. Group 80340 30252 Tomas, Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Subject: Burger King (5180 Birch Street), Newport Beach Parking Study Dear Mr. Price: INTRODUCTION The firm of RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to provide the BRECKENRIDGE GROUP this parking study for your proposed Burger King to be located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach as shown in the attached Exhibit A. • The revised Burger King building is estimated to include 2,530 square feet of building. The adjoining food service facility would include 2 spaces of 1,285 square feet each with a net public space of 617 square feet (48%) within each of two spaces. Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Engineering Department, a survey of existing fast food restaurants with drive-throughs was conducted to determine the appropriate parking rate for the proposed fast food portion of the proposed site. Since the proposed site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators (i.e., Newport Harbor Court, offices, etc.), the following three sites were selected to represent conditions where a high degree of walk-in traffic would occur. Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach, the following three sites were surveyed during three mid-week time frames (Tuesday through Thursday, April 7 through 9, 1998): • Burger King = 2,130 sq. ft. of building 701 North Main Street Santa Ana, CA • Der We)nerschnitzel = 2,295 sq. ft. of building • 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA IR:t\�I't)hl•\Ilt1\ I'1 \\\I\ t.l� IN\lilt •\lt 'ISIitX. '\lAMIRIM. 11J11 Ih,N ♦Itrrl �'itlr _ I \ru P...• l \ " 4.,.t' 1'In n:• .'.1 tC;n•. Id♦ -I: .-•1 nl,: • • EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP Q m� P �!Jy CFe y�. SITE �F r ol f 10.T0-98-02:OfA S1BD BIRCH ST. SURGER KING/FOOD SEIMCF. PARKING SWOY, Nowport Bach, California 2 0 • Taco Bell = 2,397 sq. ft. of building • 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA The parking survey was conducted over a three day period to adequately assess the peak parking demand at the three sites. Parking was monitored during the hours of 11 AM to 2 PM at 15 minute intervals, which reflects the peak period for the three sites. The forms used to collect the parking survey data are similar to Table 1. The completed parking survey forms are included in Appendix "A". Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach, a parking survey can be utilized as an alternative to the City's parking code for these types of uses. Since the proposed site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators (i.e., Newport Harbor Court, offices, etc.), increased amount of walk-in traffic may be expected at the proposed Burger King. The City of Newport Beach parking code requirements for fast food restaurants are 1 space per 50 square feet of building plus 1 space for each peak employee. Based upon the City's parking code, 60 spaces would be required assuming nine (9) peak hour employees during the noon period. The parking requirements for the food services building has been based upon the City requirements for a full service small scale restaurant. This type of facility is limited to 25 seats with no live entertainment and a net public area of less than 1,000 square feet per restaurant. The parking 'requirements for these facilities is based upon 1 • space per 3 seats. FINDINGS r The following findings were made with respect to the parking survey. 1 . There was substantial variation in parking demand between the three sites. The Newport Beach Taco Bell represented the highest parking demand of the three sites with a peak parking demand of approximately 25.9 spaces per thousand square feet of building. The Burger King in Santa Ana had the lowest parking demand with a peak parking demand rate of 9.4 spaces per thousand square feet of building. The size of buildings for the three survey sites is relatively similar with a range of 2,130 square feet to 2,397 square feet. 2. The Newport Beach Taco Bell appears to be one of the most successful fast food restaurants with respect to overall demand. 3. The average peak parking demand rate for the three sites was 16.85 spaces per thousand square feet of building. Based upon this rate, the proposed 2,530 square foot Burger King building would require 43 spaces to meet peak parking • 3 • TABLE 1 • PARKINO SURVEY Date of Survey: • Land Use: Address: Building Sq.Ft.: Number of Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000-SO. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY z FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM i 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 Noon 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1.45 PM 2:00 PM RK:nam18010 JN:1030.9M2 Date: April 7. 1995 i ' Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. • i 4 demand. An additional two spaces is recommended to provide some overage, • for a total of 45 spaces. While this amount of parking is less than the existing Newport Beach parking code, it is anticipated to be adequate given the location of the site and the propensity for walk-in traffic. Another recently,constructed Burger King in San Juan Capistrano, utilized a parking rate of 1 space per 60 square feet, which would result in a similar parking requirement as the average of the three peak parking demand rates in this survey. 4. The parking requirement for the food services building (two 1,285 square foot spaces) is estimated to be 18 spaces based upon the City's parking code requirement for full service small scale restaurants. 5. Total parking for the entire site including the Burger King and the food services facility would be 45 + 18 = 63 spaces. FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING SURVEY An on-site parking survey of fast food with potential walk-in traffic was conducted at three sites between April 7 and April 9, 1998 (Tuesday through Thursday). The three project survey sites were selected at a meeting with the City of Newport Beach staff. Each of the three sample sites had the potential for more walk-in traffic than a typical fast food restaurant. The parking demand data was collected at 15 minute intervals during the time frame • of 11 AM to 2 PM. Additionally, the building square footages were obtained from the appropriate public agencies. A summary of the fast food restaurant parking demand is included in Table 2. The detailed parking survey sheets are included in Appendix "A". As shown in Table 2, the maximum parking demand for the Burger King ranged from 19 to 21 spaces; for the Der Weinerschnitzel ranged from 22 to 34 spaces; and for the Taco Bell ranged from 56 to 62 spaces. The parking provided at each of these facilities was as follows: • Burger King = 54 spaces • Der Weinerschnitzel = 39 spaces • Taco Bell = 66 spaces The peak parking demand was contained with the existing available spaces at each of the project survey sites. Parking demand rates were determined for each of the survey sites. A summary of the hourly and maximum parking demand for each site is included in Table 3. The parking demand rates are expressed in terms of parking spaces per thousand square feet of building. The Burger King peak parking demand ranged from 8.92 to 8.86 • 5 TABLE s • FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY BURGER KING DER WEINERSCHNITZEL TACO BELL BLDG.= 2.130 TSF' BLDG.= 2.295 TSF BLDG. = 2.397 TSF TIME TUES. WED. THURS. TUES. WED. THURS. TUES. WED. I THURS. 11:00 AM 8 18 5 4 2 4 34 34 29 11:15 AM 8 19 9 9 4 12 33 35 38 11:30 AM 10 15 11 12 8 11 40 46 41 11:45 AM 11 18 12 16 23 17 45 55 51 12:00 NOON 12 12 11 28 24 20 51 58 61 12:15 PM 10 91 20 34 24 22 56 51 61 12:30 PM1 14 16 17 24 25 21 54 46 621 12'45 PM 16 14 17 28 21 21 46 48 521 1:00 PM 20 9 21 19 17 18 45 42 4 1:15 PM 16 5 11 24 18 19 43 44 1:30 PM 14 10 81 15 19 10 50 48 4 1:45 PM 12 11 el 121 17 7 38 44 3 2:00 PM 8 8 8 8 16 6 38 45 38 Maximum Parking Demand 20 19 : 21 34 25 22 58 56 6 ' TSF=thousand square feet of building i • i 6 TABLE 3 • FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND RATE PER TSF' BURGER KING DER WEINERSCHNITZEL TACO BELL BLDG. = 2.130 TSF2 BLDG. = 2.295 TSF BLDG. = 2.397 TSF TIME TUES. I WED. THURS. TUES. WED. THURS. TUES. WED. I THURS. 11:00 AM 3.7551 8.451 2.347 1.743 0.871 1.743 14.184 14.184 12.09 11:15 AM 3.766 8.920 4.225 3.922 1.743 5.229 13.757 14.802 15.85 11:30 AM 4.695 7.042 5.164 5.229 3.486 4.793 16.688 19.191 17.105 11:45 AM 5.164 8.451 5.634 6.972 10.022 7.407 18.773 22.945 21.277 12:00 NOON 5.634 5.634 5.164 12.200 10.458 8.715 21.277 24.197 25.4481 12:15 PM 4.695 4.225 9.390 14.815 10.458 9.586 23.363 21.277 25.448 12:30 PM 6.573 7.512 7.981 10.458 10.893 9.150 22.528 19.191 25.866 12:46 PM 7.512 6.573 7.961 12.200 9.150 9.150 19.191 20.025 21.694 1:00 PM 9.390 4.226 9.859 8.279 7.407 7.843 18.773 17.522 18.7731 1:15 PM 7.612 2.347 5.164 10.458 6.972 8.279 17.939 18.366 23.3631 1:30 PM 6.573 4.695 3.756 6.536 8.279 4-3571 20.859 20.026 20.44 1:45 PM 5.634 5.164 2.817 5.229 7.407 3.050 15.853 18.358 15.853 2:00 PM 3.756 2.817 3.756 3.486 6.972 2.614 15.853 18.773 15.853 Maximum Parking Demand 9.390 8.920 9.859 14.815 10.893 9.586 23.363 24.197 25.866 I ' Parking spaces per thousand square feet(TSF). 2 TSF =thousand square feet of building • 7 spaces per thousand square feet; Der Weinerschnitzel ranged from 9.59 to 14.82 spaces per thousand square feet; and the Taco Bell ranged from 23,36 to 25.87 • spaces per thousand square feet. As can be see by the survey data, the Taco Bell-had substantially greater parking demand than either of the two other survey sites. This particular Taco Bell has one of the greatest overall demand for 8 fast food facility in this area. A summary of the peak parking demand rates at the three survey sites is Included In Table 4. The average parking demand rates (non-weighted) would be 16.85 spaces per thousand square feet. This rate represents a level greater than the lowest and middle survey site, but less than the demand rate generated by the Taco Bell facility. This level of demand is most appropriate to utilize for calculating the expected parking demand for the pro posed Burger Kin site. i P P 9 9 The currently proposed Burger King is expected to be 2,530 square feet. Based upon that square footage and the average peak parking demand rate, it would be anticipated that the Burger King would require a minimum of 43 spaces. This would cover the maximum peak demand expected during the noon hour. Some additional spaces (approximately 5% - 2 spaces) should, be provided as an overage factor to account for variations in peak demand. This would ace yield a total of 45 spaces p s for the Burger King. FOOD SERVICES FACILITY PARKING REQUIREMENT The proposed food services facility building would consist of a total of 2 spaces with • a total building square footage of 2,570 square feet. It is anticipated that two full service small scale restaurants would occupyth ese ese spaces for a total of 1 2 P 85 square feet each. Based upon the preliminary architectural plans, the public use s q P P paces will be approximately 48% of the space or approximately 617 square feet for each restaurant. The City of Newport Beach parking code permits full service small scale restaurants to be parked at 1 spaces per three seats, however, use restrictions are required including: (1) a limitation to a maximum of 25 seats, (2) no live entertainment and (3) net public spaces of less than 1,000 square feet. Each of the two proposed food service restaurants would have to meet these criteria. It is anticipated that at least one of the food.services facilities would be a breakfast oriented restaurant (i.e., bagel or muffin shop)which would have Its peak parking demand occur In the early morning. This would not conflict with the proposed Burger King fast food restaurant would have a noon hour peak parking demand. 8 • i TABLE 4 • FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS SUMMARY OF PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATES' PEAK BUILDING PARKING PARKING SITE SIZE LSE2 DEMAND I DEMAND Burger King 2.130 21 9.85 Der Weinerschnitzei 2.295 34 14.81 Taro Bell 2.397 62 25. vera a Three 3 Sites 2.2741 39 18.847 i r � r ' Packing spaces per thousand square feet(TSF). 2 TSF=thousand square feet of building • 9 • 0 Assuming a maximum of 25 seats for each of the two full service small scale • restaurants, it Is anticipated that a maximum parking requirement of 9 spaces each for a total of 18 spaces would be required for the food service facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made with respect to the overall site: 1. The 2,530 square foot Burger King should provide approximately 45 parking spaces to accommodate peak parking demand. 2. The two full service small scale restaurants should provide a total of 18 parking spaces. These two restaurants would have to be limited to 25 or fewer seats each, have no live entertainment and have less than,1,000 square feet of public space each. 3. Total parking for the entire (Burger King and food services facility) site would be 63 spaces. 4. The site design for the Burger King should be reviewed to insure that adequate drive-through lane capacity is available queuing to insure that all on-site parking- spaces can be accessed. Based upon previous studies completed by RKJK, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive-through lane is necessary to insure adequate storage in the fast food drive-through lane. CONCLUSIONS RKJK has completed a parking survey of fast food restaurants for the proposed 5180 Jamboree Burger King site. Based upon this study parking demand has been estimated and recommendations with respect to specific amount of parking for the site has been recommended. If you have any questions regarding this or need further review, please give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, nRKJK & ASSOCIAT ESS11 1� yQQOO r�y'yFy�i s 5 9 Robert Kahn, P. EXP 120/01 Principal *� �gAFF�G RK:kgd/8010 q�OFC N:1030-98-02 Attachments 10 APPENDIX A PARKING SURVEY WORKSHEETS • y i URGER KING PARKING SURVEY • Date of Survey: 4/7l98-(Tuesday) Land Use: Burger King • Address: 701 North Main Street Newport Beach,CA 92660 Building 2,130 Sq. Ft.: Number of 24 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ, TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT.OF BUILDING I 11:00 AM 8 33.33% 3.76 11:15 AM 8 33.33% 3.76 11:30 AM 10 41.67% 4.69 I 11:45 AM 11 45.83% 5.16 12:00 Noon 12 50.00% 5.63 12:15 PM 10 41.67% 4.69 12:30 PM 14 58.33% 6.57 12:45 PM 16 66.67% 7.51 1:00 PM 20 83.33% 9.39 1:15 PM 16 66.67% 7.51 1:30 PM 14 58.33% 6.57 [2:00 :45 PM 12 50.00% 5.63 PNIJ 8 33.33% 3.76 ' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. . •URGER KING PARKING SURVEY • Date of Survey: 4/8/98 (Wednesday) • Land Use: Burger King Address: 701 North Main Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,130 Sq. Ft.: Number of 24 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES OCCUPANCY % FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 18 75.00% 8.45 11:15 AM 19 79.17% 8.92 11:30 AM 15 62.50% 7,01 11:45 AM 18 75.00% 8.45 . 12:00 Noon 12 50.00% 5.63 12:15 PM 9 37.50% 4.P3 12:30 PM 16 66.67% 7.51 12:45 PM 14 58.33% 6.57 1:00 PM 9 37.50% 4.23 1:15 PM 5 20.83% 2.35 1:30 PM 10 41.67% 4.69 1:45 PM 11 45.83% 5.18 2:00 PM 6 25.00% 2.82 Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. • 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. ORGER KING PARKING SURVEY • Date of Survey: 419/98 (Thursday) Land Use: Burger King Address: 701 North Main Street Newport Beach,CA 92660 Building 2,130 Sq. Ft.: Number of 24 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 5 20.83% 2.35 11:15 AM 9 37.50% 4.23 11:30 AM 11 45.83% 5.16 11:45 AM 12 50.00% 5.8 12:00 Noon 11 45.83% 5.1 • 12:15.PM 20 83.33% 9.3 f 12:30 PM 17 70,83% 7.98 12:45 PM 17 70.83% 7.98 1:00 PM 21 87.50% 9.86 1:15 PM 11 45.83% 5.1 1:30 PM 31 33.33% 3.76 1:45 PM 6 25.00% 2.8 2:00 PM 8 33,33% 3.7 3 ' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. • DEOINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY • Date of Survey: 41M98 (Tuesday) • Land Use: Der WeinerschnNzel Address: 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,295 Sq. Ft.: Number of 39 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 4 10.26% 1.74 11:15 AM 9 23.08% 3.92 11:30 AM 12 30.77% 5.23 11:45 AM 16 41.03% 6.97 • 12:00 Noon 28 71.79% 12.20 12:15 PM 34 87.18% 14.81 12:30 PM 24 61.54% 10.46 12:45 PM 28 71.79% 12.20 1:00 PM 19 48.72% 8.28 1:15 PM 24 61.54% 10.46 1:30 PM 151 38.46%1 6.54 1:45 PM 12 30.77% 5.23 2:00 PM 8 20.51% 3.4 I a ' ' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. • 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. DEOINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEYS Date of Survey: 418/98 (Wednesday) Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel • Address: 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92680 Building 2,295 Sq. FL: Numberof 39 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SO. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT.OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 2 5.13% 0.87 11:15 AM 4 10.26% 1.74 11:30AM 8 20,51% 3.4 11:45 AM 23 58.97% 10.0 12:00 Noon 24 61.54% 10.4a • 12:15 PM 24 ' 61.54% 10.46 12:30 PM 25 64.10% 10.8 12:45 PM 21 53.85% 9.1 1:00 PM 17 43,59% 7.41 1:15 PM 16 41.03% 6.9 1:30 PM 19 48.72% 8,2 1.45 PM 17 43,59% 7.41 2:00 PM 16 41.03% 6.971 ' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. • DEWINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY* Date of Survey: 419/98 (Thursday) • Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel Address: 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,295 Sq. Ft.: Number of 39 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT.OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 4 10.26% 1.74 11:15 AM 12 30.77% 5.23 11:30 AM 11 28.21% 4.7 11:45 AM 17 43.59% 7.41 • 12:00 Noon 20 51.28% 8.71 12:15 PM 22 58.41% 9.5 12:30 PM 21 53.85% 9.1 12:45 PM 21 53.85% 9.15 1:00 PM 18 46.15% 7.84 1:15 PM 19 48.72% 8.28 1:30 PM 10 25.64% 4.348 1:45 PM 7 17.95% 3.0 2:00 PM 6 15.38% 2.81 ' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. • 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. •TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/7/98(Tuesday) Land Use: Taco Bell • Address: 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,397 Number of 66 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1.000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY FT.OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 34 51.52% 14.18 11:15 AM 33 50.00% 13.77 11:30AM 40 60.61% 16.69 11:45 AM 45 68.18% 18.77 12:00 Noon 51 77:27% 21.28 • 12:15 PM 58 84.85% 23.36 I 12:30 PM 54 81.82% 22.53 12:45 PM 46 , '69.70% 19.19 1:00 PM 45 68.18% 18.77 1:15 PM 43 65.16% 17.94 1.30 PM 50 75.76% 20.86 1:45 PM 38 57.58% 15.8 2.00 PM 38 57.68% 15.8 RK:nam/8010 JN:1030.98-02 Date: April 7, 1998 l Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. • E WCO BELL PARKING SURVEY • Date of Survey: 4/8/98 (Wednesday) • Land Use: Taco Bell Address: 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,397 Sq. Ft.: Number of 66 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1.000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 34 51.52% 14.18 11:15 AM 35 53.03% 14.60 11:30AM 46 69.70% 19.19 11:45 AM 55 83.33% 22.95 { • 12:00 Noon 58 87.88% 24.20 12:16 PM 51 77.27% 21.28 I 12:30 PM 46 69.70% 19.19 12:45 PM 48 72.73% 20.03 1:00 PM 42 63.64% 17.52 1:15 PM 44 66.67% 18.36 1:30 PM 461 72.73%1 20.03 1.45 PM 44 66.67% 18.36 2:00 PM 45 68.18% 18.77 ' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. • 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. &ACO BELL PARKING SURVEY • Date of Survey: 419/98 (Thursday) Land Use: Taco Bell • Address: 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach,CA 92660 Building 2,397 Sq. FL: Number of 66 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SO. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 29 43.94% 12.10 11:15 AM 38 57.58% 15.85 11:30 AM 41 62.12% 17.10 11.45 AM 51 77.27% 21.28 12:00 Noon 61 92.42% 25.45 . 12:15 PM 61 92.42% 25.45 12:30 PM 62 93.94% 25.87 12:45 PM 52 78.79% 21.69 1:00 PM 45 68A8% 18.77 ' 1:16 PM 56 84.85% 23.36 1:30 PM 491 74.24%1 20.44 1:45 PM 38 57.58% 15.85 2:00 PM 38 57.58% 15.85 ' Number of vehicles parking-in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. • 07 08,98 %ED 11:06 FAX 8054810627 C1U8 11 µUULDRIDGL • 41j Uui MR.THOMAS H.WOOLDRIDGE • FAX 1735 tHighlands 0 Arroyorroyo Grande,CA 93423420 7o*1' RCEIVED BY NG DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Date �. / 11 JUL 0 8 1998 PM Number of pages including cover sheet vf� <s/ AM '718i9i1011111211121314iS18 To: From: MR.THOMAS H. / WOOLDRiDGE 1736 Corbett Highlands / Place Arroyo Grande, CA f 93420 Phone • Fax Phone �^ �yJ (O / S��L257 CC: — — Phone 805 473-0216 Fax Phone (805)481-0627 RE Urgent ❑ For your review WA Reply ASAP ❑ Please comment /_ti/9, �q/8 -4 -l-l��4�� Oi 08. 98 %Ii0 11 :07 IN\ $054810627 1*104 II N0OI.UklD0-. Wf /1/ ly�,1447-��kc�d�,� ZA / iz)— �iW ell 5,er �e� Ar r�s C�/v✓u� 261 /99 , AS V G• f j�� �fc -5"Tura ,1�V,//6 s�irid �lSf �'✓lIT ��/`� �iiJ �r"� ��,v P�i�u�v �r�i��� �� �v �/d•�UST��ccilz7L� 0 07.08. 88 µEU 11 :07 FAX 605481082 1TUtl 11 KUOLUHIUGL• Iµ,003 • �,v�/� /�� Ta �Uq���T " 4W240, STt v1i } 70�r-�rlr5��,f.z"� ,�si � C2� iLvic19S G',r f3L £ Tic •���% �`G:.>o Lz� �1�.�1/T/�N.� �s LG .S�ill�iC� S��SG�C� (30 ZOpl oo �� ssivN,;-L /3�sivsjs� Gorzzvo ��) 10016e e� ,--.tea 47- 155 . U7 US 95 HLU 11 ;U9 FAX 803481062 'I•I'UM II KUUL)RIUGI: _ 49U04 • -ST/lviv c . /plc of . L ci ee GG > �10 '9 r tGG � ' s ��� y ,� Oi U8 98 %ED II AO KAX 8054810627 1'IU9 It 9U01UHIDUL• R:I UU•) I q� t r i r7 S LI �• t:l C^ I 'It TELLER AVENUE so CIO cillyor"twPdRy �• �rj` etwcX MQN(1•lRAII NIR •` M >;f._ wi INW(uvlAtl,Tu F =� a ^`l r 0'r' W . 44 [ 'IlOC U T {- •f Cl 114 L.•[ ,l :a_ - I vaL•W I , w ,IR W p gl X+a/euc In n �. 6 ♦! . z 2 =, 3 9 LKIt C rI0[SrAUN/l.n 5• 1•• 7 ;t �E >rrvcnm TO..T UTT or A.!A.mar IHIW/QATITACN T FI b.rrnP11.•utaltMWt j•I��IuUAu 4 A•A'•QO i - � ,I�� � N•ou•oT•:tA L•IQ71p• F I " 1 1 •' Mnn. .. _ - .L i'II I:r r.• • -� �. -Ii ia� Tt��_. \ ..__._�`�1_T��.—•, .n:. / lit 1. !, V ..G.fY LtwbfS O!NE IVOOA'f pEACN � I ;.r 7Ta•lQ _ nI.7L• ilio•tow •oR.72 1.r a:o fora Xl«rar /yHV•t/v.\•./•!.• �F11tH AQu 11• CIN /0110Qq WHl MOX lRllr,MMu1/•.A JAMBOREE BDULEYARO ,wuUNA,A�at+ Y,�t JAwL�AR.LRI CISANITOJAX C/TY[/AI/T9 Of/RY/NE oW A/fr•Av.TN 1{ •u vrX¢oFAu9 DNI RMIR 9%9GV a•rl nlvn /.Cl/T AT rA.YAII D•IYl wtl N/KERN•llt ASlOL •!UN W IlNlO TIiX!CITY W NlWTOAT A/ACN. I 11PROV0.11-N78 REQUIREP w.c..T.F D.I.r r..Y ArrooAr.0 rAOM RIACN STRICT IS Ar/RDYCD AN 9%1IN90N UI bl[M(OIAII ISLAND MAY OF RCQUTA[D. u4 S/S OF B)FAA'Vry9 MONVAMAIT NOTES TI.F nrAunlilS SH0WNI4`ntONAR[ IASCOONTNLCCNTCALINLO/ 1. S[TI'IADN PIPI TAGGED•L.A)Ip9•AT ALL CORNERS SHOW/ G.ACR STREET eI:ING 1449•71)A W ASGNOWHON TDAf.T19SR.MlAO. TAUS---a MAPS3-0/7•13.RECORDS 0;ORANGE WUNTY.CALIFORNIA 2 fOUNO -.AOrt PIPE TAGOTOoL.L 7109•ATALLCORNIRS ROC THLS -• - VIVA TRACT 7955. NOTE T. I : m PER TgA.RUN PIPE TA�109'A7 ALL COANl0.4 SRO lJL 09 '98 04:33Pht . . P.1 .NEWPORT FEDERAL • July 9, 1998 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention; Thomas Ashley,Secretary SENT VIA FAX ONLY(949)b44-3250 Re: Notice of Public Hearing for 5190 Birch Steet Project Hearing Date: July 9, 1998 Gentlemen; We are the owners of the property located at 4425 Jamboree Road,Newport Beach. We are adjacent to the property used for a Wienerschnitzel restaurant and which adjoins 5180'Birch Street. We did not receive a notice of the hearing regarding the property on the corner of Birch and Jamboree which was previously used as a Carrows restaurant and is apparently the subject of this hearing,until we were notified by one of our neighbors today. We understand the report to the Planning Commission for this hearing is many pages in length and . includes detailed traffic studies,parking studies and analysis, both by the City staff and outside firms. Due to the limited time to respond in this matter,we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed to a later date to allow us to review this matter, its impact on our property and to obtain professional help,if needed. However,based upon our limited understanding of this project,we believe.that it will worsen an already difficult parking situation,impair the ability of our tenants to access their offices from'both Jamboree and Birch and pose safety hazards from the increased traffic. We also understand that any development of this property and the other properties in this area is subject to certain CC&Rs which require property owners consent. Sincerely, NEWPOR L RECIVED BY PLANNING GDEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Chad Horning,Viee.Pnesident AM JUL 0 9 1998 PM 71819110111112111813141618 G�eLY.7y.lummdoc • 4425 JAMBOREE. SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 • (714) 8S1-9391 • FAX (714) OSI-0450 �� 1, aEwroq> CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: July 9, 1998 ` A COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT o� \ Agenda Item No.: 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Marc Myers NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659 (949) 644-3210 (949)644-3200;FAX(949)644-3250 Refer to City Council: Automatic REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant) 5180 Birch Street PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80-seat Burger King Restaurant with drive-thru service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq. ft. building divided into two lease spaces for two, full-service small-scale restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft, each. The project involves the approval of. • an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites) and; • amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and; • A use permit for the establishment of a take-out restaurant use as specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the required parking spaces, and; • the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study. ACTION: Approve,modify or deny: • AmendutentNo. 876 • Use Permit No. 3635 • Traffic Study No. 116 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 3,Map Book 198,Pages 27 and 28 ZONE: P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community) OWNER: Timothy L. Strader,Newport Beach • . a a Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. A restaurant is a permitted use within this designation as a support commercial use. The Land Use Element allocates a maximum square footage for Office Site,"G" in Koll Center of 81,372 sq.11, The additional restaurant site will not increase the square footage of Office Site"G" above that which is allocated by the Land Use Element. • Environmental Compliance(California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). • Use permit and restaurant development standards,procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. • Waiver of off-street parking requirements are set forth in,Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code. • Traffic Study requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 2 VICINITY MAP .F -F a: 1 !S w1B lF It �I____§_ goP-TH I Amendment No. 8761 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: Is an existing 7,500 sq.ft.one-story restaurant with subterranean parking to be removed. To the north: across Birch Street is the Newport Harbor Municipal Court. To the east: is Cal-West Credit Union office building and related parking. To the south: is an existing Weinerschnitzel Restaurant with drive-thru lane and related parking. To the west: across Jamboree Road is a vacant parcel,outside the City limits. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 3 ANALYSIS Amendment to Koll Center Planned Community The Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations identify the subject property as Office Site "G," and allows two (2) restaurant sites within the site. The amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards, as proposed, will increase the allowable number of restaurant uses permitted in Office Site "G" from two to three. This amendment is required to accommodate construction of the two proposed restaurant buildings where one currently exists. The proposal also includes the addition of eating and drinking establishments throughout Koll Center Planned Community subject to the standards and requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. This will allow staff to regulate eating and drinking establishments within the 'food service facility through the subsequent review and approval of a Planning Director's Use Permit. This will insure that those uses will be compatible, in terms of peak parking demand, with the take-out restaurant. Changes to the land use limitations do not include any increase in the existing entitlement of the site or statistical area. The intent of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations,as set forth within the P.C.Text,is to provide for the development of hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small retail and service center, service stations,restaurants,and a site for the Courthouse,with the balance of the acreage developed as a business and professional office park emphasizing open space. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Koll Center Planned Community since the proposed project is providing support commercial uses which are similar to that which is existing, but at a smaller scale. The proposal also ,provides landscaping ,per the requirements of Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations. Additionally, the proposed Burger King and Food Service facility will contain a total of approximately 5,041 sq. ft. compared to the existing 7,500 sq.ft.restaurant.to be removed. Use Permit The project site is located in the P.C.District, The adopted P.C. Development Regulations for Koll Center Newport allow drive-thru or take-out restaurants subject to the approval of a use permit.The proposed take-out restaurant with drive-thru food service complies with all of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations with the exception of off-street parking requirements. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic and parking demand study for the proposed food uses. The key issues analyzed by staff are the adequacy of the proposed parking and compliance with the Restaurant Development Standards contained in the Zoning Code. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 4 Project Characteristics Table Burger King Food Services Restaurant Building Building Gross Bldg Area(sq.ft.): TOTAL: 2,531 sq.ft. 2,510 sq.ft. Net Public Area': Interior Dining Area: 1,295 sq.ft. 570 sq.ft.each(1,000 sq.R.or less) SUBTOTAL: 1,295 sq.ft 1,140 sq.ft. Other area: Restroom,kitchen, storage and service areas: 1,236 sq.ft. 1,370 sq.ft.(685 sq.ft.each) TOTAL AREA: 2,531 sq.ft. 2,510 sq.ft. Required Parking:take-out Restaurants:J 60 spaces Full Service Small-Scale: 18 spaces(9 spaces each) Provided for Subject Restaurant: 45 spaces(+7 in drive-thru) 18 spaces TOTAL Parking Provided on-site: 63 spaces ,Parking Study Recommendation: 45 spaces 18 spaces 1 sp./59 sq.ft.gross floor area 1 sp./3 seats(25 seats max.) plus 1/peakemployee+2 (WAIVER OF 15 SPACES) NO WAIVERPROPOSED Live Entertainment: NO NO Dancing: NO NO Outdoor Dining: NO NO Valet Parking Service: NO NO Number of Employees: Approx.9 total Approx. 10 total Hours of operation: 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.daily 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m.,daily The subject site contains a gross square footage of approximately 45,205 sq.ft. The site is currently occupied by a 7,500 sq. ft.building,previously used as a high turn-over sit down restaurant,which will be removed if this project is approved and implemented. A Burger King fast-food restaurant and a food service facility are proposed for the site. Also located on the site is a Weinerschnitzel take-out restaurant with related off-street parking. As shown on the site plan, the new Burger King building will be located along Birch Street facing Jamboree Road, on the comer. The food service facility building will be located between the Burger King building and the Weinerschnitzel Restaurant building, fronting Jamboree Road. Access to the new buildings will utilize the existing entries off Jamboree Road and off Birch Street. s Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility. 'Based on 1/50 sq.ft.of gross floor area,plus one for every peak employee Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 5 The Koll Center Planned Community establishes that off-street parking requirements for take-out restaurants, or any eating and drinking establishment with drive-through or drive-up service, shall be in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code requires 1 parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area contained within the building or in any outdoor area capable of being used for the purpose of serving food or beverages and one parking space for each employee on duty. Based on the proposed 2,531 sq. ft. of take-out restaurant and assuming 9 peak employees, 60 parking spaces are required for the proposed Burger King restaurant. The parking requirement for the other food services building is based upon the City requirements for a full service small scale restaurant. The parking requirement for these facilities is based upon 1 space per 3 seats,for a total-of 18 spaces. The required amount of parking spaces (18) are provided on-site for the food services facility. It is anticipated that at least one of the food services will be a breakfast oriented restaurant such as a bagel or muffin shop which would have its peak parking demand occur in the early morning. This would not conflict with the Burger King since the fast food restaurant will have a noon hour peak demand. The total parking required for the entire site including the Burger King and the food services facility is 78 spaces. Waiver of Off-Street Parking,Requirements Since the required number of parking spaces could not be provided on-site for the proposed restaurant uses, a parking demand study was prepared to determine the parking demand consistent with, other fast food take-out restaurants in the area. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 15 parking spaces. Chapter 20.66.10 states that a use permit may be approved by the Planning Commission to modify or waive the number of off-street parking spaces required by the terms of this chapter if one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. A municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site or sites. 2. The site is subject to two or more uses and the maximum parking requirements for such uses do not occur simultaneously. 3. A parking management plan for the site has been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 20.66.100(B).. 4. The Planning Commission-makes the followingfrndings: a) The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030. b) The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. Amendment No.876 UsePennitNo.3635 Page 6 It is possible to make finding number 4(a) in this case. Page 3 of the Parking Demand Study, located in Appendix D of the attached traffic study,presents a comparison of parking requirements in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code (utilizing a standard requirement of I parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space for each peak time employee for a fast- food restaurant) to the actual parking demand based on field measurement of similar uses in the area. The parking demand study indicates that one parking space for each 59 sq.ft. of gross floor area plus two spaces would be adequate for the subject restaurant, due to the amount of walk-in patrons expected from the neighboring office uses and Newport Harbor Municipal Court. Additionally, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive-thru lane is provided to insure adequate drive-thru lane capacity for queuing to insure that all on-site parking spaces can be accessed freely. The Planning Commission could also determine that the addition of more convenience food uses could change the overall parking demand for the area, calling into question the conclusions of the parking analysis. This conclusion could be based on the practical experience the City has had in shopping centers with a high number of convenience food businesses (Back Bay Court, Westcliff Plaza, Harbor View Center). These shopping areas have had parking problems, particularly when food uses congregate in close proximity to one another. It is possible that these groupings result in an expansion of the market area beyond that of a more limited number of food service facilities. Should the Planning Commission uphold the established parking requirements for take-out restaurants at I parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space for each peak employee,then the requirement would be 78 parking spaces and the applicant would be required to redesign the project to comply with these standards. A redesign of this nature is likely to result in a reduction in the square footage of the project. Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants, as outlined below. Those development standards include specific requirements for restaurant sites, building setbacks, off-street parking, traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, lighting (exterior illumination), underground utilities, supply storage and refuse storage. Section 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code states that any of the development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if strict compliance is not necessary to achieve the purpose or intent of the standard. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 7 Development Standards .REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Site: Site shall 'be sufficient size and configuration to Waiver. The project complies with setbacks, curb cuts, satisfy all requirements for oti street parking, landscaping and refuse storage requirements of the Koll setbacks, curb cuts, walls, landscaping and refuse Center Planned Community District Regulations which storage as provided by Section 20.82.040 of the are more restrictive than the provisions of the Zoning Municipal Code. Code, but does,not comply with the minimum site size requirement since the project does not satisfy the requirement for off-street parking. Setbacks: 30 foot setback at Jamborcc Road and Birch Street, Complies. The project provides'55 8 from Jamboree zero setback at interior lot lines and 10 foot-setback Road, 30 fl. From Birch Street and 140 it. between between buildings per Kell Center PC District buildings. Regulations;to protect the public health,safety and welfare or to insure compatibility with uses on contiguous properties (per Section 20.82.040 A-2, NBMC). Off-Street Off-street parking in accordance with the provisions waiver. A parking demand study has been conducted Parking., of Koll Center PC District Regulations(1 spaces per which,finds that 1 space for each 59 sq.ft.of gross floor 50 sq.ft of gross floor area plus one per employee), arcs,plus 2 spaces will be adequate for the Burgcr King restaurant. The food service facility complies with the parking requirement of I space for every 3 seats established by the Code. Circulation; Parking areas and driveways to facilitate traffic and Complies. The traffic circulation has been reviewed and circulation of vehicles on and around the facility and, conceptually approved by the City Traffic Engineer. to provide adequate sight clearances. , Walls(adjacent A solid masonry wall 6 feet high shall be erected on waiver. The requirement to provide'a 6 foot high wall at to the interior all interior property lines of the subject property. the interior property line would adversely impact the property lines): Walls 3 feet in height shall be erected between the shared drive access which serves the adjacent restaurant on-site parking areas and the public rights-of-way. site. No walls arc proposed between the on-site parking and the public rights-of-way.However,staff believes that the intent of the requirement is satisfied by the perimeter landscaping and increased setbacks along Jamboree Road. Landscaping. 10%of entire site,3 foot wide landscape area shall Complies. The requirement of landscaping for an area be provided to screen the parking area from the equal to 10%of the site is adequately addressed by the public right-of-Way(alley).A 3 foot wide landscape' requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community area adjacent to the interior property lines shall be District Regulations which govern the entire project The provided. project provides 28%site landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement. A landscape plan for the entire project is required and will be approved for the project. Lighting: Parking lot and site illumination height and intensity; Complies. to minimize the reflection of lights to the streets and neighboring properties. Utilities All utilities required to be undergrounded. Complies. Supply Storage Supply storage to be contained within a building. Complies. Refine Storage Refuse storage outside of a building shall be hidden Complies. The site plan identifies two separate trash from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height enclosures for the project,one for each building,screened with self-locking gates. from view by 6 ft.solid masonry walls. Staff is of the opinion that the on-site development standards as they apply to site, off-street parking and,wall requirements should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application, Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 8 I_ since the granting of the waiver will generally achieve the same results as would strict compliance with the requirements of Chapter 20.82. Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and Council Policy L-18. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections are identified on page 22 and on Exhibit A of the attached traffic study. The traffic study indicates that the proposed project will have an impact on the level of service at the following two intersections: Jamboree Road at Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road. The project increases the AM peak hour ICU value from .92 to .93 and from .94 to .95, respectively. However, the following improvements (shown on Table 9), will reduce the ICU value to less than 0.90 and mitigate the project impacts. The required improvements are as follows: For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive,the existing westbound lane configuration should be re-striped to include one left turn lane and one shared through and left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road, an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard should be provided. The re-striping improvement at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive is a fairly small requirement from a cost point of view. It is, therefore, an appropriate condition to attach to this project approval. The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road,however, is a widening project of substantial cost and complexity. As a result, staff presents this analysis in relation to recent court decisions regarding the imposition of conditions whose costs are not "roughly proportional" to the project's impact, as well as from the typical Traffic Phasing Ordinance methodology. Rough Proportionality The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road has not yet been designed and the actual cost of construction has not been estimated. The City's Traffic Engineer has,however, indicated that the improvement is substantial i right-of-way and the widening of a street. Since the project ea-�- 2 trips to the critical movement which already has 376 (less, b ua� (� prb the ICU to increase from .94 to .95, burdening this project v ( (� �nP could be considered not roughly proportional to the projecV kauA— 4V P�GQwce� [tJ approve the project with the improvement requirement, it I challenge the legality of the condition, and perhaps call inti h.O� 39 % ov' �7o�f bvo vu� Phasing Ordinance generally. trT4 . (3't? Aid 34 f (2 a olj, t-60a ov� Traffic Phasing, Ordinance Provisions The basic standard for approval of a project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is summarized below: 1. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any "major," "primary-modifted"or 'primary"street; or Z The project is required to construct major improvements to the circulation system such that. • An unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any intersection for which there is an identified improvement; and • The benefits to traffic circulation resulting from the major improvements substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted, but unimproved intersections; and • There is an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at those intersections, because of improvements required of the project. In order to comply with this standard contained in the TPO, the improvements identified in the traffic study must be made conditions of approval,because they are feasible. The TPO does provide for relief from this mandate if certain findings can be made, as follows: 1. The time and money to complete the improvement is so clearly disproportional to the size of, and traffic generated by, the project that it would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of the improvement; and 2. There is a strong likelihood construction of the improvement will commence within 48 months from the date of project approval. This finding cannot be made unless the following has been accomplished. • Conceptual plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to permit preparation of cost and funding estimates, • Cost and funding estimates have been prepared, • The improvement is consistent with the General Plan, • An account has been established'by the City to receive contributions to the project, and 3. Approval of the project is conditioned upon the payment of a fee to fund the project the amount of which is determined by the Traffic Engineer to be proportional to the project's traffic when compared to other traffic anticipated from other development which will occur from the date of approval to completion of the improvement, and Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 10 4. The financial contribution outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. In this case, staff is of the opinion that findings 1, 3 and 4 can be made, since the cost of the improvement is considered by the Traffic Engineer to be clearly disproportional to the project's impact, a proportional fee could be established, and the project's contribution to the overall function of the intersection is relatively small. However, finding 2 cannot be made at this time, because improvement plans, cost and funding estimates and establishment of an account to receive funds have not been completed. Therefore, this project does not qualify for approval pursuant to these findings, and can only be approved by 4/5ths of the members of the Planning Commission eligible to vote. In the case of a seven member Commission, this ratio equates to 6 affirmative votes. There are facts present, however, which could provide sufficient rationale for approval, consistent with the intent and spirit of these findings. Growth Management Area 8 (GMA-8), of which the City is a member pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Program, has initiated study of improvements to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has been authorized to retain a consultant to design and provide cost estimates for improvements which will satisfy the TPO requirement for this project. It is also the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that it is highly likely that the improvements can be accomplished within a 48 month time frame. So, while strict compliance with finding 2 above cannot be found, an exception to the TPO may be justified in this case. Conclusion While no specific findings are set forth in the Code for the approval of an amendment to Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plans, staff is of the opinion that the proposed changes are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan since restaurant uses are permitted uses in this area. The proposed location of the additional restaurant building and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained are consistent with the General Plan and the purpose and intent of the Planned Community in which the site is located. Adequate parking is provided and the project is located within a large commercial office center and therefore is compatible as a support use with the existing surrounding development. Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit,the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment,maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not,under the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to the health, safety,peace,morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Based upon the analysis contained in this report, it could be found that the findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed take-out/drive-thm restaurant since the proposed drive- thru restaurant and food service building will comply with the objectives of the Koll Center Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 11 • • the site as proposed. Because of the site's location in an office park planned community, there is little potential for problems associated with hours of operation.and noise generated by the proposed restaurant operation. It can also be found that the physical attributes of the proposed site improvements limited by the reciprocal parking and ingress and egress arrangements, complicate the ability to bring the property into full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code with regard to walls. In addition, staff also believes that the provisions of the Koll Center Planned Community District Regulations adequately address site requirements and provide for uniform landscape treatment throughout the center to offset the requirements-of perimeter walls. It can also be found that the project meets the intent of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, because although adverse impacts to two intersections have been identified, a feasible improvement suitable to the scope of the project has been identified for Jamboree Road and Campus Drive, and the spirit and intent of the requirements to assess a proportional contribution to an improvement at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard are met. It should be noted, however, that the project does not actually meet all of the requirements for this proportional assessment, so six affirmative votes are required to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3635, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit"A" are suggested. It is also possible to make findings for denial of this project. The project's inability to provide the required off-street parking could result in traffic and parking problems that will negatively•impact the surrounding commercial uses. Also, an additional restaurant site would create a high concentration of convenience food services in that location which may result in additional traffic, parking and circulation problems in and around the site. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this project,the indings.set forth in Exhibit`B"are suggested. Submittedby: Prepared by: PATRICIA L.TEMPLE MARC W.MYERS Planning Director Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" Exhibit"B" Appendix Traffic Study Parking Demand Study Plot Plan,Floor Plan and Elevations F.�USEMVLNISHARED%IPLANCOM11998107-091a876.DOC Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 12 EXHIBIT"A' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Amendment No. 876,Use Permit No.3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 A. Planned Community Amendment No 876• Adopt Resolution No. (Attached), recommending to the City Council the approval of PC Amendment No. 876, increasing the number of restaurant sites in Office Site "G" to three sites and, permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No. 3635 Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial" uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction),and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through,or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size,off-street parking and wall requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (eating and drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application,for the following reasons: • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. • The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations. • The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators. 5. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses which primarily function during daytime hours. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 13 6. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive-thru food service and waive a portion of the required parking will not,.under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, .safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. • The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan. • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use. • The project will not result in any significant environmental impact. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of the Koll Center Planned Community. • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area. • The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change since the proposed uses are similar,and consistent with the General Plan. • That the off-street parking spaces which exist in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property, • The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the Parking Demand Study. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan,except as noted in the following conditions. 2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63 'spaces)shall be,provided on-site. 3. The gross floor area of the fast food take-out restaurant(Burger King) shall be limited to a maximum of 2,531 sq. ft. 4. The development standard pertaining to off-street parking requirements and perimeter walls shall be waived. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 14 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved. 7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces. 10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive-thru lane shall be relocated so that it does not block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive-thru lane. 11. The final design of all on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 12. All employees shall park on-site. 13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner,property owner or the leasing company. 14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or stone drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on-site and off-site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 15 that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,or general welfare of the community. 19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Standard Requirements 1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform,Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located'in compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110-L so that it does not block sight distance. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility,but not located on or within any public property or right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 16 dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights-of-way. 16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site,to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. C. Traffic Study No. 116 indin 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major,' 'primary-modified; or 'Primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page17 • • 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportional to the-size of this-project and therefore,not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic 'Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 18 EXHIBIT`B„ FINDINGS FOR DENIAL,OF Amendment No. 876,Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic Study No. 116 Findings: 1. The proposed project would be detrimental to the health, safety,peace,morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and be detrimental to the general welfare of the City because the project site cannot provide off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. 2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code since the project does not provide off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. 3. The parking demand for the proposed project will not be less than the parking requirement in Section 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code. 4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan since Office Site G only allows two restaurant sites. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 19 APPENDIX"A" LOCATION: 5180 Birch Street,Parcel 3,Map Book 198,Pages 27 and 28 ZONE: P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community) APPLICANT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes,applicant),Rancho Santa Margarita OWNER: Timothy L. Strader,Newport Beach Expanded Traffic Study Analysis The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L-18. The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table 2, located on Page 11 of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the, trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 7 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are shown on Exhibit A,located on Page 22 of the attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis,taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where,on any approach.leg,project traffic is estimated�to be greater than one percent of the projected 2'/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the five intersections, the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-'/z hour morning and afternoon peak traffic on three of the intersections and was less than 1% on two of the intersections, as indicated on Table 7, located on Page 25 of the attached traffic study. An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the above noted three intersections. As indicated in Table 8, located on Page 31 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the A.M. peak for these three intersections exceeded 0.90. Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page20 L 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE RESTAURANT SITES IN OFFICE SITE G TO THREE SITES, AND AMEND THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO PERMIT EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Section 20.35.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by the Planning, Commission setting forth particulars of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations is,necessary in order to allow for a third restaurant site to be located in Office Site G; and WHEREAS, the proposed change to add a restaurant site to Office Site G is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated as APF, and restaurant uses are Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 21 considered support commercial uses within this designation and are compatible with the surrounding uses as a support use since it there are existing restaurant uses on the site; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations is necessary in order to regulate the establishment of eating and drinking establishments throughout Koll Center Planned Community consistent with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding Amendment No. 876 at which time this Planned Community amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations was discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan and the intent of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Guidelines; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Amendment No. 876 to change the allowable number of restaurant sites in Office Site G of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations from 2 to 3 restaurant sites and amend the written text to include the provision that the approval of eating and drinking establishments (Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be subject to the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. All sections of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations that refer to the establishment of eating and drinking AmendmentNo.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 22 establishments (Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be amended to include the following text: "...subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case." The following sections shall be amended to include the aforementioned phrase to the text. The changes shall be made to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations including,but not limited to the following sections: • Section II,B.,4 (page 11) • Section H, Group I,D (page 25) • Section H, Group I, G.,2 (page 26.1) • Section 11, Group V,A. (Page 27) • Section II, Group VI,A., 1., a.,b. (Page 27) ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BY: Michael C. Kranzley, Chairman BY: Thomas J.Ashley, Secretary Amendment No.876 Use Permit No.3635 Page 23 BIRCH ST./JAMBOREE RD. BURGER KING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS Newport Beach, California i \ qr i f • .`j.(r� `. is i.a , ���� sb �d �'drt' '`♦♦ it i SP 1 !?KJK-- F;!QK & ASSOCINC. May 12, 1998 Mr. Rich Edmonston Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Birch Street/Jamboree Road Burger King Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis Dear Mr. Edmonston: RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit the Birch Street/Jamboree Road Burger King 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, and on-site circulation pursuant to City of Newport Beach requirements. Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation system, with off-site improvements. In addition, the site access and on- site circulation are adequate for the project site. If you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, RKJK & ASSOCIATES, ? *FESS/pN9` Robert Kahn, P.E. NO 0555 Tom Huang, EIT Principal EXP 12/31/01 Transportation Engineer RK:TH:kgd/8005 (P. o cn��P��P JN:0559-98-01 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GIS TRAFFIC/ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290 • Newport Beach, CA 92000 • Phone: (949) 474-0809 • Fax: (949) 474-0902 BIRCH STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared by: RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1601 Dove Street, Suite-290 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Tom Huang, EIT May 12, 1998 JN:0559-98-01 RK:TH:kgd/8005 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 111. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Project Trip Generation B. Project Trip Distribution IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects B. Regional Traffic Growth C. Study Intersections D. Determination of Impacted Intersections V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 VI. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 A. Site Access B. On-Site Parking VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDICES ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ICU WORKSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B TRIP GENERATION STUDY (FEBRUARY 23, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C PARKING STUDY (APRIL 20, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE A LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 D PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 E PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 G EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1 YEAR 2000 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 J YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 LAND USE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 11 3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 4 NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS-BY TRIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATION) . . . . . . . . 32 0 0 BIRCH STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Burger King located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street 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 300 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 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 are 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 1 approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, the annual regional growth rate for the study area is specified by the City. With the completion of this project contemplated in the Fall of 1999, assuming approval by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 2000. 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 the AM and PM two and one-half hour peak periods 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 hours. 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 AM and PM 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 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. 2 • • ` J In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a review of on-site traffic circulation, and site access from the adjoining street system. _ 3 , PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Birch Street at Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a Burger King and a food service facility. The site location with respect to the surrounding area is shown in Exhibit A. The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as a Carrow's (high turnover sit-down) restaurant. Carrow's restaurant has recently closed and a Burger King and a food service facility is being planned for the site. The food service facility will include two full service small scale restaurants. The project site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Municipal Court which generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the Burger King and the food service facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a significant portion of patronage will come from walk-in and pass-by traffic. As shown in the site plan (Exhibit B) the project includes a 2,531 square foot Burger King restaurant with drive-thru and a food service facility of 2,570 square feet which is anticipated to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on-site parking spaces. Entry to the site will be via the existing right-in/right out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree Road is shared with an existing Wienerschnitzel fast food restaurant and an existing office building. 4 • • t r EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP S � •:•WAYN E:•::•::� ., M/y o . Q� ui P o�oys Or JO= sr � sr °O SITE�� m y �Gqi(S, T 0 sysr sr o� sT LEGEND, = STUDY AREA INTERSECTION I 0959-98-01:01A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Califomia ntg,IN EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN yt � CIS O VVV / Jw^♦ i 0559-98-01:06A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Califomio R Kj1( - 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. RKJK has previously prepared a trip generation study dated February 23, 1998 for the preliminary site plan. The trip generation study is included in Appendix "C". The distribution patterns that project trips will then use for routing through the roadway network are identified and depicted graphically in Exhibits C and D. Project Trip Generation The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as a Carrow's high turnover sit-down restaurant. The Carrow's restaurant has recently closed and a Burger King and a food service facility is being planned for the site. The food service facility will include two full service small scale restaurants. The project site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Municipal Court which generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the Burger King and the food service facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a significant portion of patronage Will come from walk-in and pass-by traffic. As shown in the site plan on Exhibit B, the project includes a 2,531 square foot Burger King restaurant with drive-thru and a food service facility of 2,570 square feet to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on-site parking spaces. The existing and proposed uses for the site are quantified in Table 1. The trip generation rates used for this study are included in Table 2. Trip generation has been based upon trip rates which occur during the peak hour of the street, which 7 EXHIBIT C PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION . ... ...... ...... ...... ............ ... ... ........ . .. 0. .. ............ .......... ...........................4. . ....... .... ... .. . .. . ......... .4.......... ............ ...JOHN ..... ... WAYNE-:4:-:-:.:., .... AIRPORT 4 ......... .' '. . ...... .. .. ... ........ O 20 ........... 15 GS d", 9,P 0) S2. IT 30 vo to 15 30 5 5 LEGENDS 5 10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT 0559-98-01:05A RKIK- , BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach. Califomla I ASWATES INC. EXHIBIT D PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION S JOHN :....... . �. WAYN E•::•::•: -`-:-AIRPORT-:-:.:- .......... \Q o� w �P �4 O�oy y = ` 30 20 q p� JO J R o�sT s �qP � oy sT SITE;6o��,1 %� 55 5 ;u 40 5 30 45 Y �Gqi� sr s �/s 5 O eR/sro< 10 sT LEGENDS 10 = PERCENT FROM PROJECT 5 5 0559-98-01!04A K BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER RING, Newport Beach, California �,�G TABLE 1 LAND USE SUMMARY r VELOPMENT LAND USE CATEGORY SIZE (TSF)' sting Use rrow's High Turnover Restaurant 7.500 posed Uses Burger King Fast Food W/Drive-Thru 2.531 Food Service High Turnover Restaurant 2.570 TSF = thousand square feet of building. 10 • • L F TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES PEAK-HOUR RATES _ AM PM LAND USE UNITS IN OUT IN OUT DAILY High Turnover Sit-Down TSF 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 130.34 Restaurants Fast Food Restaurant TSF 25.43 24.43 17.41 16.07 496.12 W/Drive Thru 11 , usually occurs between 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM. This is typical practice in the City of Newport Beach and Orange County. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 3. The trip generation included in Table 3 does not take into account pass-by or diverted and additional pedestrian oriented trips which are a result of the specific location of the site. The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip-ends per day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed uses would generate 1,591 trip-ends per day with 149 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. In order to properly assess the net difference in trip generation between the existing and proposed uses, the actual net trip generation must be determined. This takes into account both the overall trip generation and the net trip reduction as a result of pass- by/diverted trips and walk-in trips. RKJK utilized the factor of at least 45 percent for the pass-by/diverted and walk-in traffic for the fast food restaurant and approximately 20 percent for the high turnover sit-down restaurant and full service small scale restaurant. The net trip generation for both the existing Carrow's restaurant and the proposed Burger King and the food service facility is shown in Table 4. The Carrow's restaurant would generate a net trip generation of 782 trip-ends per day with 55 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 65 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed use would generate 959 net trip-ends per day with 88 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 70 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. 12 • t TABLE 3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Carrow's 36 33 49 33 978 PROPOSED USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Burger King 64 62 44 41 1,256 Food Service 12 11 17 11 335 TOTAL 76 73 61 52 1,591 DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 36 33 49 33 978 Proposed Use 76 73 61 52 1,591 11 Difference I +40 +40 +12 +19 +613 13 • • TABLE 4 NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS-BY TRIPS EXISTING USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Carrow's 20 29 26 39 26 782 PROPOSED USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % =UT IN F7;;7DAILY Burger King 45% 35 34 24 23 617 Food Service 20% 10 9 14 9 268 TOTAL 45 43 38 32 959 NET DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 29 26 39 26 782 Proposed Use 45 43 38 32 959 DIFFERENCE +16 17 -1 +6 +177 14 • i The net difference in trip generation between the proposed and existing use of the site is also shown In Table 4. The proposed use would result in a net increase in trip generation of 177 trip-ends per day with 33 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 5 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates. 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 the morning and evening two and one-half hour peak periods. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The inbound and outbound trip distribution patterns for the project are graphically depicted on Exhibits C and D. The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system 1 9 Y y m has been based upon tlie site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. Based on the Identified project traffic generation and distribution, project related AM and PM traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits E and F. The existing AM and PM traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits G and H. 15 0 • EXHIBIT E PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .. . . ...... .. ... .. .............. .......... ........ ...... .......... ............ ............ ........ ...... ........... ... ... . . ...... .......... ................ . 6.. ........ .......... .. ... ......... ... .... . ............ ...... ....:.VAy N .d,.,.d.*.,A IRPOR 'T:':*:*: .... . . 6.... ...........d . .... ... ........... . .............. .. ... .. . ..... ... .... .... ........... La O O<el S IT E 0559-98-01:07A BIRCH STREEr/JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Califamlo R!5jK- ASSOCIATIM INC. • • ` EXHIBIT F PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES S � •:•WAYNE•:•:::•:' ., :•AI RP0 RT•: hhJ� �'/oHe�oN P� . ,� T°! J ,�• ,pCS, °Q rc SITE "�. \ \�)) J 'hS O559-98-01:08A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, California 110;jK_ INC. EXHIBIT G EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..... ...... ......... . .. .....0...... ... .... ..... ....... ... ... ........................ .............00....... . ....... . . ........................................ .. ...... .....-.-.-AIRPORT . .... ...... . . ... . . . . . .. ........... ............ ....... ... 0` SITE lb O J eR'sr°� sr r ' �� �r�,� 0559-98-01:02A Ft-!5jK_ BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING. Newport Beach. Califomic AssocRTES INC. EXHIBIT H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES /�40s �h :::•WAYNE•:::::� :AIRPORT : ., M�°yFCSOyo a�� ✓ \` a S�/Sr01 SITE r S RiSr �� ✓��' I 0550-9B-01:03A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, Callfomla �,NC • • 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 Proiects 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 committed projects are listed in Table 5. Pursuant to the City staff, 80% of the trip generation is assumed for all the committed projects at one year after the opening of the proposed project as a result of the potential interaction of these projects. f 20 TABLE 5 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST CURRENT PROJECT PERCENT OF NUMBER PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY 121 Newport village 00%Occupancy 124 Civic Plaza 00%Occupancy 125, Corporate Plaza Q West 12%Occupancy 129 Hoeg Hospital Extension 2%Occupancy 134 Interpretive Center 00%Occupancy 142 Hoag Hospital Expansion 00%Occupancy . 147 Balboa Bay Club Expansion 00%Occupancy 148 Fashion Island Expansion 00%Occupancy 152 Fletcher Jones Mercedes 00%Occupancy 154 Temple Bat YAHM Expansion 00%Occupancy 158 Corona Del Mar Plaza 00% Occupancy 157 Ford Development 00%Occupancy 158 TLA Driva-Thru Restaurant 00%Occupancy 555 CIOSA-Irvine Project 00%Occupancy 910 Newport Dunes 00%Occupancy 930 City of(rains Dev. 00%Occupancy 21 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 percentages are shown in Table 6. The future analysis year is Year 2000, and the existing counts are taken at Year 1997. For the approaches on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a growth factor of 1 percent per year for 3 years, which is a total of 3 percent, has been used in this study. 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. These following intersections have been designated by the City staff for possible analysis in this report, and they are also shown on Exhibit A: Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) • Birch Street (EW) • Bristol Street North (EW) • Bristol Street South (EW) 22 • . l r TABLE 6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES' PERCENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANNUAL GROWTH JAMBOREE ROAD All Segments 1 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD All Segments 1 Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. 23 MacArthur Boulevard INS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) Determination of Imnacted 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 AM and PM two and one-half hour peak 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 7. Analysis worksheets for each intersection are included in Appendix "A". The results of the analysis indicate that AM project volumes will exceed the one percent threshold at the three following intersections: Jamboree Road INS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) • Birch Street (EW) 24 t ` TABLE 7 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROJECT VOLUME GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT OF PEAK HOUR VOLUME INTERSECTION AM PM Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Campus Dr. (EW) Yes No • Birch St. (EW) Yes Yes • Bristol St. N. (EW) No No • Bristol St. S.(EW) No No MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: Yes No • Jamboree Rd. (EW) 25 • MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) Only one intersection, Jamboree Road at Birch Street, exceeds the one percent threshold for the PM peak period. 26 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the peak hour intersection analysis for the intersections 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 Year 2000 traffic volumes for the study intersections are shown on Exhibits I and J. The traffic volumes are based on existing traffic volumes, annual regional growth and the trip generation for the proposed and committed projects. For the approaches on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a growth factor of 1 percent per year for 3 years, which Is a total of 3 percent, has been used in this study. The results of 27 EXHIBIT I YEAR 2000 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..... ...... ..... . ...... ... . ...... ...... ..... . ... .. .... . .... . .............. . .... ....... .......... .. . AIR PORT .... .. .. .... .. ................. .. . ... ................ ..... ..... ... ........... .... ....... .... .. ... . ... . ... . . . . ... . ... . ..... J> S I T E,-44:^:: W Ia BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach. Callfamia RK] k ASSOCIATES q4W INC. • • i I EXHIBIT J YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES �h ::JOHN•;:•:•:;•:•:•' moo. :•::•WAYNE::•:•:•:' .-.,.-.-:-AIRPORT... W S I T E " " 0559-90-01:f0A BIRCH STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport,Beach, Califemia 15jM� the Year 2000 ICU calculations are presented in Table 8. The Year 2000 ICU worksheets are included in Appendix "B". As shown in Table 8, the ICU for the following two intersections will exceed 0.90 for the AM peak hour: Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) However, with improvements shown on Table 9, all the analysis intersections will not exceed 0.90. The required improvements are listed as follows: For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive: • Restripe existing westbound lane configuration to include one left turn lane, one shared through and left lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road: • Provide an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard. 30 • • r r TABLE 8 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION'CAFACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION) 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 I PM Jamboree Rd.INS)at: • Campus Dr.(EW) 1 4 0 2 3 0 1.5 1.5 1>> 1 2 1 092 NA*10.93 NA • Birch St.(EW) 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1,» 0 1 0 10:56 0.60 0.58 0.61 MacArthur Blvd. (NS),at: • Jamboree Rd.(EW) 1 3 0 1 1 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 1 2 3 1>> 1 0.94 NA I 0.95 NA ' When a right turn is designated,the Iona 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; >> - Free Right 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization In Year 2000 with regional growth and committed projects traffic. NA - Not applicable(Project traffic less then 1%of total traffic). 31 TABLE 9 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATION) INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' ICUs 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 I PM Jamboree Rd. INS)at: • Campus Dr.(EW) 1 4 0 2 3 0 1.6 1.5 1>> 1_5 1_5 1 0.83 NA3 0.84 NA • Birch St.(EW) 1 3 0 1 3 1>> 1.5 0.5 1>> O 1 0 i 0.56 0.601 0.58 1 0.61 MacArthur Blvd. INS)at: • Jamboree Rd.(EW) 1 3 1 1 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.87 NA 0.87 NA ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unatriped. 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; >> = Free Right; 1 = Improved Lanes 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 2000 with regional growth and committed projects traffic. 3 NA = Not applicable(Project traffic lase than 1•h of total traffic). 32 • • t i 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 and on-site circulation. Site Access As shown on the site plan (Exhibit B), the project is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Birch Street at Jamboree Road. Access to the site will be from the existing right-in/right-out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree Road is shared with the existing Wienerschnitzel fast food restaurant and an existing office building. There will be no significant problems related to site access. However, certain 9 movements may require additional maneuvers or detour routes. Traffic entering the site southbound from Jamboree Road will turn right at the driveway on Jamboree Road. The returning traffic will exit at Birch Street and turn left at the Jamboree Road/Birch Street intersection to go northbound on Jamboree Road. Traffic entering the site northbound from Jamboree Road will make a U-turn right at the Jamboree Road/Birch Street intersection and then a right turn at the driveway on Jamboree Road. The returning traffic will exit at the driveway on Jamboree Road. Traffic entering the site'eastbound'from Birch Street will turn right at the driveway on Birth Street. The returning traffic would require a detour route, because no u-turns are permitted on Birch Street. Therefore, the return traffic would exit at Birch Street, 33 turn left at the Jamboree Road/Birch Street intersection, and then turn left the Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersection to go westbound on Campus Drive. Another possible detour route is to exit at the driveway on Jamboree Road and then make a right turn at MacArthur Boulevard to return to Birch Street. On-Site Parking RKJK has previously prepared a parking study dated April 20, 1998 for the project. The parking study is included in Appendix "D". Based on the findings of the parking study, the Burger King would require 45 parking spaces and the two full service small scale restaurants would require 18 parking spaces. Therefore, the total parking demand for the entire site is 63 parking spaces. Since the current site plan shows 63 parking spaces, the project does provide adequate parking. 34 SUMMARY The proposed project would be located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. There is an existing 7,500 square foot building previously used by Carrow's restaurant, and this building will be removed by the project. The proposed project will Include a 2,531 square foot Burger King fast food restaurant and a 2,570 square foot food service facility. The food service facility is anticipated to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on-site parking spaces. Entry to the site will be via the existing right-in/right-out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree is shared with an existing Wienerschnitzei fast food restaurant and an existing office building. The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip-ends per day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed project would generate 1,591 trip-ends per day with 149 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Based on the One Percent Test, the following three intersections are analyzed for peak hour intersection operations: Jamboree Road INS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) • Birch Street (EW) MacArthur Boulevard INS) at: • Jamboree Road (EW) 35 Based on the peak hour ICU analysis, two intersections exceed ICU of 0.90. The required improvements for the two intersections are as follows: Jamboree Road INS) at Campus Drive (EW): • Restripe existing westbound lane configuration on Campus Drive to include one left turn lane, one shared through and left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road (EW): • Provide an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the finding of a parking study previously prepared by RKJK (dated April 20, 1998), the total parking demand for the entire site is 63 parking spaces. Since the current site plan shows 63 parking spaces, the project does provide adequate parking. Site access, on-site circulation and parking are adequate for the site as proposed. 36 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis InIerS2Cfi0n JAMBOREE BL/cAms DR. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinteriSpring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APPro�'ed Projected 1% of Projected Project Pro Bets Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growltt PEAK 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2651 I�0 43 8 2 1 69 3 7, 4-9 Southbound 4162 I25 Qsg S�'Ly� 5 '2— Eastbound 576 O 2y-O $l(p Westbound 2080 O 240 2,320 23 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: H�:w�R1 O; O 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersedon JAMBORM BL/CAMPUS DR ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter)Spring 19 97 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Projected !Y. of Pro Direction Peak 2 112 Hour 'Reptonat Projectsjected Project Volume Gro= PEAK 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume, Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3920 1 1 8 1.1O 1.5 S, OS3 fj I 3 E Sorthbound 3915 1 1 7 Ll�g (�-, y-y-O 4.4- 16 Eastbound 1734 '7 Z I r $0 Ep I $ 12 Westbound 1444 p $g 1 , 532 15 Lf ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1•/. of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% or Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t. 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis w n prt� 1� ,p c�<ico RN�� Intersedo� JArmot� xo/szRcH s2 III ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Re ionai Projects roj e j 1 /• of Projected Project g Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Croce PEAK u 1@ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2868 Quo Z+S7 3,(-I-DS 31+ 2G Southbound 3960 I 1 I 1115$ S,Z.3Z 5 'Z 3(0 Eastbound 345 O 3 4 S 3 5 2 Westbound 19 O CJ I C( O O ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U,) Analysis is required. DATE • i 4 t'F'%i�Orrl 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis IOIBfSECfIOn JAMPEI RD/BIRC:H IT ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter l Spring 19 97 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APP"'ed projected 17. of Projected Project Direction ' Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Proecls Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3389 102 969 4"q-(00 4+S 2,L. Soulhbound' 3658 110 L{'2-77 L.{-> iqS 42— 22. Eastbound 1210 O ((p l , 22(D l 2 L-O Westbound 23 to 2 3 0 � ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i'% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: ��wrr�Rr 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis u a � Inlersec6on JAhImm RD/MAC AFr= Elm ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Pro acts Peak 21/2 Hour Direction Peak 2 1!2 Hour Groiwth I Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume PEAK 2 1e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4408 13 Z 29 g 492—$ 49 Southbound 1024y— Eastbound 3758 1 13 ?32 Westbound 1904 �� 2�2 2_, ZZ3 22 3 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • . t S �. 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersedon JAmBORIE m/I"I'm BD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19'97 PM Approach Existing Peak Hour Approved Projected 1•); of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Reg iona1/2 l Projects2 Hour peak 2 112 Hour peak 212 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 1 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2278 pg 2-15 2, (07-1 2(1P Southbound 3600 l Og 34-14- 4)052- 1-l' Eastbound 2546 351 Z>9-7 3 30 � Westbound 5014 150 565 -5 -i 2q 57 3$ Project Traffic is estimated to be lass than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated,to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. lntefsection Capacity Utilizalien (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 7A i 1 A • • Nf"`�/vOgr 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis InterseCUOn BRISROL S11 NOFWJAMBORFE ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinteriSpring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved projected 1% of Projected Project � cts Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional K 2 11 if2 H Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 our Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7467 Scl O Southbound 1981 59 2-9 q" Z,33(-� 2— Eastbound _o_ Q 0 D C Westbound _0_ O 0 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: �J • L 1 s�F'W�Rf �. 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis 4R�c�rr IntefSeC on BRIS OL SPRIET NOM111,1*8011 E I ( Existing'Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6406 1 9 2— 3(o H—. (p Q G?— O g Southbound 4461 Easthound —0— O O 0 D O Westbound —0— Q p Q O ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic (s estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: �/ r6wPOgf IntersecGon 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis BRISNL ST/JP1�t FEE RD (, Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter]Spring 1997 Am ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved projected I% of Projected Project Projects Direction Peak 2 1m Hour RegionalPeak 2 1/2 Hour peak fume Hour Peak 2 1@ Hour Volume Growth PEAK lu 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume . Volume Northbound 4625 t 3 R t,+'Z S,3a�0 53 Southbound 1098 33 zq-G 1,3-7 7 1 L{ T Eastbound 5551 U 977 (01 2_9 (0 1 C} Westbound ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utitization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 75 04�Ew�R m 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis �`•`O""r RI= sViAmRIM 'M InIefS2CI1011 B ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Apprnod Projected 1.6 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Ra,1=1 Projects Peak 2 112 Hour peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4243 (21 43-0 4, 800 L—g ` t(— Southbound 2075 (o Z 9-70 2 )SO'Z "2,9- 4- Eastbound 6056 C> 370 G, T2-7o Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected . Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE, 76 APPENDIX B ICU WORKSHEETS �7 • � s . JA430SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD&CAMPUS DRIVE 430S EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTE01 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT i I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I' WC Ratio I Volume I WC 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I 1 Volume i I i I NL I 1600 1 1 1201 0.08 • T i (�L� I O• 1 2•'j 13 i O•13 I NT I 1 1097 I 3 3 I Lt3 I 1 ..___........ 1 6400 «......_.»_.« »......_....«.. 1 0.18 » .«......«..«. «..«.._.._.._.. �. 2.\ . ........«...._" l7 2 I NR 1 1 77 ._ »««« 2 1 12_ 1 1 2 1 1 «....SL ».......3200 1 ...»......._« __•«_282 1 0.09 1 g 1 _ 0 1 0.09_ 1 Y 0 1. 0.01 1 I ST I I 130S I 3 q I 4«79 I I1[ 1 ''W'I 1 I _••.—•«»_ ] 4800 _ .._._..«..... «_._..._..._ J 0.33 • .__.._.._ _........._—... 0 J+ - «•...—_ 0•TT PV I SR 1 1 273 i $ 1 p I I 0 I I ............. »...........»» ».... 1 EL I I 80 I I ET I 1 121 1 p I g I I 0 1 I I ............... ................. .................. .. ................ ....._.....»._. »I ER 1 N.S. I h 251 »_....0_. I..__.�. ............«.»«_ ........... _ _.« _ :.« I ••••_• L �c 6 I _•»._» I 1 I WL 1 1600,1 1 3681 0123 D 1 OCL 1 0.30 Z 1 0.30 hW,' I W WT 1 32001 1 5321 0a7 1 0 1 �(0 1 O,1-7 1 D 1 0.171 I ._._..«...«......_«.._. «........ .............. ........_.M _» � «. »« « .« .. .«. »». —I I N WR 1 1600 1 1 2181 0.14 1 D 1 Q 1 o• i(•4... 1 • (� 1 Q.1+1 I ............». ................. ................ ».««...._._ ......._._._... »...._.....«.. «..«........ _ __«......«»...«« .. _..... _ ....._.. . I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.68 1 W I ............_ ................. .................. ................................._. .. «.............. ..................................._... « 1 EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 p•q 2 I I .»............ .................. .......«_...... ....... ....... .. .............. .. .._ .......... ............_.� .....«....__......« .. ..........«« ».....«. . I I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 1 O.c1'3 1 LI Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.9D 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 less than I.G.U.without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT - - . - —.� - - - _ �•• FORM 11 JA430SAM r JA4305PLM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC - WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR 1 WC 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I i 1 Volume I 1 1 I NI. 1 16001 1 1201 0.08 ' 4- 1 lot+ 1 p, 12 13 1 0.13 1 I NT 1 I 1097 I 33 1 (L}3 1 1 .... __»_ 1 6400 .. ...__........ .....»_......... } 0.1 a _.._ _._ ».. ___-- d 2 1 . ........».._.. p.2 l 1 1 NR I 1 77 1 Z 1 12 1 1 Z 1 1 1 St. 1 32001 1 2821 0.091 g 1 d 1 Q,Oq 1 O 1 O,CQ I 1 ST I 1 130S 1 3q 1 4-79 1 1 9 1 1 1 -•---••-_ } 4800 - ••---•••- - •- 1 0.33 - 1 SR 1 i 273 1 $ I Q 1 d, � O '1 D I I EL 1 . so 1 ................ .__._. .8.. 0.04 .__0 _ Q� I ._ 1 O I I I ET 1 1 121 1 O 1 $ I 1 ................ .............»». ........._....... .. ................ .._.____.... _._»._.._.... __.»..____ ........_»»__._.. .. .........»_«...___.... 1 I ER I N.S. 1 1 25 1 1 D 1 1fD I I 7 1 1 .............. ................ .. .....»»....... ........»»...... ....�__ i WL 1 1600 1 1 368 1 0.23 d 1 (oq- 1 1 Z I 1 I WT 1 3200 1 1 532 1 0.17 1 0 1 1 fo 1 I Q I 1 1 .......»..._.. _............._. .. ....._......... _......._...... ..--- -_._........ »....__.._.__ __ I WR 1 16001 1 2191 0.14 1 O 1 p I p. 14.. 1 I 0.14 1 I .............. ............_._ ......_.......... -.--•---.._ ......._...._». ....__......... » .._....»_�. ......_.... . I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.68 1 M I i ............. .. ................ .. ................ .. ................ ......._..»»_ «..._........... .._..._....».__ ........_.........._ - I I EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .............. .................. .......I.......... «_. -».... .._.._»_»_ .. ..»».......... .......».___» ...»......_._..._ .. .......... .. _ ..... _ i I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 vJ/ 2Wl�rore�sw�s 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 NProjected+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: PROJECT _ __.-- _ _ _ - - FORM it JA430SAM JA430SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD G BIRCH STREET 4309 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTEDI' PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume d Volume 1 w/o Project I "I Ratio I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I Volume I I i 1 NL J 16001 1 201 1 0.13 6 1 0 1 0.13 ' c- (3 10,14 1-* I NT 1 1 1276 1 3$— I z—L I I 0 1 I i ............... } 4800 ................_ »... } 0.27 ........... _.._.._ .. _- 0.3Z ...._.___ -0 3Z I I NR 1 1 5 1 (� I 0 1 1 0 1 I ......«.»._ ....._.._.. ....... .............. . ...«....__._ ............._ _.............�..«. .»«......»... .. .._ _ 1 $L 1 16001 1 5 1 0.00 1 () I I 0.O p 1 0 1 0.00 I I ST 1. 48001 1 12541 026 3g 1 571 1 b.3R 18 1 0.SJ 1* 1 SR I N.S. 1 1..«. 575 1 1 1 -7 1 g 1 »» I Q I 1 I EL 1 1 91 I p I 0 i ..._...._..... } 3zao.........»....._ ««........».._ } 0.03 • ................ ....«..........._ I ET I I 3 1 O 1 0 1 O T I i .«....«....» ................. .................. ................. .................. ........«..«_ ........ i ER I N.S. 1 I 631 1 D i O 1 I 2, 1 I ............... ................. ........_........ .............»... ...I.............. ..............._ .................... .. ..................... .. ................ ..... _ 1 I WL 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 Q I 1 ....«�...... } I600 I 1............... } .......... ..._» 0.01 • O 1 0 1 0.0 1 -, 0 1 0.01 1 } ................ .. } .. .... «.._......___.. _ » I I Wit 1 1 6 1 O 1 O I I O I I I ....«. ..... _ ......«.... .............._. _ .......... I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.43 1 I EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0. 56 I I ......_..._.. .................. .................. «............_ »................ .............._ ................... .. ......._............. .. ........................ I ,EXIISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.w/systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 6 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U.without project ......._......... .............-... .............. _................ ............. «. ...._...._-- - Description of system improvement: PRO)ECT - .. - - - � _ - _-ry _ _ .�- FORM It JA4308AM JA4308PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 BIRCH STREET 4308 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM _ ................ ................_ «___....«... «._._..._...__..................... .............. _......._ _ 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT i PROJECT I I' Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I WC I I I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/0 Project I 1' Ratio I I I I i I I I I Volume I I I _. _._ .. _ _ « _. i...._.— I NL 1 1600 1 1 491 0.03 _»�! _._ (� 1 ... •O3_ «_.12 « �:�T I I ................ ........... _« i NT I I 1615 I (� I Q I i�s�L I ...._. ...__»...... 0.34 .................. ......_......._._.. C). s ............«— ................ J 4800 ........... ... } I NR I 1 2 I 1 O I .......» ».....O 1 .. ..............._. ..._...._... I SL 1 16001 1 21 0.00 1 d 1 O 1 0.00 1 O 0.001 .............. ..._......._ I f6581 0.3S I i I I p I 1 ST I 48001 I S� J�� �� I G' —a b I I SR 1 N.S. 1 1 164 1 _ 1 ..__..fir..-.... �....__5_ I..__................ � � I......... .I I EL 1 1 481 1 O 1 p I I ....... ..... 3200 ................ .............. 0.15 . --... --- i............. .... . ,� .. � I DI ......... .. ............... .. ................ .. .................. .. » ...:.. ..... . ......._-•» ..... --1 I ER I N.S. 1 1 1531 1 O 1 O 1 I 1 1 I ............... .. ................ .................. .. ................. ....................... .. .............. ............. I ......WL..... .................. ................ 1 0 1 O 1 p 1 1 Q ...... ................ } .............. .... I I WT 16001 1 i 0.00 O 1 0 I 0 .0 0 , 0 1 0,0o I ................ I .. ..... _........ .................. 1 .. ................ ................... .. 1 I WR I 1 0 1 b 1 C) I I 0 I 1 ................ .. ................ .................... .. ...................... .. .............. ........... _.. I I EXISTING I.C.U. I . ........... .................. ................. ................. ...................... I EXISTING.REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.(pto 1 . .. .................. ........................ .. ............... ..._._._... I I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 1 d•(p I 1 rojected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I 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 I_I Projected+project traffic I.C.U.with project improvements will be less than I,C.U.anhout project .................. »._.....»»_. .................. Description of system Improvement: FORM it PROJECT JA4308PM • r t JA4275AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E•W)&MACARTHUR BL(N•S) 427S EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM ( I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement if Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project 11 1 Ratio I ( ( ( 1 I I I I Volume I 1 I I NL 1 16001 1 21S 1 0.13 1 (� 1 1+ 1 .0, I L4- I p 1 O.Jc{ 1 I NT I I 1738 1 SZ 1 1IZ I 1 O 1 I I .......«...- 1 4800 ........__._ ... _«_ 1 0.43 • ...._«....._ _.«_»..._...« 0,4-7 I NR 1 I 338 I 1 0 I 2,g 'I 1 2 1 1 ..__._..... __......._»..------........_ ....... ._._ _.._« ._ .....__...._... .._._...«. _ _........ _......._ «» .. I St. 1 16001 1 791 0.05 2 I gg I O.II -7 1 0. 11 P; I ST 1 4800 1 I 243 1 0.05 1 1 1 109 1 0.07 1 0 1 0.07 1 I SR I N.S. 1 1 1281 1 1+ I LLO ( 1 I I O 1 1 EL ( 3200I I 598I 0.19 I g I 83 I 0_2Z ? O _...__ . _.._........_.. ...... ..« _ .....««_.. _ .__ _.:.... _. 1 1 ET 1 48001 1 11331' 0.24 I 3+ 1 2L-7 1 0 . 1 I 30 1 *1..........�- 0...—. I ER I N.S. 1 1 14S 1 I 4 1 1 (p 1 1 0 1 1 I ................ .................. .....__....... __............. .. ....._._...... .................. ................... ........................ .......«.».._ ............... 1 I WL 1 3200 1 _. 1 ». 137 1 0.04 L� 1 20 1 O. 09 1 2 1 0.05 1 I Wr 1 4800 I .............. 6 53s 1 0.11 1 103 1 I WR I N.S. 1 1 1791 1 S 1 1 ................ ........._....... .................. »............... .................. .................. .................. .. ..................... ................ ............... 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.78 1 I i ................ .. ................ - -.............. ........«........ ................« .................. .. .................. .. ...................... — i I EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 14- 1 1 1 ................ ......_........_ « ...»....._.................. _............._ _................ .................... .. ..«..........»...... .. ..........«.........._..«. I I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 1;d1 fojected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected+project traffic I.C.U.w/systems improvement will be 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 orsystem improvement: PROTECT FORM iI JA4275AM JA427SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RO(E•W)&MACARTHUR BL(N•S) 427S EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM .. ................ .................. ...__..._..._. ................. ....... _...... » ._.......__. ..»....»......._. ........_._»._»... _..»._.....»..__.......... _ I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED i PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume 1 I I ...—............. ......__ .. i NL I 16001 1 21S 1 0.13 1 (o 1 L.F 1 0, 1+ 1 O 1 O.IL� I I NT 1 4 $oOI 1738 1 .52. 1 ( 12 I C),4.0 � � i p,yOl�t 1 1 4800 ....._._».._ ... .. ._..... 1 0.43 • ........._..... ..._ »»» ». .. »..._..».. _ I i NR 1 1fo001 338 I I SL 1 16001 1 791 0.05 • ..... .2 I g$ 1 O . l l n 7 1 0.11 1* I _........_._ »....__.. _�_.._.. .._._._ _ »__ — ......._........ -_ .. . _ ..__.__....». __ __ I I ST 1 48001 1 243 1 0.05 1 7 1 109, 1 p 0.7 1 C7 10,07 1 1 .._.__------- » ---»---------_ -_ .. _._._».._ _ »._r » _...__ --»... »_»...__ I I SR I N.S. 1 1 1281 1 LF 1 41 1 1 0 I I I ................ .. ..........»._ . .............. .............._ .. ....._........... .........._.._._ _ ...»_ _..... ................ .._...._ I I EL 1 3200 1 1 598 1 0.19 ( $ i g 3 1 0 , 22' O 1 0.27—I, I ................ ................. ................. .. .__.....»» ...._..._�. ...._............ ....._ __ .._........_.... »_ » _............ I I ET 1 48001 1 11331 0.24 3d. 1 2-(07 1 0, 30 I .. 10.30 I ............. ............._ 1 ER I N.S. 1 1 145 1 I 1+ 1 1 & I 1 0 1 1 1 —............. .. ................ .................. .. _............. » ..._._._ »».....». ........................ .. ........._... .............. I I WL 1 3200 1 1 1371 0.04 I 2 0 i p,0.5- 1 2 1 (). )S I 1 ..._.......... » ............._ »._ _.._. _............. ..._..».__ ...._» ...._ _._»......._ .. .._ _._.._.._ _............ .. ......__. I I Wr 1 48001 1 535 1 0.11 1 (A 1 103 1 0. 1 L.+ (t.�.I G I ................ » ................ .._.».......... .................. ............_... .. __ ».........»........... .. .............. .. ..........._ I I WR I N.S. I 1 1791 1 5 1 $ 1 1 13 1 1 1 ........»...... .. ................ ................_ .. ............... ............._.. ..—............. .. ................. . .. ...................... _ .............. .. ......».._.. 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.78 1 1 I ................ .. ................ .. ................ .. .............I.. .. .... ..........» .. ................ .. .................. .. ...................... .. 1 EXISTING+REG GROWTH+COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 .8—7 1 1 1 ................ .. .............._ » ......_._... .. .............. _..............» ..............._. ............»...... .. ...................... .. ........... .. ......... _ i I EXISTING+COMMITTED+REGIONAL GROWTH+PROJECT I.C.U. I Q.17 I 1.1 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be less than or equal to 0.90 _ p �1.11 Projected+project traffic I.C.U.will be greater than 0.90 TII Projected+project traffic I.C.U.w/systems improvement will be be less than or equal to 0.90 I.I Projected+project traffic I.C.U.with project improvements will be less than I.C.U.without project ».............. .................. _......_........ .................. ............._... _................ ............_.__ .. ................... Description of system Improvement: — -- -- PROJECT—' FORR M II JA427SAM APPENDIX C TRIP GENERATION STUDY (FEBRUARY 23, 1998) 5180 BIRCH ST.-BURGER KING/FOOD SERVICE TRIP GENERATION STUDY Newport Beach, California \ Y� � yea ti ih .0 n. ,y. l raw X"-J"FM i AU==Mc. • • 4 J I RK K ROBERT KAHN )OHN NAIN &ASSOCIATES INC. February 23, 1998 Mr. Brian W. Price Director of Development BRECKENRIDGE GROUP P.O. Box 80340 30252 Tomas, Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Subject: 5180 Birch Street, Newport Beach Trip Generation Study Dear Mr. Price: INTRODUCTION RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has completed a trip generation study for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility to be located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located at the southwest corner of Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street as shown in Exhibit A. The proposed site plan for the facility Is shown in Exhibit B. The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as a Carrow's high turnover sit-down restaurant. Carrow's restaurant has recently closed and a Burger King and Food Services facility is being planned for the site. The project site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Court which generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the Burger King and Food Services facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a significant portion of patronage will come from walk-in and pass-by traffic. As shown in the site plan the project would include a 3,140 square foot Burger King restaurant with a drive-thru. The site would also include a Food Service facility of 2,570 square feet which is anticipated to be uses which are similar to a high turnover restaurant. The project site includes a total of 64 on-site parking spaces. The purpose of this trip generation study has been to determine the specific trip generation for the proposed site and compare it to the trip generation for the closed Carrow's restaurant. The net trips would represent the difference between the previous and the proposed uses, taking into account the project's trip generation, pass-by and walk-in traffic. The trip generation study has been completed by reviewing available documents regarding trip generation including the ITE (Institute of TRANSPORTATION PLANNING - GIS - TRAFFIC/ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290 - Newport Beach, CA 92660 - Phone: (714) 474-0809 - Fay: (714) 474.0902 EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP P �Q GP yam. 0\�G SITE 1030—B8-01:01A 5180 BIRCH ST. BURGER KING FOOD SERVICE, TRIP GENERATION STUDY, Newport Elmh, C,Iifomio ��,INC. 2 • . t ` EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN 1 ti, , o / Q�.Ir• , i. � II �P i 103D-98-01:021 K . 5180 BIRCH ST:BURGER KING FOOD SERVICE, TRIP GENERATION STUDY, Nowport Beach, Calitomlo NJ BIG 3 Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, SANDAG Trip Generation Report and the City of Newport Beach Trip Generation rates. A review of potential walk-in traffic was based upon a field review of the adjoining Weinerschnitzel fast food restaurant located directly to the south of the site. It is anticipated that significant amount of the project traffic will be walk-in traffic to the fast food facility. FINDINGS 1. The net difference in trip generation between the previous use (Carrow's restaurant) and the proposed Burger King/Food Services facility would be 343 trip-ends per day, with 50 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 16 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. This takes into consideration both the project trip generation, the previous and proposed uses and the potential net reduction as a result of pass-by trips. Trip generation has been determined based upon using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition and pass-by trips percentages estimated by both ITE and SANDAG. 2. It is anticipated that a significant portion of the traffic for both of these uses will come from walk-in traffic from the adjoining Newport Harbor Courthouse. A review of an adjacent fast food restaurant indicates 19% of the patrons were "walk-ins." This could even further reduce trip generation from what is indicated in Item 1 above. 3. Based upon the City's Traffic Model trip generation factors, it is anticipated that the net difference in daily trips would be approximately 309 trip-ends per day. This correlates closely with the ITE Trip Generation rate calculations included in Item 1 above. 4. The net ITE trips and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Model trip generation factors are significantly less than the total trip generation for the site as a result of this significant amount of pass-by and walk-in trips that would occur at the site. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of trips that are produced or attracted by a project. In addition, pass-by trips represent trips that are already on the highway system that divert to the site, but have not made a special trip to the facility. In addition, due to the specific location of the proposed Burger King and Food Services 4 facility which is located within walking distance to the Newport Harbor Courthouse, it is anticipated a substantial amount of walk-in traffic would occur to the site. The primary purpose of this study is to determine the net trips to and from the site to compare the previous Carrow's high turnover sit-down restaurant to the Burger King and Food Services facility. In order to do this, RKJK conducted a review of the professional literature to compare the trip generation rates for the site. This included the ITE Trip Generation Manual, SANDAG Trip Generation Report and City of Newport Beach Traffic Model Generation Assumptions. Additionally, RKJK generated trips utilizing the trip generation computer program developed by MicroTrans which is based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition. The existing and proposed uses for the site are quantified In Table 1. The Carrow's restaurant included 7,500 square feet of building and Is classified as a high turnover sit-down restaurant. The proposed uses include a 3,140 square foot Burger King with a drive-thru and a 2,570 square foot Food Services facility, which is classified as a high turnover sit-down restaurant. Trip generation has been based upon trip rates which occur during the peak hour of the street, which usually occurs between 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM. This is typical practice in the City of Newport Beach and Orange County. Utilizing the trip generation by MicroTrans software, RKJK generated trips for the existing and proposed uses of the site. The trip generation printouts are included In Appendix "A". The Trip Generation rates used for this study are included in Table 2. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 3. The trip generation included in Table 3 does not take 'into account pass-by or diverted and additional pedestrian oriented trips which are a result of,the specific location of the site. The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip-ends per day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed uses would generate 1,893 trip-ends per day with 180 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 133 vehicles per hourduring the PM peak hour. In order to properly assess the net difference In trip generation'between the existing and proposed uses,the actual net trip generation must be determined. This takes into account both the overall trip generation and the net trip reduction as a result of pass- by/diverted trips and walk-in trips. RKJK has reviewed various publications with respect to these factors. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition included substantial documentation on pass-by and diverted trips for fast food restaurants. The ITE studies indicated pass-by trips ranged from 25 to 56.percent with an average 5 F • • TABLE 1 LAND USES TYPE SIZE (TSF) Existing Use Carrows High Turnover Restaurant 7.50 Pr000sed Uses Burger King Fast Food W/Drive-Thru 3.14 Food Service High Turnover Restaurant 2.57 6 x TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES PEAK-HOUR RATES AM PM LAND USE UNITS IN OUT IN OUT DAILY High Turnover Sit-Down TSF 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 130.34 Restaurants Fast Food Restaurant TSF 25.43 24.43 17.41 16.07 496.12 W/Drive Thru 7 TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY [Carrows 36 33 49 33 978 PROPOSED USES PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Burger King 80 77 55 50 1,558 Food Service 12 11 17 11 1 335 TOTAL 92 88 72 61 1,893 DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 36 33 49 33 978 Proposed Use 92 88 72 61 1,893 Difference +56 +55 +23 +28 +915 8 • 0 % r of 43 percent for seven (7) fast food restaurants. SANDAG, in their trip generation report, indicates that fast food restaurants have a pass-by rate of 40 percent, while sit-down restaurants have a pass-by/diverted rate of approximately 20 percent. RKJK also reviewed the additional trip reduction which may occur as a result of walk- in traffic to the site, due to the proximity of the existing Newport Harbor Court. At the present time, there is a Weinerschnitzel fast food restaurant located directly south of the proposed project. Field observations during the noon hour indicated that nearly 19 percent of the persons entering and exiting the site occurs as a result of walk-in traffic. These persons did not drive to the site. This value Is significant and would be typical for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility, due to their proximity to the near-by Newport Harbor Court. As a result of these factors, RKJK felt it was applicable to utilize the factor of at least 45 percent for the pass-by/diverted and walk-in traffic for the fast food'restaurant and approximately 20 percent for the sit-down high turnover restaurant. The net trip generation for both the existing Carrow's restaurant and the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility is shown in Table 5. The Carrow's restaurant would generate a net trip generation of 782 trip-ends per day with 55 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 65 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed use would generate 1,125 net trip-ends per day with 105 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 81 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The net difference in trip generation between the proposed and existing use of the site is also shown in Table 5. The proposed use would result in a net increase in trip generation of 343 trip-ends per day with 50 vehicles-per hour during the AM peak hour and 16 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates. In,order to compare the results of this analysis with data developed by the City of Newport Beach, RKJK has obtained the trip generation rates utilized in the City of Newport Beach's traffic model. The traffic model does not necessarily categorize the restaurant uses in the detail as the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It does include trip rates which do account for trip reduction due to pass-by and diverted other factors. For a fast food restaurant, a trip rate of 142 trip-ends per 1,000 square feet per day is utilized and for sit-down restaurant and value of 66.9 trip-ends per 1,000 square feet is utilized. Based upon these factors, the net difference in trip generation would be approximately 309 trip-ends per day. This value is close to the value which has been calculated and shown in Table 5, based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates. 9 TABLE 4 WEINERSCHNITZEL NEWPORT BEACH NOONTIME TRAVEL MODES PERSON TRIPS DRIVE-THRU PARK/WALK-IN WALK-IN ONLY TOTAL TIMEFRAME IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT Noon - 1:00 PM 75 75 48 50 26 31 E149 156 TOTAL In & Out 150 98 59 305 TOTAL In & Out 49.2 32.1 18.7 100.0 Percentage l%) 10 • • S 1 TABLE 5 NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS-BY TRIPS EXISTING USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS-BY % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Carrows 20 29 26 39 26 782 PROPOSED USE PEAK-HOUR AM PM PASS By % IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Burger King 45% 44 42 30 28 857 Food Services 20% 10 9 14 9 268 TOTAL 54 51 44 37 1,125 NET DIFFERENCE PEAK-HOUR AM PM' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Existing Use 29 26 39 26 782 Proposed Use 54 51 44 37 1,125 DIFFERENCE +25 +25 +5 +11 +343 11 • • CONCLUSIONS RKJK has completed a trip generation study for the proposed Burger King and Food Service facility to be located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. Based upon this study, the project would generate approximately 343 trip-ends per day more than what was previously generated on the site, based upon net trip-ends. This trip generation value can be utilized in determining the appropriate City traffic fees for the site. RKJK appreciates this opportunity to provide this review of trip generation for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility with the BRECKENRIDGE GROUP. Please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, RKJK & ASSOCIATES, 9 FESSIpnq`� � m Robert Kahn, P.E. NO 0555 9 Principal EXP W/01 RK:nam/7814 srq oAa� JN:1030-98-01 Attachments 12 P ENDI A P XA TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS CARROWS SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 7.5 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF HIGH TURNOVER (SIT-DOWN) RESTAURANT 2/13/98 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 130.34 43.77 1.00 978 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 4.82 0.00 1.00 36 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 4.45 0.00 1.00 33 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 9.27 7.46 1.00 70 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 6.52 0.00 1.00 49 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 4.34 0.00 1.00 33 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 10.86 9.83 1.00 81 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 158.37 0.00 1.00 1188 PK HR ENTER 12.60 0. 00 1.00 95 PK HR EXIT 7.40 0.00 1.00 56 PK HR TOTAL 20. 00 16.54 1.00 150 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 131.84 0.00 1.00 989 PK HR ENTER 10.15 0. 00 1.00 76 PK HR EXIT 8.31 0.00 1. 00 62 PK HR TOTAL 18.46 13.74 1.00 138 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS i BURGER KING • SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 3.14 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU 2/19/98 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 496.12 242.52 1.00 1558 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 25.43 0.00 1.00 80 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 24.43 0.00 1.00 77 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 49.86 29.60 1.00 157 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 17.41 0..00 1.00 55 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 16.07 0.00 1.00 50 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 33 .48 19.25 1.00 105 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 722.03 295.62 1.00 2267 PK HR ENTER 30.04 0.00 1.00 94 PK HR EXIT 28.87 0.00 1.00 91 PK HR TOTAL 58.91 23.95 1.00 185 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 542.72 206.86 1.00 1704 PK HR ENTER 34.92 0.00 1.00 110 PK HR EXIT 37.82 0.00 1.00 119 PK HR TOTAL 72.74 11.95 1.00 228 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS { • FOOD SERVICE SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 2.57 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF HIGH TURNOVER (SIT-DOWN) RESTAURANT 2/19/98 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 130.34 43.77 1.00 335 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 4.82 0.00 1.00 12 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 4.45 0.00 1.00 11 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 9.27 7.46 1.00 24 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 6.52 0.00 1.00 17 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 4.34 0.00 1.00 11 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 10.86 9.83 1.00 28 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 158.37 0.00 1.00 407 PK HR ENTER 12.60 0.00 1.00 32 PK HR EXIT 7.40 0.00 1.00 19 PK HR TOTAL 20.00 16.54 1.00 51 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 131.84 0.00 1.00 339 . PK HR ENTER 10.15 0.00 1.00 26 PK HR EXIT 8.31 0.00 1.00 21 PK HR TOTAL 18.46 13 .74 1.60 47 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS FOOD SERVICES - FAST FOOD W/O DRIVETHRU SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 2.57 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT W/O DRIVE THRU 2/19/98 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR-WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 716.00 0.00 1.00 1840 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 26.32 0.00 1.00 68 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 17.55 0.00 1.00 45 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 43.87 0.00 1.00 113 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 13.34 0.00 1.00 34 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 12.81 0.00 1.00 33 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 26.15 10.51 1.00 67 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 696.00 0.00 1.00 1789 PK HR ENTER 26.73 0.00 1.00 69 PK HR EXIT 27.82 0.00 1.00 71 PK HR TOTAL 54.55 0.00 1.00 140 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 500.00 0.00 1.00 1285 PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PK HR TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS J APPENDIX D PARKING STUDY (APRIL 20, 1998) • • \ 5180 BIRCH ST.-BURGER KING/FOOD SERVICE PARKING STUDY Newport Beach, California a A \ O Al 1• ' \ �h f l LKJ K--- K ROBERT R KAHN•JOHN KAIN &ASSOCIAK TES INC. April 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Price BRECKENRIDGE GROUP P.O. Group 80340 30252 Tomas, Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Subject: Burger King (5180 Birch Street), Newport Beach Parking Study Dear Mr. Price: INTRODUCTION The firm of RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to provide the BRECKENRIDGE GROUP this parking study for your proposed Burger King to be located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The revised Burger King building is estimated to include 2,530 square feet of building. The adjoining food service facility would include 2 spaces of 1,285 square feet each with a net public space of 617 square feet (48%) within each of two spaces. Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Engineering Department, a survey of existing fast food restaurants with drive-throughs was conducted to determine the appropriate parking rate for the proposed fast food portion of the proposed site. Since the proposed site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators (i.e., Newport Harbor Court, offices, etc.), the following three sites were selected to represent conditions where a high degree of walk-in traffic would occur. Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach, the following three sites were surveyed during three mid-week time frames (Tuesday through Thursday, April 7 through 9, 1998): • Burger King = 2,130 sq. ft. of building 701 North Main Street Santa Ana, CA • Der Weinerschnitzel = 2,295 sq. ft. of building 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA I RA,tiF(>R I I R).\ I'I•\\NI\, . . td� • IR\11 It At ! 4SIA V I\UI\IIW."t. Io01 Ilya• Yw,q tiuii.. _„i! Nrin v: i;i•m •, t \ • !,dd! 1'hnn,• .'1.: 1-.!.O:Snn Ids. .-la .-.1. „t! . EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP P O� Jam' Q 6� yti. SITE f rusD—GB—Dzmin 518D BIRCH ST. BURGFR KING FOOD.SERVICE, PARKING STUDY, NG PDrt Baach, call amia 1,�, 2 • • • Taco Bell = 2,397 sq. ft. of building 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA The parking survey was conducted over a three day period to adequately assess the peak parking demand at the three sites. Parking was monitored during the hours of 11 AM to 2 PM at 15 minute intervals, which reflects the peak period for the three sites. The forms used to collect the parking survey data are similar to Table 1. The completed parking survey.forms are included in Appendix "A". Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach, a parking survey can be utilized as an alternative to the City's parking code for these types of uses. Since the proposed site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators (i.e., Newport Harbor Court, offices, etc.), increased amount of walk-in traffic may be expected at the proposed Burger King. The City of Newport Beach parking code requirements for fast food restaurants are 1 space per 50 square feet of building plus 1 space for each peak employee. Based upon the City's parking code, 60 spaces would be required assuming nine (9) peak hour employees during the noon period. The parking requirements for the food services building has been based upon the City requirements for a full service small scale restaurant. This type of facility is limited to 25 seats with no live entertainment and a net public area of less than 1,000 square feet per restaurant. The parking 'requirements for these facilities is based upon 1 space per 3 seats. FINDINGS The following findings were made with respect to the parking survey. 1. There was substantial variation in parking demand between the three sites. The Newport Beach Taco Bell represented the highest parking demand of the three sites with a peak parking demand of approximately 25.9 spaces per thousand square feet of building. The Burger King in Santa Ana had the lowest parking demand with a peak parking demand rate of 9.4 spaces per thousand square feet of building. The size of buildings for the three survey sites is relatively similar with a range of 2,130 square feet to 2,397 square feet. 2. The Newport Beach Taco Bell appears to be one of the most successful fast food restaurants with respect to overall demand. 3. The average peak parking demand rate for the three sites was 16.85 spaces per thousand square feet of building. Based upon this rate, the proposed 2,530 square foot Burger King building would require 43 spaces to meet peak parking 3 TABLE'1 PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: Land Use: Address: Building Sq. Ft.: Number of Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SO. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % s FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 Noon , 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 'RK:nam/8010 JN:1030.98.02 Date: April 7, 1998 1 Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces. 2 'Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. 4 • • demand. An additional two spaces is recommended to provide some overage, for a total of 45 spaces. While this amount of parking is less than the existing Newport Beach parking code, it is anticipated to be adequate given the location of the site and the propensity for walk-in traffic. Another recently constructed Burger King in San Juan Capistrano, utilized a parking rate of 1 space per 60 square feet, which would result in a similar parking requirement as the average of the three peak parking demand rates in this survey. 4. The parking requirement for the food services building (two 1,285 square foot spaces) is estimated to be 18 spaces based upon the City's parking code requirement for full service small scale restaurants. 5. Total parking for the entire site including the Burger King and the food services facility would be 45 + 18 = 63 spaces. FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING SURVEY An on-site parking survey of fast food with potential walk-in traffic was conducted at three sites between April 7 and April 9, 1998 (Tuesday through Thursday). The three project survey sites were selected at a meeting with the City of Newport Beach staff. Each of the three sample sites had the potential for more walk-in traffic than a typical fast food restaurant. The parking demand data was collected at 15 minute intervals during the time frame of 11 AM to 2 PM. Additionally, the building square footages were obtained from the appropriate public agencies. A summary of the fast food restaurant parking demand is included in Table 2. The detailed parking survey sheets are included in Appendix "A". As shown in Table 2, the maximum parking demand for the Burger King ranged from 19 to 21 spaces; for the Der Weinerschnitzel ranged from 22 to 34 spaces; and for the Taco Bell ranged from 56 to 62 spaces. The parking provided at each of these facilities was as follows: • Burger King = 54 spaces • Der Weinerschnitzel = 39 spaces • Taco Bell = 66 spaces The peak parking demand was contained with the existing available spaces at each of the project survey sites. Parking demand rates were determined for each of the survey sites. A summary of the hourly and maximum parking demand for each site is included in Table 3. The parking demand rates are expressed in terms of parking spaces per thousand square feet of building. The Burger King peak parking demand ranged from 8.92 to 8.86 5 • • . r TABLE 2 FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY BURGER KING DER WEINERSCHNITZEL TACO BELL BLDG. = 2.130 TSF' BLDG. = 2.295 TSF BLDG.= 2.397 TSF TIME TUES. WED. THURS. TUES. WED. THURS. TUES. WED. THURS. 11:00 AM 8 18 51 4 2 4 34 34 29 11:15 AM 8 19 9 9 4 12 33 35 38 11:30 AM 10 15 11 12 8 11 40 46 41 11:45 AM 11 18 12 16 23 17 45 55 51 12:00 NOON 12 12 11 28 24 20 51 58 61 12:15 PM _ 10 9 20 34 24 22 56 51 61 12:30 PM 14 16 17 24 25 21 54 48 62 12:45 PM 16 14 17 28 21 21 46 48 52 1:00 PM 20 9 21 19 17 18 45 42 45 1:16 PM 16 5 11 24 16 19 43 44 56 1:30 PM 14 10 8 1s 19 10 50 48 49 1:45 PM 12 11 6 12 17 7 38 441 38 2:00 PIVII 111 8 8 8 16 6 38 45 38 Maximum Parking Demandl 20 19 21 34 25 22 56 58 82 TSF=thousand square feet of building 6 • • TABLE 3 FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND RATE PER TSF' BURGER KING DER WEINERSCHNITZEL TACO BELL BLDG. = 2.130 TSF2 BLDG. = 2.295 TSF BLDG. = 2.397 TSF IT IME TUES. WED. THURS. TUES. WED. THURS. TOES. WED. I THURS. 11:00 AM 3.756 8.451 2.347 1.743 0.871 1.743 14.184 14.184 12.098 11:15 AM 3.756 8.920 4.225 3.922 1.743 5.229 13.767 14.602 15.853 11:30 AM 4.695 7.042 5.164 5.229 3.486 4.793 16.688 19.191 17.105 11:45 AM 5.164 8.451 5.634 6.972 10.022 7.407 18.773 22.945 21.277 12:00 NOON 5.634 5.634 5.164 12.200 10.458 8.715 21.277 24.197 25.448 12:15 PM 4.695 4.225 9.390 14.815 10.458 9.586 23.363 21.277 25.448 12:30 PM 6.573 7.512 7.981 10.458 10.893 9.150 22.528 19.191 25.866 12:45 PM 7.512 6.5731 7.981 12.2001 9.150 9.150 19.191 20.025 21.694 1:00 PM 9.390 4.225 9.859 8.279 7.407 7.843 18.773 17.522 18.773 1:15 PM 7.512 2.347 5.164 10.458 6.972 8.279 17.939 18.356 23.363 1:30 PM 6.573 4.695 3.756 6.536 8.279 4.357 20.859 20.025 20.442 1:45 PM 5.634 5.164 2.817 5.229 7.407 3.6601 15.853 18.356 15.853 2:00 PM 3.756 2.817 3.756 3.4861 6.972 2.6141 15.853 18.773 15.853 Maximum Parking Demand 9.390 8.920 9.859 14.815 10.893 9.586 23.363 24.197 25.866 Parking spaces per thousand square feet(TSF). 2 TSF=thousand square feet of building 7 • 46 11 . . spaces per thousand square feet; Der Weinerschnitzel ranged from 9.59 to 14.82 spaces per thousand square feet; and the Taco Bell ranged from 23.36 to 25.87 spaces per thousand square feet. As can be see by the survey data,the Taco Bell had substantially greater parking demand than either of the two other survey sites. This particular Taco Bell has one of the greatest overall demand for a fast food facility in this area. A summary of the peak parking demand rates at the three survey sites Is included in Table 4. The average.parking demand rates (non-weighted) would be 16.85 spaces per thousand square feet. This rate represents a 'level greater than the lowest and middle survey site, but less than the demand rate generated by the Taco Bell facility. This level of demand is most appropriate to utilize for calculating the expected parking demand for the proposed Burger King site. The currently proposed Burger King is expected to be 2,530 square feet. Based upon that square footage and the average peak parking demand rate, it would be anticipated that the Burger King would require a minimum of 43 spaces. This would cover the maximum peak demand expected during the noon hour. Some additional spaces (approximately 5% - 2 spaces) should be provided as an overage factor to account for variations in peak demand. This would yield a total of 45 spaces for the Burger King. FOOD SERVICES FACILITY PARKING REQUIREMENT The proposed food services facility building would consist of a total of 2 spaces with a total building square footage of 2,570 square feet. it is anticipated that two full service small scale restaurants would occupy these spaces for a total of 1,285 square feet each. Based upon the preliminary architectural plans, the public use spaces will be approximately 48% of the space or approximately 617 square feet for each restaurant. The City of Newport Beach parking code permits full service small scale restaurants to be parked at 1 spaces per three seats, however, use restrictions are required including: (1) a limitation to a maximum of 25 seats, (2) no live entertainment and (3) net public spaces of less than 1,000 square feet. Each of the two proposed food service restaurants would have to meet these criteria. It Is anticipated that at least one of the food services facilities would be a breakfast oriented restaurant (i.e., bagel or muffin shop) which would have its peak parking demand occur in the early morning. This would not conflict with the proposed Burger King fast food restaurant would have a noon hour peak parking demand. 8 TABLE 4 FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS SUMMARY OF PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATES' PEAK PEAK BUILDING PARKING PARKING SITE SIZE S s DEMAND DEMAND' Bu er King 2.1301 211 9.859 Per Weinerschnitzel 2.2951 341 14.815 Taco Bell 2.3971 621 25.866 Avera a Three 3 Sites 2.2741 391 16.847 Parking spaces per thousand square feet (fSF). 2 TSF=thousand square feet of building 9 Assuming a maximum of 25 seats for each of the two full service small scale restaurants, it Is anticipated that a maximum parking requirement of 9 spaces each for a total of 18 spaces would be required for the food service facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made with respect to the overall site: 1. The 2,530 square foot Burger King should provide approximately 45 parking spaces to accommodate peak parking demand. 2. The two full service small scale restaurants should provide a total of 18 parking spaces. These two restaurants would have to be limited to 25 or fewer seats each, have no live entertainment and have less than 1,000 square feet of public space each. S. Total parking for the entire (Burger King and food services facility) site would be 63 spaces. 4. The site design for the Burger King should be reviewed to insure that adequate drive-through lane capacity is available queuing to insure that all'on-site parking spaces can be accessed. Based upon previous studies completed by RKJK, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive-through lane is necessaryto insure ue adequate storage in the fast food drive-through lane. CONCLUSIONS RKJK has completed a parking survey of fast food restaurants for the proposed 5180 Jamboree Burger King site. Based upon this study parking demand has been estimated and recommendations with respect to specific amount of parking for the sit e has been recommended. If you y have any questions regarding this or need further review, give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, RKJK & ASSOCIAT ESS(pn,9� T k9yy�y2 5 9 Robert Kahn, P: EXP 12/31101 Principal * Ir sTq� AF�P��P RK:kgd/8010 O C N:1030-98-02 Attachments 10 1 a l • • APPENDIX A PARKING SURVEY WORKSHEETS r BURGER KING PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/7/98 (Tuesday) Land Use: Burger King Address: 701 North Main Street Newport Beach,CA 92660 Building 2,130 Sq. Ft.: Numberof 24 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % s FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 8 33.33% 3.76 11:15 AM 8 33,33% 3.76 11:30 AM 10 41.67% 4.69 11:46 AM 11 45.83% 5.16 12:00 Noon 12 50.00% 5.63 12:15 PM 10 41.67% 4.69 12:30 PM 14 58.33% 6:57 12:45 PM 16 6637% 7.51 1:00 PM 20 83.33% 9.39 1:15 PM 16 66.67% 7.51 1:30 PM 141 58.33% 6.57 1,45 PM 12 50.00% 5.63 2:00 PM 8 33.33% 3.78 Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces, 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces�occupied. l t 4 • • • BURGER KING PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/8/98 (Wednesday) Land Use: Burger King Address: 701 North Main Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,130 Sq. Ft.: Number of 24 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SO. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % z FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 18 75.00% 8.45 11:15 AM 19 79.17% 8.92 11:30 AM 15 62.50% 7.04 11:45 AM 18 75.00% 8.45 12:00 Noon 12 50.00% 5.63 12:15 PM 9 37.60% 4.23 12:30 PM 16 66.67% 7.51 12:45 PM 14 58.33% 6.57 1:00 PM 9 37.50% 4.23 1:15 PM 5 20.83% 2.35 1:30 PM 101 41.67% 4.69 1:45 PM 11 45.83% 5.16 200 PM 6 25.00% 2.82 Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. •2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. i • 4. BURGER KING PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/9/98 (Thursday) Land Use: Burger King Address: 701 North Main Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,130 Sq.FL: Number of 24 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. ' TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % s FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 5 20.83% 2.35 11:15 AM 9 37.50% 4.23 11:30 AM 11 45.83% 5.16 11:45 AM 12 50.00% 5.63 12:00 Noon 11 45:83% 5.16 12:15 PM 20 83,33% 9.39 12:30 PM 17 70.83% 7.98 12:45 PM 17 70.83% 7.98 1:00 PM 21 87.50% 9.86 1:15 PM 11 45:83% 5.16 1:30 PM 81 33.33% 3.76 1*45 PM 8 25.00% 2.82 2:00 PM 8 33.33% 3.76 Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. o . • • DER WEINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4M98 (Tuesday) Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel Address: 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,295 Sq. Ft.: Number of 39 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES OCCUPANCY % 2 FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 4 10.26% 1.74 11:15 AM 9 23.08% 3.92 11:30 AM 12 30.77% 5.23 11:45 AM 16 41.03% 6.97 12:00 Noon 28 71.79% 12.20 12:15 PM 34 87.18% 14.81 12:30 PM 24 61.54% 10.46 12:45 PM 28 71.79% 12.20 1:00 PM 19 48.72% 8.28 1:15 PM 24 61.54% 10.46 1:30 PM 15 38.46% 6.54 1:45 PM 12 30.77% 5.23 2:00 PM 8 20.51%1 3.49 Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. • • 4• DER WEINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/8/98 (Wednesday) Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzei Address: 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,295 Sq. Ft.: Number of 39 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 So. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 2 5.13% 0.87 11,15 AM 4 10.26% 1.74 11:30AM 8 20.51% 3.49 11:45 AM 23 58.97% 10.02 12:00 Noon 24 61.54% 10.46 12:15 PM 24 61.54% 10.46 12:30 PM 25 64.10% 10.89 12:45 PM 21 5185% 9.15 1:00 PM 17 43.59% 7.41 1:15 PM 16 41.03% 6.97 1:30-PM 19 48.72% 8.28 1:45 PM 17 43.59% 7.41 2:00 PM 16 41.03% 6.97 Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. 1 pJ + • DER WEINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/9/98 (Thursday) Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel Address: 4501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,295 Sq. Ft.: Number of 39 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % s FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 4 10.26% 1.74 11:15 AM 12 30.77% 5.23 11:30 AM 11 28.21% 4.79 11:45 AM 17 43.59% 7.41 12:00 Noon 20 51.28% 8.71 12:15 PM 22 56.41% 9.59 12:30 PM 21 53.85% 9.15 12:45 PM 21 53.85% 9.15 1:00 PM 18 46.15% 7.84 1:15 PM 19 48.72% 8.28 1:30 PM 10 25.64% 4.36 1:45 PM 7 17.95% 3.05 2:00 PM 6 15.38% 2.61 Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/7/98(Tuesday) Land Use: Taco Bell Address: 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,397 Sq.Ft.: Numberof 66 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % s FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 34 51.52% 14.18 1115 AM 33 50.00% 13.77 11:30 AM 40 60.61% 16.69 11:45 AM 45 68.18% 18.77 12:00 Noon 51 77.27% 21.28 12:15 PM 56 84.85% 23.36 12:30 PM 54 81.82% 22.53 12:46 PM 46 69.70% 19.19 1:00 P.M 45 68.18% 18.77 1:15 PM 43 65.15% 17.94 1:30 PM 501, 7S.76%I 20.88 1:45 PM 38 57.58% 15.85 2:00 PM 38 57.58% 15.85 RK:nam/8010 JN:1030-98.02 Date: April 7, 1998 Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/8/98 (Wednesday) Land Use: Taco Bell Address: 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,397 Sq. Ft.: Number of 66 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES OCCUPANCY % 2 FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 34 51.52% 14.18 11:15 AM 35 53.03% 14.60 11:30 AM 46 69.70% 19.19 11:45 AM 55 83.33% 22.95 12:00 Noon 58 87.88% 24.20 12:15 PM 51 77.27% 21.28 12:30 PM 46 69.70% 19.19 12:45 PM 48 72.73% 20.03 1:00 PM 42 63.64% 17.52 1:15 PM 44 66.67% 18.36 1:30 PM 481 72.73% 20.03 1:45 PM 44 66.67% 18.36 2:00 PM 45 68.18% 18.77 Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces. 2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied. TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY Date of Survey: 4/9/98 (rhursday) Land Use: Taco Bell Address: 4101 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Building 2,397 Sq. Ft.: Numberof 66 Parking Spaces: TOTAL PARKING PERCENT DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ. TIME TOTAL VEHICLES' OCCUPANCY % 2 FT. OF BUILDING 11:00 AM 29 43.94% 12.10 11:15 AM 38 57.58% 15.85 11:30 AM 41 62.12% 17.10 11:45 AM 51 77.27% 21.28 12:00 Noon 61 92.42% 25.45 12:15 PM 61 92:42% 25.45 12:30 PM 62 93.94% 25.87 12AS PM 52 78.79% 21.69 1:00 PM 45 68.18% 18.77 1:15 PM 56 84.85% 23.36 1:30 PM 491 74.24% 20.44 1,45 PM 38 57.58% 15.85 2:00 PM 1 38 57.58% 15.85 ' Number of vehicles parking In parking spaces. 2 Percentage of•the total parking spaces occupled. s rn ul C ed co 0g -76.cd eualw flF£ Lug� ICU �n i W p = jC--;• —i� OD ' W K ?�' I 2 re - E�f7�-GAR t~p _-IICIf IITY._MAF? M 1 1 - sit_t r-T A o Exis)1NG W�aNEI�NNI I i — I� ' eo�as i I U a ® I 1 LA w U I I I m w _ I i�i t In Q 3P�rp ;nnaa _ r U m . 41,w - m � CO a- At MIA C(�KEFIRILY£' GFOl.IP .. � B+T-� 2O2.f2'TDlA4�i,f�l-1RE BCD- I � '4Af.(f/S"MARC-ARII• CJ�..92G66- __ �• __ _ - : , 14)5PA=T325 FP%(714)�+466'1 -TAMWRE6 sN•-w ,. 61TE -DATA- .- FIOV15W EUILDII:IG AMA 16,COW rLWK ARPA W.TIo - 119 , �AlID5C1A1:lG - 28.2% I ,I�d�`-�-. LiINnJG - PA�IIFIG : vo.696 - w rrewa 5eA75 _ EuYtrIWG HEIGHT- a�,rd 5.1 snaa ` BUgGEK•.KING .2531-6f .11950F 1 3G.' ZO- - - L�I.Me$L�F SEATS 13d>: F �, Wa6p_ •f .. 112foQ '- T590' 4115 : 25 .- .-_.. 'E KWG K;wm ED- Q3 r•�. I.EPCEf+PPCC 2 _��2�L�2�'�— _6gq• -'22 74%UWG_ _- Fr— • I TORY:__�O415F bF-..'E59a `.+P .)� - FARKING F_RO_AMDLO,yFEtZ396F NECRRLICAFFK W �2 W M L0i6 P�:R-/V336 Nq ill uu1 Ilp I - I C_1 rn ul Ai Y V 0 J! «s 0 __ b.Cd "_ 6 E�C+IV• •ro lr�vu •. � ✓ _ Pe y i I Cox PY, F:- FPf ce qy rlrzrtrara�- 1 .;c vitm m xae y cn,. YM. PnaK c::T � 1.. 0 WE,Mr _ i � 5 Ell �y • a C' ' F2t7D 56RvEGE i QL .4 — — - Ems: OO MVG I*fl.0 I eo cGq5 " I fI =. NI-JCC= U I _ trt's'M. •,� , m bt 00 TO � � �AFIET�RE6 BL�/D a PUNf]NGNOTR4_.___"_ �FIS7}�Y(y�.E,'--I•� _`.- _ 1. PROVIDfi�CUBICYARDS0FNH80L6mWO013ttMV1NG§AND]WOFI6 - FERTR]ZEREGRIMSF.OFEWMNGARA&ROTOTB.LINTMTOP,b INCHM '•�IIR r'✓� rr�vry{Eet<�pD 2 SARBPACRTREEWNH2-SDIAMEMR%1BTP.MgrARES718DINTY.'OPIACFS Teo 512055 g WIfHCINCHTI 1&t,&4 % 3. ASEARTOFLAN ALLMOVIDSC���TY'MTABUSIIMEM MAtnr ANCEPM013 - =y _ _ _a__ Yl rp• ND 3 1 CONTRAMRSHAUGUARA FLAN TERA FORONEOIYFARFAOM I r, 1RC.4` DATEOFOWNERACCEPPANCR - 5 PROWDEI-1/TLAYEROFSHREDDEDBARKASTOPDRESSINGFORAILPLAMM M AREAS L-1 co uj 20-r f 32'-5' 14'-S Ilr In- W-3 1/2' 112- 3-1 Y 14-9 9- W-T S.-V 5, w 12'-T co g od CO 2" Cl DO DOnHDLr=I WR K E) 0 .12�M 11 B C- 0- 1 S� e b CHDORDO D O.C. u N.0 GC.TOF��Aj b b 2'M C)0 O O O O WFFTT AT I. OFFVAw I-TAr, =IF F F. N a. SAFE!IN I.C. III MR LEI 9 L G C. To SIT. CIE) 46! 3 DIMM ROOM III I.L-wm `A DOODII Cl= Ell WIe, Go.10 P U W-4112 d EADOOD Ou � 3 SERVING 2 LLL- KNIMEN m 23--(X DRIVE-THRU b fo-Ol Di(D L-rL 1� 3'-,.�DOHDO DODCJHDro A rP P�2LMA 2-CY W -MA .!)'2S io ----IMF aHi1NG EO. E4 - -4- 10-6 Ilr 27 27-W W. 24--w VWY FACE OF SN TO FACE 6 S1LB FLOOR PLAN 1.5.1l ST 5. li 4V-98 SRIYb momm ft-M rn co (o <.CD , Ira ew le•-0 a•-0 u•-0 O e a 4 Q e < �R © Q � 41 LU b • J.YIW J.XiLI,i 1 b _ i � I ' I I KITCHEN 91 KITCHEN I _ 678 SO. FT 684 S0. FT. i v ❑ I LU I � � I I 4 2 0 \\ B FOOD SERVICE i \ 12 FOOD SERVCE 2 1 \1,242 SO. FT.E)NII EJH[I El y / i DINING &1 (28-SEATS \ 0 590 S0. FT. \\ I I [1c] R ❑� AING N2 (22-SEAT5c] E 556 S0. FT _ Y 1 4 O I g ______________ i Y-Y Y Y yr•d• 9•S Y Y U•-0 Y Y Y-Y 5-14 577S5 Vd'•IVG4 eY-0 C4IRIIIMM A-1.1 I mffM A w NIX 0 1 < 01 x wu sx+wlc.l �U sc svu TFV%TE art EXTERIOR PAINT SPECIFICATIONS 0 � roa susut mxPumcx]AH memo.Pun mmwctm U e�( �r'��( ((�� M a x sa}r]Etx ��i�ors��wnxc ua mu]nirtwxc• 2 5 10191 LRfW NMI Ytm U U ri V O mll�.4itl1 mNi-QhiHYt WFk SFm-0.0A a • O'fA0.Q]O6A W]NA3RG � COldt Ti2J5 i�Om.-(]WU3) CDri, P mJil IXImbOR LVIX SrY1i05S(2 Cwi2) r OR IS'-9'BOm.OF$Ofilf - 9AM1 mH']IS-I]O31'HILE' FI(ImMf LVOt Sb-WOSS(x WIR) b 1 m !'] TII0A0 SSIPI P0.JOIIOI2 2[O'.15/IIW1-w]n=T'mtTFXS TIR[/d' mry !] � O(IIXf.U1UN0)A`O x COAR'OIOPf -CIF/R SFII➢i 10POpV1) 5 b urtln[Rw'vuron uar' 8'-2'TO SIOAm1101R -'T O P]emL AvwG-mD a, \` �` �- Pa Pxlwdi wmwa mom, JW�R mx �� 1� 1� e\ 4\ v\ ta�Ow r¢Pm l0 nxml wT[mus USf „ S-O'TOP❑M O S PV°�E L U V-0'i0P OP SVB 0'-o'T( Of V ¢ t mlmman mmcs Ho¢mx® u� m mn yrx!°�°$1i°m°1'rem uo�svauomuumi o F 1 Imo r.v •m.Hmens i OD � RlONT 9,EYAi1011 P me var v o xMURM LETK 3 I^� nl V V �Vvv 1IP W PNNA I _ 8FEEH b t b 1111111 11111 111111 till I5 T.0 omen v-0 ] o smma r-r 0 IT w m�nlP. O amim 1 exee]meusu xry�1 ❑ ❑❑❑ H.3° b b O3 3 rmar]elsa fi•b-0 w�ma® vr O T Wm e xW]YO765m �lDCtl mots ,. PMT lamMm3 ImL1Ol n�JW 5168iHS9mIHA �� ]q�HBT°�m3 5.M-% 5no 5 va••r-0' - /�,1 �II�N ENTRANCE ElEYA710N auwlaxa -Z a 4 tW- m e J 6P b WO V co e EXTERIOR PAIM SPECIFlCKIONS 0 O Nn suaNz vvvJJunox Jro vawc,vurt caax.acn 0 (SI 9tLLL%FFN m YCOIXI T]NaIG kD NNIOMINC' v ] ew�u,mN v<e � �sisIIQmcF•(n��)rtx sm-m]s p 4 ,r-o']ov a uux rinar nri2rrt �+'�u]os-uoowxm Isa'm¢• F �_____ __� onrsm urtx ma-noss(�26gars) I I - mww]ura siuAt2aaas(2 b J C J I - O IEi11 SCgf]tf5-9fRR(M f�-IXI�f1ULFL 2 CJl6k 9NNd I61G OR C 0 7 vMS S.0 NA91G — O(If%f CdI1G) ICIS nCdR NW-%]�rli (LlMi�"rirb• Ilion" E M.1 9-• rt O4 COICT2IE SNICC fiKf 110: urtnc ila vvttN aaY _ rJmc JJrtem-xm su Nnvac rN2xc c.J .� 1 PPM IBP WE " NOTE Eim3RNIB .p - WfY16iR @6d1i4PR� O OR. P}M NFG� � WOt LOLC eYr3fW YACWIS 161� mn]m Natwe,uc : A 0 o'-o•]av a sue o t U earn m gl Olf CC6.P/O N81W NMaW! � � �1 REAR ELEVA710N � a 9CNE IIM11 O I 0� 0MC3C3C#L3 s•,s'susruc uoUam aoac� euacm ac ao(xicl yN.Y.66..w r_6 ie P RWE IyJ1I0 W Q ] ------ , e J e J — — 7 — — — WF d 8'-2'TO 5)gR9Mr Q FTc i6. i6 b f xf Nr�+ns,am E®0�NJB \ \ saa�wMmwlcl f b m ND b b cd ] CJ O 4J 5i198 572W5 0•_0• n ePo.F-iHflU'NrC:ON 10S V6•1'� 7J �nNJJ.rrw RFM ;� OPAl11B 1[L n DRIVE-TH�II,ELEVA710N A_3 -- YNL IJ(•I•Q S � �i� I to 171 F CO p s o0 ¢V H DotI FEFE, a s - - - - - - L I I mff LU 777 / iD jrc '-o'rcP a sus iG+IFLPFMD QMS ?�^^ �� �d FRONT ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION QMRIOR PAINT SPECIFICA110 SfNL' , ° _,-D SGVE 1 ° ,-0 ra!AWlAfE PPDOImrow MO PWIpG,PAwI aMIR'C,di svu PFim,0 SmIpN'PA9DNC uA wutmAmp' Ln— a auwc S£fIIfALNS. OWL %1wsP'91LE(zmasjRx sFu-g055 mr�iaoa ura soe��zlro„s)'eD¢' m slmAw m,wa-IzaT, mama u,rx sm-cross z aws) z I¢Tu susAas-sixam•T,P+,s.mfwGe Quin race swat£ta+c la,[aw)-:aws ° ° rNOat 9v5rt„PaOaJtt9.t cars wuaeT iNOROCIii'Oatrms wtdAD' pm.aurwc)ANTI z aws'Dore�mmn-nfAn slum(romw) +O mumc sw¢aoof ifL DiLTfF rya O -T O w tmY i S fAG9C AwAVG0 59faFD �aNYA c. s u I I rofP Lit O O U9wf mmw[ .row,,rmw rc TG —VT .G\ TG\ TG WVr.r-VAS Tc =r[,wexo aAss u .„swTam sass puwlaxo. �I - RIGHT SIDE ELEVAl10N E1 REAR EVAl10N . A_22 SYNF: , u SVLF: 17,=,-0 e, _ 92ak'a