Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARKING RESTAURANTS*NEW FILE* PARKING RESTAURANTS [_ I. I. I• I• I. [] CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND STUDY SUMMARY 'OF -FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this cooperative investigation of indoor restaurant parking demands by the consultant and City Departments of Community Development and Public Works are hereby summarized. The study has been based on: Observing car occupancies at a representative sampling of Newport Beach restaurants, discussions with restaurant managers, analysis of employee requirements and the occupancy limitations dictated by the Uniform Building Code. Vehicle Occupancies Based on observations of more than 6,300 vehicles, the conclusions on vehicle occupancy are as follows: 1. Noon period occupancies averaged 1.94 with a range of 1.55 to 2.41 based on restaurant averages and 1.80 to 2.07 based on the averages of the same 15 minute intervals for all res- taurants combined. 2. Friday night occupancies averaged 2.16 with a range of 1.95 to 2.54 based on restaurant to restaurant averages and 1.98 to 2.35 based on the averages of the same 15 minute inter- vals for all restaurants combined. A statistical analysis indicated that there is not a significant difference between the noon and Friday night averages. 3. Saturday night occupancies averaged 2.53 with a range of 2.06 to 2.98 based on restaurant to restaurant averages and 2.22 to 2.70 based on the averages of the same 15 minute intervals for all restaurants combined. 4. A statistical analysis indicates that based on the differ- ence of the averages for the 15 minute intervals for all restaurants combined, there is a significant difference between the Friday night average of 2.16 and the Saturday night average of 2.53. Restaurant Occupancies The Uniform Building Code fixes the maximum "occupant load" for dining areas and drinking establishments at 15 square feet of floor area for each occupancy. The exact determination of the occupant load for any restaurant is an administrative function of the City working within the Code requirements. C 4+ 1• is Is I• I• 1• is I• Occupancy loads, for purposes of determining peak parking demands are recommended to be based on total public or "net" restaurant areas. This assumes that all of the public or "net" areas are occupied to an average occupancy of one customer per 15 square feet of floor area,'plus employee occupancy. Employees A review of the peak number of employees at a restaurant at any one time indicates an average of 12% employees of the "occupant load" of the restaurant. While considerable vari- ability was found, the average value is considered an acceptable way of estimating the total employee occupancy of a restaurant. Based on discussions with restaurant managers, existing City code provisions and previous investigations by the consultant, a conservative vehicle occupancy factor for employees of 1.1 employees per car is recommended for peak parking demand cal- culations. Restaurant Differences and Administrative Requirements One of the important overall conclusions is that each restaurant operation is unique and yet the zoning ordinance should have a realistic but administratively "workable" provision for restaurant parking requirements. The calculated parking factors should therefore be recognized as satisfying the "average" peak demand situation, but will not match all the actual parking situations. Parking -Demands Based on the results of this study, the actual peak parking demands for the noon and Friday night periods is one parking space for each 27 square feet of public or "net" restaurant area (based on average customer car occupancy of 2.2). The study results for Saturday night indicate a slightly lower peak demand of one space for each 30 square feet of public or ':net" restaurant area (based on average customer car occupancy of 2.5). Since restaurants can be "full" on both Friday and Saturday nights (as well as others), a value judgment will by necessity have to be exercised if the more stringent demand factor is used. Restaurants are not "full" every night so the calculated peak demands are conservative and do not recognize the possi- bility of utilization of on -street parking, walk-ins, or arri- vals by possible future use of public transportation. It is pointed out on Page 2 of the report that factors other than the ones used in the demand calculations are involved in the actual number of cars parked for a particular restaurant at a particular time. An evaluation of these and other con- siderations should be part of the overall process in updating the restaurant parking requirements. 10 [r I• I• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This has been a cooperative study involving not only the Con- sultant, but also the Department of Public Works and Community Development Department. Specific recognition is made of the contribution of the Traffic Engineering Division under the leadership of Mr. Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer, for conduct- ing the field studies of vehicle occupancies during the noon- time periods. Mr,. Darnell also assisted during several coordina- ting and study.meetings between the Consultant and City Staff. Assistance is also recognized of that provided by the Community Development Department which assembled the data on restaurant sizes, floor areas and occupant loads. The participation of Director Richard Hogan, Assistant Directors James Hewicker and Bob Fowler, Senior Planner Bill Foley, and Associate Planner Bob Lenard is hereby specifically recognized fortheir many hours of cooperative effort and assistant in providing guidance and constructive input to the study (especially for the analysis of the various restaurant building plans). Last, but not least, is the recognition of the cooperation ex- tended to the study team by the many restaurant executives in providing information on employee requirements and general restaurant operations. Their assistance is indeed sincerely appreciated. I0 TABLE OF CONTENTS • page INTRODUCTION 1 STUDY LIMITATIONS 1 COMPONENTS OF RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND - 2 STUDY LOCATIONS 3 ASSUMPTIONS AND SIDE CONDITIONS 4 • VEHICLE OCCUPANCY FIELD SURVEY 4 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 5 Variation of Average Vehicle Occupancy by Time Periods 5 • Variation of Vehicle Occupancy -Restaurant to Restaurant 6 Conclusions 6 OTHER IMPORTANT VARIABLES 6 Employee Parking Considerations 6 • U.B.C. Building Occupancy Limitations 7 Discussion of Actual Building Occupancies 7 DETERMINATION OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT 8 Purpose 8 Determination Based on Friday Night Vehicle • Occupancies 8 Determination Based on Saturday Night Vehicle Occupancies 8 Conclusion 9 Following • EXHIBITS Page EXHIBIT A STUDY LOCATION MAP 3 EXHIBIT B VEHICLE OCCUPANCY -TIME OF DAY 5 • EXHIBIT C VEHICLE OCCUPANCY -RESTAURANT NAME FRIDAY NIGHT 6 EXHIBIT D VEHICLE OCCUPANCY -RESTAURANT NAME SATURDAY NIGHT 6 • 1♦ I• 1• I• 1• 1• I• I• I• I• APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A PHOTOS OF STUDY RESTAURANTS 10 APPENDIX B DATA SUMMARY 11 APPENDIX C OBSERVATION NUMBER SUMMARY 12 APPENDIX D EMPLOYEE ANALYSIS 13 APPENDIX E. EXISTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS 14 APPENDIX F OTHER AGENCY RESTAURANT PARKING Y REQUIREMENTS 15 APPENDIX G BUILDING CODE OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS 16 APPENDIX H SAMPLE FIELD DATA SHEET 17 • ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • RESTAURANT PARKING REQUIREMENTS INTRODUCTION • The purpose of this report is to summarize the investigation of parking demands for restaurants in Newport Beach and to provide data so that the City may update its restaurant park- ing requirements. The study has been a cooperative effort by the Departments of Community Development and Public Works, • and the Consultant. The investigation consists of the following principal parts: A. Field investigation of vehicle occupancies at several local restaurants for both noontime and night-time • periods. B. An analysis of maximum building occupancies permitted by the Building Code. C. A review of peak employment for the survey restaurants. • D. A review of restaurant parking requirements of other agencies. E. Interviews with restaurant managers. • The overall objective was to review the current Newport Beach City restaurant parkingtrequirement, which is one parking space for each three restaurant seats, in relation to actual condi- tions at various study restaurants. This study -includes only indoor restaurants and therefore it is not intended to address the questions of parking for drive -up or take-out type res- • taurant uses. STUDY LIMITATIONS The peak parking demand factors resulting from this study has been based on an evaluation of the following variables: Gusto- 0 mer and employee vehicle occupancy, Building Code occupancy criteria and employee staffing. Other considerations not included in the calculations•that influence the actual parking level for a specific restaurant at a given time are discussed on the following page. The vehicle occupancy observations • involved'mote•than 6,300 vehicles during noon (Thursday or Friday) and evening (Friday and Saturday) periods at 16 res- taurants in the Newport Beach area. Two of the restaurants -1- 0 were coffee shops (Coco's and Odie's) and one which does not serve dinners at night (Isadore's), but specializes in cock- tails and dancing. All the other study locations served dinner and cocktails, both during the noon and evening periods. • While acknowledging the obvious study limitations, it is be- lieved that the data gathered is the most extensive known on restaurant vehicle occupancy in Southern California. COMPONENTS OF RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND Three major elements contributing to the peak number of cars parked for a particular restaurant that have been evaluated are as follows: Employee parking requirements• • The maximum number of customers within a particular restaurant. The number of customers per vehicle. The field portion of the study was concerned with vehicle occupancies and therefore walk-ins or spill -over from a particular lot onto adjacent parking areas were not studied. Therefore, the review has been. -focused at the peak restaurant employee demand and the parking requirement generated by build- ing and vehicle occupancy. While the calculation of the peak parking demand factors have been based on the factors listed above, other important con--: siderations that contribute to the actual demand are: 1. Type of restaurant, i.e., coffee shop, cocktails only, food and drinks. This involves the proportion of the •restaurant set aside for cocktails versus dining and the person occupancy of -cocktail areas versus dining areas. Also the actual occupancy of the cocktail area versus the dining area, i.e., size of tables, dining versus cocktails, if any, contribute to the differences. Considering that there are 185 restaurants in the City, (of which 58 serve both food and liquor, 27 serve -food and beer and wine'and the remaining 100 serve only food) it is easy to imagine the variability in the actual demand * for parking for restaurants of the same size. An evalua- tion of the individual characteristics of a particular restaurant is more likely to result in a more accurate estimate of parking demand than would result from the blanket use of a single demand factor for all types of proposed restaurants. Adoption of updated parking re- quirements should consider these•"complicating" factors and the others on this list in establishing the revised ' requirements. -2- 'I• 2. Size of restaurant. 3. Day of week. 4. Time of day. • 5. Type of menu, i.e., price,,service, etc. 6. Table arrangement, i.e., how many tables for two versus four or more. • 7. The popularity of the particular restaurant. 8. Amount of walk-in or transportation otherthan by car, used by customers and employees. • 9. Type of customer, i.e., singles or families, etc. 10. Occupancy load of building - under code, at code or above code. STUDY LOCATIONS • The restaurants selected for study are -shown on the following Study Location Map. In selecting the study restaurants or groups of restaurants, one of the main objectives was to select only those restaurants where the persons entering the particular restaurant could be identified with specific arrival vehicles. • Since one of the main objectives was to determine the number of persons per vehicle arriving at the various restaurants, the selection process involved locating restaurants where the park- ing facilities were directly related to the particular res- taurant. In other words, restaurants which were located within shopping centers could not be utilized because of the problem in determining the number of persons per vehicle associated with that particular restaurant. The listing of study locations on the Study Location Map indi- cates a total of 16 study locations. Several of the restaurants are grouped together and therefore the individual vehicle occu- pancy studies were conducted without attempting to segregate which vehicle occupants went to a particular restaurant in the study complex. Specifically, at the Emkay complex, which contains Harry's NY Bar and Grill, Blackbeard's, and the E1 Torito, the vehicle occupancy observations were made assuming that the three restaurants were actually one combined large restaurant. In • effect, this is basically true inasmuch as there is one common parking lot serving all three restaurants. This same situation applies to the restaurant complex on Pacific Coast Highway consisting of the Reuben E. Lee, Reubens and Isa- • dore's. The study locations included two coffee shops, that is, Coco's, Westclif£ and Odie's, as well as a fairly wide range of other restaurants which all are different, however, all of the restaurants except Coco's and Odie's serve cocktails. -3- a ✓/ __ \�/ A14,15 16 STUDY LOCATIONS > . 1 Harry's New York�\� Bar & Grill 2 Blackbeard's 3 El Torito WO W 4 Isadores 5 Reubens 6 Reuben E. Lee 7 Rusty Pelican 8 Cannery 9 Red Onion�0 10 Woody% Wharf 11 Cocoas ��, 12 Odie's �� 13 Five Crowns 14 The Moonraker '• 15 Red Onion0�. `'�� \ i� ' r'F� �' 16 Gullivers �o ' 'i0'" �vr-�/.v©® •i 4�-1(�,�{ ����jk i-�"�`; �� - f'' _ .•'YY `f o__ 0-�1 �r�jj✓ 'n�jCliC(.;.jG�� l�Si: �r a\•a _ .�t-'� .. p,���.. c��- � + 04 t1 QpQ1 !% I (i'L: ,v t) �S ,...z ^mod QQQ U. _ %Q����a L7lJII�`�f>> "�"r-'' fir' °.. `-���j ® >pQp ".�11;,,w^� e filliiii'i>'.ji'1'�"a�:'zo�_,.p.9• 51.+�' ^T- ap aOB DQ� -- � �--_� �',e�o y -� y��= �Y!UliY:�t)tno:, 'ySh; %%' � Li +„ a1.-_1=a�•.:� .. v8 Q© �'Y:' �� ! r! jP�.,, �°` 'ww~ -•!t ^tWYra� .: c\s' 1 lai-__-:- �����. *.;,-�_ce"-�.�YE�,y'� y li 1��°cuo°�y ���e ��, a._ a. •° �1aM.n 4ai - �p ®o rJ :� — � \ �� / ( —' Ki—It . / CITYOF NB Mfrr BEA •YN STUDY LOCATION MAP I• I• I* 10 1• [7 is 1 ,t Restaurants No. 14, 15 and 16, which are the Moonraker, The Red Onion and Gulliver's, located in the City of Irvine near the Orange County Airport, were included in the Friday night vehicle occupancy studies to provide a check on the occupancy data for the Newport locations. The specific sites selected as a result of the joint efforts between the consultant and City staff are locations 1, 2, 3, 41 51 6, 7, 8, 92 10, 112 12 and 13 on the listing on the Study Location Map. As it is true with most of the restaurants in Newport Beach, which has become well known for its wide variety of many fine restaurants, the restaurants selected are believed to be repre- sentative of the wide range of restaurants within the City. The photographs included in Appendix A indicate the physical setting and the general character of the study locations. ASSUMPTIONS AND SIDE CONDITIONS Important to the context of this investigation and the objectives of the study, is the importance of trying to achieve a zoning parking standard for restaurants which will be realistic and yet simple in its administration. Obviously, these are difficult objectives because each restaurant is different and therefore each situation has different parking requirements from any other res- taurant. From the administrative viewpoint, the simpler the regulation, the lower the cost of plan checking, but the greater the possibility that the regulation will not fit the specific circumstances for the particular restaurant in question. One of the basic assumptions is that the particular restaurant to which the demand equation is to be applied is assumed to be fully occupied based on Building Code criteria. Based on the vehicle occupancy observations and discussions with res- taurant owners and operators, and as a result of personal knowledge, it is known that a restaurant containing only tables could be "full" with two people at each table or four people at each table or some other combination. One of the realities is that for dining purposes, there are fewer dining seats occupied at any one time on Friday night than there are on Saturday night. This fact is demonstrated through the difference in observed vehicle occupancies between Friday and Saturday night and also confirmed by the discussions with the restaurant operators. Using the Code occupancy maximum is considered realistically conserva- tive. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY FIELD SURVEY Field observations of vehicle occupancies were conducted on Thursday, July 18, Friday, July 19, and Saturday, July 20, 1974. This survey consisted of observing the number of persons in each vehicle entering the various study restaurant parking lots. The observations were made for both the noontime and evening periods of restaurant operation. Appendix B, which contains the Data Summary from the field observations, indicates that the mid -day study period was conducted from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., while the evening study period was from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. These data summary sheets also indicate the specific restaurants sur- veyed for the various periods. -4- The vehicle occupancy survey was conducted by utilizing observers at the entrance (or entrances) to the various parking lots where- in the number of persons in each car entering the parking lot for the particular 15 minute period was recorded. Appendix'H shows a sample of field survey data form. This form shows that the • number of persons in each vehicle entering the driveway were recorded as a separate number. The total number of entries for each 15 minute period represents the number of vehicles enter- ing for that time period. Observations were also made of groups of persons walking to the • restaurant. These were recorded separately but have not been entered into the Data Summary sheet in Appendix B, which.con- tains only those persons arriving by vehicle wherein the persons were observed'within the car. • FIELD SURVEY RESULTS The survey of vehicle occupancies was based on observations of 6,322 vehicles. The following exhibits summarize the results of the field surveys while Appendix B is a tabulation of the complete field survey results. Exhibit B, entitled "Vehicle • Occupancy Variations by Time of Day", summarizes the results of the occupancy observations indicated on an overall average occu- pancy for the mid -day or noontime period of 1.94 persons per vehicle. This overall average occupancy was obtained from the Thursday and Friday observation. The Friday evening overall vehicle occupancy average was found to be 2.16 persons per • vehicle while the Saturday evening overall average was slightly higher at 2.53. Variation of Average Vehicle Occupancy by Time Periods Exhibit B, entitled "Vehicle Occupancy Variations by Time of • Day", shows the average occupancy for all observed restaurants for each 15 minute period for the survey days. The three lines on this exhibit indicate graphically how the average occupancy of all restaurants varies between the different periods of the day. The most notable observation is the rela- tive consistency of the occupancies for the entire observation • period. In other words, occupancy variations during the time that the observations were made were small except the evening studies clearly show that the occupancy tends to decrease later in the evening. A statistical analysis was made of the mid -day overall average • compared to the Friday night average. The analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in average vehicle occupancies between the mid -day and Friday night observations. , • It was however, determined that there was a statistically signi- ficant difference at the 99% level between the average occupan- cies based on time between the Friday and Saturday periods. • -5- VERNOAkLINE R24!?:20 20 Squares to the inch M. EIMIERMIMIMIRM ni.' P 3 I.HMEME Eon �i:1t610�DiLl�®ifiLi�I�Ci7l�LiiliGfiGlii�H6ii6�®®I���i7J� .j,jjMcLMj]MljMF .fflMrMN; �I \�7 •'11 •� - �if�fiiiro , • ®® MEMENIMEMEMMUMMEMEMMEMEM MMM91H. FUNIMIMIM MEMMEMEMMEMUMImmalm M MHOMMEMEWIMMORMIF-A-R-Mr s Immu miluffor-IMMEM OM Mom IERMIMEMEHI EMOMMIMOMPOIN"M MMUMMEMM-TOMMMI - P-MIMMIMIM mil i R Elmiml MEMO mom IN . - MEMP-1 I EMEMMEMOMEMEM MIRMEREMOMMORMIM01 mmill PIMMUlltill OMM MINHIME MHE IMMUMMORMUM Ral MIMORMURNIMM DMIM �Wlllamgz M—Hufflumm m 11 lmgqmmlm P m I m I m I m I m I m I FA I rl CH EM 0. P. -am RMEMI 1 "19 immmi. Nowl Moe FAI .. - I 'IMMREIMP31immi ImmormEll.m. MOMMIJIMIMINEIMIUMIMEralmompilmonr ER MURIMMIMM11MMIMIMERE �H9MEMMs m I I m I I m m I w i m u m u ri i m m rm i m u it i. v. i m •m a i m i rm m wom. viam MEEM INNIMPA-mmimimm NAMAN JAC ME ME 0 10 WE& �A m I m LT M I P, I I Pi . 1 0 ra I mr m F. NNIF.WrOMPHRIMMOMMIMENWIMIMORM MAMERM M. mom MM� Arm] limp-, IMMIUMOMOMMI JA .11 MMII I MEMPLY410MERMERME MENEM mom. IMMEN11 •MIMEMOOMMI EMIMMMUMNIJEFIMMIN Mll IMIFUNJEJ 4 MR.- ROMERIMEM m MHOMMOM rim- MMERMINE mumi M-MIRITO mimmlim RMTA -lM MINEME 1 9 nd 11111 IWO IMMINE MIMUMM NUMMIMMUMMUNIMIMUH HIM rill"MR, 1 1! M ii 004. H -11 .1 Om ME 111,710mm Hill 11 HEM .4 MOM PIP "Olm .1 .1 M Mrqlr-..iu� MINOMM H 1• Variation 'o'f Vehicle' .Occup'aricy-R'e'staurarit' to Res't'aurant 1! 1• I• is. 10 10 I* I• Exhibits C and D, entitled "Vehicle Occupancy Variation between Restaurants -Saturday Night and Friday Night", show the difference for both Friday and Saturday night. For Friday night the res- taurant with the highest occupancy was The Red Onion with an occupancy of slightly over 2 1/2 persons per vehicle, while the lowest average occupancy was the Emkay complex consisting of Harry's Bar and Grill, Blackbeard's and the E1 Torito, which had an average occupancy of about 1,95 persons per vehicle. It was also found that Woody's Wharf also had an occupancy of about the same as the Emkay complex. On Saturday night, for example, the average occupancy per vehicle for the Emkay complex increased to slightly less.than 2.5 per- sons per vehicle while the two coffee shops studied (Coco's and Odie's) had very nearly the same average vehicle occupancy for both Friday and Saturday night. The highest occupancy observed on Saturday night was for the Five Crowns with an average of almost three persons per vehicle followed closely by the Cannery which had an average of about 2.9 persons per vehicle. Conclusions Based on the field surveys and analyses of the data, it is con- cluded that an average car occupancy for customers ranges from 2.2 to 2.5 for Friday to Saturday night, respectively. Utili- zation of either value would be acceptable depending on the degree of conservatism desired. The variability between the averages from restaurant to restaurant can be explained by the specific type of restaurant and its particular operating characteristics regarding the particular segment of the popu- lation to which it is focused. OTHER DEMAND VARIABLES The following is a discussion of the other elements making up the parking demand equation. Employee Parking Considerations One of the parking demand components is employee parking. Appendix D, "Employee Analysis" shows that the average propor- tion of peak employees to the maximum occupancy is 12%. Increas- ing the "occupancy load" by 12% is considered a realistic way of including provision for employee parking in the occupancy load analysis. For this study, an average employee vehicle occupancy of 1.1 employees per car is considered realistic although for specific restaurants, as many as 30% of the employees may walk or ride bicycles to work. Based on discussions with restaurant managers, the most common transportation mode for employees is one employee driving his or her own car. '• • • M 9 s i OCCUPANCYVEHICLE .. , RESTAURANTSBETWEEN (FRIDAY NIGHT) V. • . " P y.l..„.• 'IAA -:,�-i AX X�•- �� i —,i_; co 4► W CL -rL'f WE- 0 0 j :ta. sl'.iis �'!_ V T; C,. ,,i! it 1' .. y ,•: ,� i r. �� -'RESTAURANT_i 10 =m N } U.B.C. Building Occupancy •L•imit•at•ions The Uniform Building Code, Chapter 33, (which the City uses) specifies that the "occupant load" for dining rooms and drink- ing establishments shall be determined by dividing the floor area assigned to those uses by 15. In other words, the maximum number of customers permitted in a restaurant shall not exceed one person per 15 square feet of public or net area (exact determination of area determined by the administrative practice of agency). to For the purpose of this study and the determination of parking requirements, this building occupancy limitation is recognized and is assumed to be a "given" for the study. Use of any other building occupancy factor for non -employees is considered of only academic interest. Discussion of Actual Building Occupancies It is well known and recognized that the number of persons that are or can be seated in a dining room area is less than in a cocktail area. For the most part, the tables in the dining area are arranged to accommodate four persons. The same may be true in the cocktail area but the table will most likely be much smaller, thereby enabling more tables and therfore more persons to be "set up" than in an equal area in the dining area. Another important aspect of the actual person occupancy of a restaurant is the fact that it will be very unlikely that all the seats in the dining area will be occupied at any one time. Common knowledge and the facts gathered during the vehicle occupancy studies, show that on the average there will probably be slightly more than two persons per table on Friday nights, while on Saturday nights the average will be about 2 1/2 per- 40 sons per table. Even at the Five Crowns, which had the highest average observed vehicle occupancy of three persons per car, not all the seats in the dining room will be full. All of the tables will be occupied, but there will most apt to be some "spare" seats. Obviously, when a dinner party of two persons is seated at a table for four, that group of two has pre-empted 0 the use of the two vacant seats by others. Based on analysis of actual table arrangements in a dining con- figuration, the building code limitation of 15 square feet of floor area per person is a realistic figure, assuming all the seats or chairs are occupied. • Because one of the objectives of this review is to derive a "simple" and yet as realistic a parking demand as possible, it is considered reasonable to assume that the "under -utilization" of person occupancy in the dining area will be compensated for by the "over -utilization" in•the cocktail areas. The restaurant be at a maximum occupancy as permitted b � overall however, will p y p Y the Code. For the great majority of restaurants where there are 0 -7- no separate public rooms, the use of overall buildingoccupancy is considered realistic from the standpoint of safety. DETERMINATION OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT Purpose The purpose of this section is to illustrate the way by which the Friday and Saturday peak parking demands were calculated. ,This section utilizes the various factors determined by the study in "making up" the parking formulas. Determination Based on Friday Night Vehicle Occupancies Givens and Assumptions - 1. "Occupancy load" maximum per U.B.C. = 1 occupancy per 1 15 square feet of public or "net" area. 2. "Employee load" is 0.12 employees per 15 square feet of public or "net" area. 3. Customer vehicle occupancy average = 2.2 4. Employee vehicle occupancy average = 1.1. Calculation - Parking demand = 1 person 2.2 persons + 0.1�2 ems. 1_._ 1 ems. 15 S.F. veh. is S.F, v = 1 person x 1 vehicle + 0.12_ e_mp. x 1 vehicle 15 S.F. 2.2 persons S.F. 1.1 emp. 48 = 0.454 veh.+ 0.109 veh. 15 S.F. 15 S.F. = 0.563 veh.= 26.6 S.F. 15 S.F, veh. Parking demand = 1 parking space for each 27 square feet of public or "net" area. Determination Based on Satutday Night Vehicle Occupancies Givens and Assumptions - 1. "Occupancy load" maximum per U.B.C. = 1 occupant per 15 square feet of public or "net".area. 2. "Employee load is 0.12 employees per 15 square feet of public or "net" area. • 3. Customer vehicle occupancy average = 2.5. 0 -8- 1• , 1! 10 1• Ir 1• 1! 1! 0 4. Employee vehicle occupancy average,= 1.1. Calculation - Parking demand = 1person 2.5 ers�ons + 0.12 emp. 1_.1 emp.. 35 S.F. veh. 15 S.F. veF 0.400 veh.+ 0.109 veh. SsS. 15 S.F. = 0.509 veh.= 29.5 S.F. 15 S.F. veh Parking demand = 1 space for each 30 square feet of public or "net" floor area. Conclusion For comparative purposes, the survey of other cities showed that Santa Ana and Huntington Beach both have restaurant parking re- quirements of one space for each 35 square feet of public area. If either the 27 square feet or 30 square feet regulation was adopted by the City, the adoption could be made with the realiza- tion that the requirement was based on actual field survey data and at the same time was near the regulations of at least two other significantly sized cities in the County and State. Another comparison is that the existing space for each 45 square feet of public person for each 15 square feet (one spa The adoption of say, the 30 square feet a 50 percent increase in the number of for restaurants. Implicit in setting a 27 to 30 square feet per parking space being made for individuality of the res considerations. RECOMMENDATION City requirement is one area assuming one ce per three seats). requirement would mean required parking spaces requirement of say, is that no allowance is taurant or other factor Based on this study, it is recommended that a revised restaurant parking requirement be adopted using one parking space for each 27 to 30 square feet of public or "net" floor area as the peak demand factor. The final determination should give consideration to including the individuality of each proposed restaurant in establishing a final parking requirement. • WA I• 1• 1• 1• I* I* I• 10 Is APPENDIX B DATA SUMMARY The following are the tabulations of the field survey results for car occupancies. The "IN" columns represent the average number of persons per car for the indicated 15 minute period. The "No. Obs." is the total number of observations, or cars counted for the particular 15 minute intervals. The greatest difference for Friday night was for the Emkay complex which had the lowest average of 1.95 compared to the 2.16 overall average and The Red Onion (2.54), which was the highest. The Emkay average was 9.7% below the overall average and The Red Onion was 17.6% above the overall average. For Saturday night the greatest difference from the overall average of 2.53 was for Odie's which, with an average of 2.06 was 18.6% below the overall average and the Five Crowns (average 2.98), which was 17.8% above the overall average. The difference between the overall averages for Friday night and Saturday night, 2.16 versus 2.53, respectively, has been statistically analyzed. The difference of 0.37 was found to be statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. This means that there is only one chance in a hundred that the differ- ence in the two averages could be due to chance. This differ- ence is consistent with the comments of the restaurant managers interviewed that Friday night (in general). Friday seems to be "date night" whereas Saturday night is more popular for families and larger groups. The tabulations show that the noon overall average occupancy was 1.94 persons per car. The lowest noon period occupancy was observed at Odie's at 1.55 while the highest was at the Cannery at 2.41. The Cannery had the greatest percentage difference which was 24.2% higher than the overall average. A statistical analysis shows that there is not a significant difference between the overall Friday noon period and the Fri- day night period from an overall average point of view. C -11- FRIDAY JULY 19, 1974 *MID -DAY THURSDAY JULY 18, 1974 DATA SUMMARY Newport Reach Restaurant Vehicle Occupancy Study Coco 'S WESTCLIFF ODIE'S * 1400 West Coast Highway HARRY'S BAR $ GRILL REUBENIS * BLACKBEARDS REUBEN E. LEE EL TORITO ISADORE'S RUSTY PELICAN THE MOONRAKER RED ONION GULLIVER'S TIME INTERVAL IN No. Obs. sta. Dev. IN No. Obs. sm, Dex IN No. Obs sfa. oev. IN N°• Obs sfa oev. IN �'iO• Obs std. Dex IN No. Obs Sid. Dov. 11:30-11:45 2.00 11 1.43 7 2.01 72 2.09 46 1.40 15 11:45-Noon 1.20 10 1.75 8 2.08 75 2.13 46 1.61 18 Noon-12:15 1.63 16 1.60 10 1.61 36 1.83 53 1.94 18 _ 12:15-12:30 1.38 13 1.62 13 2.21 42 1.99 69 2.29 7 12:30-12:45 2.00 10 1.71 7 2.03 31 2.06 52 2.00 13 12:45-1:00 1.55 11 1.40 5 2.18 22 2.09 33 2..00 1 1:00-1:15 1.69 16 1.00 3 1.81 32 1.85 27 2.09 11 1:15-1:30 1.27 11 1.40 S 2.18 28 2.00 19 2.00 12 WEIGHTED AVG. 1.59 98 030 1.55 58 JO.24 2.02 338 0.21 2.01 345 0.11 1.85 95 0.26 6:00-6:15 2.20 10 3.00 5 1.60 25 1 2.02 47 2.00 11 2.04 d29 6:15-6:30 2.45 11 1.60 5 1.76 46 1.90 41 2.00 14 2.486:30-6:45 2.33 12 3.00 1 1.44 27 2.56 43 2.15 13 2.00 6:45-7:00 3.00 7 1.17 6 1.88 65 2.08 48 2.07 15 2.03 63 7:00-7:15 4.00 3 2.17 6 2.04 A. 2.71 45 2.00 10 2.00 1 27 7:15-7:30 2.89 9 1.89 54 2.34 47 2.29 17 2.51 43 7:30-7:45 2.50 6 1.50 4 2.12 67 2.33 33 1.91 11 2.41 63 7:4S-8:00 2.14 7 3.13 8 2.08 59 2.75 44 2.13 24 2.27 48 8:00-8:15 2.17 6 1.20 5 2.04 48 2.47 34 2.33 24 1.97 29 8:15-8:30 1.90 10 2.00 4 2.13 56 2.13 54 2.53 i5l 2.17 53 8:30-8:45 2.30 10 2.00 4 1.96 54 2.87 .31 2.80 101 2.40 42 8:45-9:00 2.38 8 2.00 1 2.07 55 2.19 37 2.15 20 2.03 33 9:00-9:15 2.57 14 2.00 4 1.80 46 2.00 38 2.46 13 2.20 75 9:15-9:30 2.00 6 2.00 1 1.93 41 2.43 37 2.11 19. 9:30-9:45 2.00 9 2.00 6 1.94 52 2.18 491 2.16 19 1.96 26 9:45-10:00 1.71 7 2.20 5 1.87 23 1.91 45 2.00 13 2.12 32 iVEIGHTED.AVG. 2.3S 135 o.ea 2.06 65 ae2 1.95 792 o.e 2.29 673 o3i 2.19 248 021 2.21 684 a2a FRIDAY JULY 19, 1974 *MID -DAY THURSDAY JULY 18, 1974 DATA SUMMARY! RED ONION 2406 Newport Boulevard WOODY WHARF CANNERY* TOTAL TIME INTERVAL IN No. Obs std. Dev. IN No. Obs Sid. Dee IN No • Obs I Sid. Dev. In Tr0• Obs I Sid. Dev. 11:30-11:45' 1.55 11 2.12 17 2.25 4 1.95 183 11:45-Noon 1.50 6 1.80 10 2.13 8 1.95 181 Noon-12:15 1.40 s 2.33 3 2.75 8 1 1.80 149 12:15-12:30 1.50 2 1.00 2 2.38 8 1.98 156 12:30-12:45 2.00 3 1.29 7 2.s0 8 2.01 131 12:45-1:00 2.40 5 2.00 3 2.83 6 2.07 86 1:00-1:15 1.80 5 2.00 10 2.00 5 1.83 109 1:15-1:30 4.00 1 2.20 5 2.29 7 1 88 93 WEIGHTED AVG. 1.76 38 0.87 1.91 57 oae 2.41 54 o.29 1.94 108 Zz GM 6:00-6:15 2.25 4 1.75 4 2.00 158 6:15-6:30 3.89 9 1.80 10 2.10 165 6:30-6:45 2.00 3 2.33 3 2.13 135 6:45-7:00 2.00 6 2.00 4 2.00 214 7:00-7:15 2.60 10 3.00 2 2.28 177 7.15-7.30 2.14 7 2.25 4 2.26 181 7:30-7:45 3.00 7 2.00 2 2.27 193 7:45-8:00 2.00 _ 1 2.33 3 2.34 194 8:00-8:15 2.00 4 1 2.50• 2 2.15 152 8:15-8:30 3.50 2 1.00 2 2.16 196 8:30-8:45 2.SO 4 2.00 1 1 2.35 156 8:45-9:00 ,Z.OD 5 2,43 7 1 2.13 166 9:00-9:15 2.00 2 2.00 2 2.10 194 9:15-9:30 1.71 7 1.33 3 2.21 150 9-30-9:4S 2.75 4 1.00 1 2.06 166 9:45-10:00 4.00 2 1 1.40 5 1.98 132 WEIGHTED.AVG• 2.54 77 a72 1.96 55 0• 2.16 2729 oiz DATA SUMMARY SATURDAY COCO'S ODIE'S HARRY'S BAR Fi GRILL REl)BEN'St .RUSTY PELICAN FIVE CROWNS July 20, 1974 19ESTCLIFF 1400 West Coast Highway BLACIBEARDS REUBEN E. LEE EL TORITO ISADORE'S TIME INTERVAL IN No. Obs std. Dev IN No. ObS std. Dev IN � No • Obs sta. Dev IN No • Obs sta. Div. IN No • bbs Std.. Dev IN No • Obs sta. Dev. 6:00-6:15 p.m. 1.88 8 2.00 5 2.00 31 2.53 47 3.00 71 3.75 1 12 6:15-6:30 2.50 6 2.48 31 2.63 35 2.11 91 3.67 6 6:30-6:45 2.56 9 1.75 4 2.54 39 2.49 41 2.29 71 2.50 12 6:45-7:00 2.33 3 2.00 8 2.67 45 2.85 46 2.50 18 2.65 17 7:00-7:15 2.63 8 2.00 5 2.S2 66 3.02 51 2.00 19 2.50 16 7:15-7:30 3.33 6 1.40 S 2.50 40 2.70 43 2.59 17 3.60 10 7:30-7:45 3.00 8 1.50 4 2.60 45 2.71 41 2.31 16 2.79 19 7:45-8:00 3.17 6 2.25 4 2.58 55 2.67 54 2.23 22 3.13 15 8:00-8:15 2.27 11 1.50 2 2.6S 57 2.61 69 2.41 22 8:15-8:30 1.67 6 2.00 1 2.42 48 2.39 57 2.73 15 8:30-8:45 1.63 8 2.30 10 2.66 47 2.55 58 2.52 21 8:45-9:00 2.57 14 2.63 8 2.43 47 2.SS 62 2.00 25 9:00-9:15 1.83 6 2.00 2 2.61 61 2.66 59 2.87 15 H1312 9:15-9:30 2.00 3 2.25 4 2.09 32 2.06 48 2.85 13 9:30-9:45 2.00 9 1.75 42.18 55 2.16 70 2.11 99:45-10:00 2.00 3 2.67 3 2.19 43 2.20 59 2.11 9 iVEIGHTED AVG. 2.36 114 o.sz 2.06 69 o.3e 2.47 742 a21 2.531 840 10.00 2.39 1 2441Q3211 2.98 1 161 lount - -- ---- - - - - - -- ------- -- DATA SUMMARY SATURDAY RED ONION WOODY'S WHARF CANNERY TOTAL July 20, 1974 2406 Newport Boulevard No, spa Tlo. sm. No. sta. No, sta. TIME INTERVAL 1N Obs De< IN Obs oev. IN Obs Dev. IN Obs Dev. 6:00-6:15 p.m. 2.22 9 3.00 2 2.46 121 6:15-6:30 4.25 4 1.67 3 2.43 7 2.61 101 6:30-6:45 2.27 11 2.25 4 2.69 13 2.47 140 6:45-7:00 3.00 5 2.00 1 3.00 17 2.70 160 7:00-7:15 2.33 6 2.33 3 2.69 _ 13 2.60 187 7:IS- 7.30 2,.75 4 2.20 5 2.80 10 2.67 140 'I 7:30-7:45 2.00 3 2.50 4 2.81 16 2.62 156 7:45-8:00 2.71 7 2.33 3 2.81 21 2.65 187 j 8:00-8:15 2.00 3 2.67 3 3.24 21 2.64 200 8:15-8:30 2.00 7 2.24 17 2.37 159 8:30-8:45 2.00 9 2.00 2 3.37 19 2.65 181 1 8:45-9:00 2.60 5 2.00 2 3.00 13 2.49 193 9:00-9:15 3.40 5 2.25 4 2.80 10 2.65 167 9:15-9:30 2.00 1 1.00 1 3.00 14 2.30 122 9:30-9:45 2.00 2 2.80 15 2.22 169 9:45-10:00 2.17 6 2.00 3 3.71 7 2.28 137 1VEIGHTED Glass 87 asa 2.18 38 oaz 2,90 215 o.a5 2.- 251 ° ao 1• 10 1• I• I• Is a I0 APPENDIX C OBSERVATION NUMBER SUMMARY The following is a tabulation of the number of observations (cars) observed during the car occupancy surveys at each restaurant for the different time periods. This listing has been Summary Sheets and is a more convenient way number.of observations complex. taken from the Data included here to permit of reviewing the relative made at each restaurant 0 -12- 1! I* 10 I• is U I• I40 SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS Restaurant Coco's Odie's Emkay Reuben Complex Rusty Pelican Five Crowns Red Onion Woody's Wharf Cannery The Moonraker Complex Thursday or Friday Noon Period Friday Night Observations Observations 98 135 58 65 338 345 95 Not Observed 38 57 54 Not Observed 792 673 248 Not Observed 77 55 Not Observed 684 Saturday Night Observations 114 69 742 840 244 161 87 38 215 Not Observed C • • • APPENDIX D • 'EMPLQYEE ANALYSIS The following is a tabulation of the peak number of employees for the survey restaurants and the maximum occupant loads. The purpose was to determine the ratio of employees to peak occupant load. The average ratio was deter- mined to be 12.2% with a standard deviation of 3.6%. The tabulation shows quite a wide variability in the employee ratios primarily due to the differences in • the particular type of restaurant operation. For instance, The Five Crowns has the highest ratio with 18.5% while the two coffee shops (Coco's and Odie's) and the restaurants with relatively large proportions of area devoted to cocktails have ratios of from 69, • to 10%. It is concluded that a reasonable estimate of the ratio of employees to occupant load would be the observed average of 12%. The total maximum legal occupancy of a particular restaurant can therefore be reasonably. calculated to be the occupancy:permitted by the Build- ing Code, plus, say, 12%. • • -13- 10 [7 I• * I* [] I• I• 49 03 EMPLOYEE ANALYSIS Restaurant Ancient Mariner (PCH) Blackbeard's Coco's (Westcliff) E1 Torito Five Crowns Gulliver's Harry's NY Bar $ Grill Isadore's Moonraker Odie's Red Onion (Newport Blvd) Red Onion.(M4cArthur) Reubens (PCH) Reuben E. Lee Rusty Pelican The Cannery Woody's Wharf Total Employees Per Peak(1) Maximum Occupant Employees(1) Occupants(2) (0) 21 214 9.8 27 280 9.6 11 135 8.2 30 182 16.5- 55 298 18.5 35 260 13.5 13 156 8.3 11 182 6.0 26 225 11.5 10 99 10.1 20 146 13.7 27 210 12.6 20 241 8.3 55 323 17.0 24 162 14.8 27 276 9.8' " 13 ""-90 14'.4 425 3,479 12.2 Std. Deviation = 3.6 (1) Based on interviews with restaurant managers. Indicated number would be for a Friday or Saturday night. (2) Occupancy based on Fire Department regulations (Building Code). 0 • APPENDIX E EXISTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS Off-street parking for indoor restaurants from the City's zoning ordinance have the following requirements: • 1. -"H" District (applies to all commercial districts unless otherwise stated): 20.38.030 OFF-STREET PARKIN& REQUIRED - SCHEDULE. Off-street parking on the building site, or with City Council approval upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, on • a separate lot from the building site or sites shall be required in all districts with which the -"H" District is combined, according to the following formula: (d) Restaurants: One parking space for each three seats. 2. -"Z" District (can be applied to any commercial district): 20. 0.030 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED -SCHEDULE. Off-street parking on the building site or on a separate lot from the building site or sites with City Council • approval on recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be required in all districts with which the -"Z" District is combined, according to the following formula: (c) Restaurants: One parking space for each three seats. 3. P.C. text for Newport Place 4. Restaurants, cafes and bars • a. One space for each 'three seats plus one space for each 1.1 employees on the larger shift. b. Restaurants within the Retail Commercial Site 1&2 one space per 200 square feet of net floor area. One loading space for each 10,000 square feet of ! gross floor area, to the extent said area does not exceed 20% of the floor area. In the event that restaurants exceed 20%, parking shall be computed per "a" above. c. Facilities other than indoor dining establishments • or those that qualify as drive -up or take-out estab- lishments shall be subject to the City of Newport Beach regulations covering drive-in and outdoor es- tablishments, Section 20.53.060 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. • -14- 0 -15- OTHER AGENCY RESTAURANT PARKING REQUIREMENTS City of Costa Mesa - Based on occupancy determined by the Fire Department, the restaurant parking requirement for Costa Mesa is one parking • stall per two occupants for the -first 100 occupants; one stall for three occupants for 100 to 300 occupants and one stall per four occupants for more than 300 persons. There is no additional requirement for employee parking. City of Laguna Beach - • , The Laguna Beach requirement is one stall for each four seats •or one parking stall per 60 sq. ft. of public area. The cal- culation which produces the largest number of stalls is used. In addition to this requirement one parking space per 300 sq. • ft. of nonpublic area is required. City of Huntington Beach - One parking space for each 35 sq. ft. of public area without fixed seats plus one parking space for each five fixed seats or stools. City of Anaheim The Anaheim requirement is one parking space for each 100 sq. ft. of gross restaurant area. City of Santa Ana - With no fixed seats, the parking requirement is one parking space for each 35 sq. ft. of public area. With'fixed..seats the requirement is one parking space for each five seats. • In addition to this requirement, a space is required for each two employees. City of Westminster The City of Westminster requires ten spaces plus one space for '• each 100 sq. ft. of gross building area. County of Orange - In addition to 100 sq. ft. of 4,000 sq. ft. ten minimum spaces, one space is required per gross area up to 4,000 sq. ft. For more than one space per 80 sq,. ft. is required. n I• 1• I• 1• 1• I• 1• I! I• City of Fullerton - I -I . , Restaurant requirements for Fullerton are one parking space for every 1,000 square feet gross floor area. City of Garden Grove - In restaurants having less than 4,000 square feet gross, one parking space for every 100 square feet of 4,000 square feet gross. One parking space is required for every 50 square feet gross over 4,000 square feet. City of Irvine - Requirements are one parking space for every 50 square feet gross,up to 4,000 square feet with 10 min. One parking space is required for every 80 square feet in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. gross. City of La Habra - The restaurant requirement is one parking space for every four seats. City of La Palma - The requirement is one parking space for every 200 square feet gross floor area. City of Brea - The requirement is one parking space for every 50 square feet of gross building area up to 5,000 square feet gross. One parking space is required for each 100 square feet gross in excess of 5,000 square feet. City of Buena Park - The parking requirement is six spaces per gross 1,000 square feet. In the case of drive-in restaurants, the requirement is 25 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. City of Cypress - The requirement is one space for every 100 square feet gross but not less than 10 parking spaces. City of Fountain Valley - The requirement is one space for every 100 square feet gross up to 4,000 square feet. One space is required for every 50 square feet over 4,000 square feet. I• • ' City of Yorba Linda - The requirement is one parking space for each 100 square feet gross, but not to be less than 10 min. for each 1,000 square feet gross floor area. City of San Juan Capistrano - The requirement is one parking space for every 40 square feet of public area but not less than eight spaces. • City of Seal Beach - The requirement is one parking space for each 100 square feet up to 4,000 square feet gross, plus one parking space for each 50 square feet over 4,000 square feet gross. • City of Tustin - The requirement is one parking space for each three seats of the restaurant. • City.of Stanton - One parking space is required for each three fixed seats, plus one parking space for each 30 square feet of public assembly area. • City of Los Alamitos - The requirement is one parking space for every three seats but not less than one parking space for every 30 square feet of floor area. • City of Placentia - The requirement is one parking space for every three seats .plus one parking space per employee. City of San Clemente - • The requirement is one parking space for every four seats. • • 0 • • • APPENDIX G BUILDING CODE' OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS The following are copies of Pages 472 and 473 (Chapter 33) of the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. • The last paragraph on Page 472 defines the determination of occupant load while the following page, 476, lists the floor area for the different types of occupancies, which is 15 sq. ft. per occupant for "dining rooms" and "drinking establishments". Utilization of this basic and fixed maximum occupancy factor is important in determining the needed parking spaces. • • • -16- I• I• 1• 1• 1• I* 10 �. • �0 3301 Chapter 33 STAIRS, EXITS AND OCCUPANT LOADS General Sec. 3301. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to determine occupant loads and to provide minimum standards of egress facilities for ocbupants of buildings, reviewing stands, bleachers and grand- stands. (b) Scope. Every building or portion thereof shall be provided with exits as required by this Chapter. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement for an individual occu- pancy, the specific requirement shall be applicable. (e) Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain terms are defined as follows: BALCONY, EXTERIOR EXIT, is a landing or porch projecting from the wall of a building, and which serves as a required means of egress. The long side shall be at least 50 percent open, and the open area above the guardrail shall be so distributed as to prevent the ac- cumulation of smoke or toxic gases. EXIT is a continuous and unobstructed means of egress to a public way, and shall include intervening doors, doorways, corridors, exterior exit balconies, ramps, stairways, smokeproof enclosures, horizontal ex- its, exit passageways, exit courts, and yards. EXIT COURT is a yard or court providing egress to a public way for one or more required exits. EXIT PASSAGEWAY is an enclosed means of egress connecting a required exit or exit court with a public way. HORIZONTAL EXIT is a way of passage from one building into another building on approximately the same level, or is a way of pas- sage through or around a wall constructed as required for a two-hour occupancy separation and which completely divides a floor into two or more separate areas so as to establish an area of refuge affording safety from fire or smoke coming from the area from which escape is made. OCCUPANT LOAD is the total number of persons that may, occupy a building or portion thereof at any one time. PANIC HARDWARE is a bar which extends across at least one-half the width of each door leaf, which will open the door if subjected to pressure. PRIVATE STAIRWAY is a stairway serving one tenant only. PUBLIC WAY is any parcel of land unobstructed from the ground to the sky, more than 10 feet in width, appropriated to the free passage of the general public. (d) Determination of Occupant Load. The occupant load permit- ted in any building or portion thereof shall be determined by dividing the floor area assigned to that use by the square feet per occupant as set forth in Table No. 33-A. 472 I• 33-A 10 10 10 10 1• I* I♦ I[l 476 I� TABLE NO. 33-A-AVAILABLE SQUARE FEET PER OCCUPANT 1♦ ' 1• 1• 1• 10 APPENDIX H SAMPLE FIELD DATA SHEET The following is a sample field data sheet used to gather the vehicle occupancy infor- mation. The individual numbers are the per- sons in each car. The total number of entries for a particular 15 minute period is the num- ber of cars entering during that period. I• • — -- I —=--- ----- --I ---- :_ 4 i - 4,30 1/- 30 --- ..... --: - --- - - - �- • -� • � ; , a -.¢ s .� •�- -� - I i to �� �, ¢5- 7.'UD /_/•�_ _ ' l a- 3 3 3- 4 is- -1 / 12 13 14 �. -- ---' 7: 01 ZI—•�a. 4- -�: 12 is20 is '-� S 2 /a • 3- / -/ -' 23 n'Y��- T-eZ'Ia'- /= �.. 26 28 •� a ¢ ¢ ' - - -;ate. ' i 30 - - -. — -- - a- -a,- 2J C2 31 32 34 35 , ! , 34 39 City Council Study Session Sept. 24, 1973 Item No. 5(c)-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 18, 1973 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Parking Requirements for Restaurants Background At the City Council meeting on September 10, 1973, the staff was requested to summarize the City's parking requirements as they pertain to restaurant uses. Number of Spaces Section 20.38.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code states that restaurants shall provide one parking space for each three seats. In the case of fixed seats and booths the requirement is calculated by merely counting the seats which have been provided. Where the seats are not fixed and seating arrangements are flexible, the occupancy of the restaurant is determined by allocating one person for each fifteen square feet of space in such areas as the dining room, cocktail lounge and reception and waiting rooms. Where danc- ing is permitted, one person is allocated to each seven square feet of dance floor. There is no separate parking requirement for employees. Drive-in, take-out and outdoor restaurants are regulated separately under Chapter 20.53 of the Code which requires one parking space for each employee and one space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area. Location of Spaces Except as provided under Sections 20.38.040 and 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code, all parking is required to be on site. Off -Street Parking on Separate Lot Section 20.38.040 provides that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve off-street parking on a separate lot from the building site where: (a) Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. (b) Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. (c) Such lot and the building site are in the same ownership, or the owners of the building sites have a common ownership in such lot, and the owner or owners are entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof (ownership of the off - site lot must be ownership in fee or a leasehold interest of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites). (d) The owner or owners and the City, upon the approval of the City Council, execute a W-ritten instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, provid- ing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off-street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be t r_ TO: City Council - 2. recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Department of Community Development. Restaurants currently using off -site parking lots include such establishments as Five Crowns, The Cannery, Monterey Still, Mackerel Flats Crab House and the Beach Ball. Commercial In -Lieu Parking Fees Section 12.44.125 provides that in lieu of providing the required parking on site, a commercial business may provide all or a portion of its required commercial off-street parking in a municipal fee owned lot by paying an annual fee of $250 per parking space. Said municipal parking lot must be so located within reasonable proximity to the commercial business as to be useful to said business. This provision does not apply to legal non -conforming businesses or to businesses which may have made special arrangements for parking at a lesser fee prior to the adoption of Section 12.44.125 in 1972. The only existing restaurants which provide a portion of their required parking using this, procedure are located in the McFadden Square Area and are: (a) V and R's Pizza, 2108 3/4 W. Oceanfront - 3 Permits (b) Shakeys Pizza, 2307 W. Balboa Blvd. - 4 Permits Parking Lot Design The design and improvement of parking lots is regulated by standards adopted under Resolution No.'5763. A11 parking spaces are required to be self park except where the Planning Commission has permitted a tandem design in conjunction with a valet parking service. Existing or proposed restaurants utilizing on -site tandem parking layouts include The Cannery and the Red Onion (under construction next to Woody's Wharf). Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Q. L[.�1/ nes D. Hewicker, As istant Director - Planning JDH/sh i - CITY 'OP NEWPORT BEACH MEIVIORANDUIX FiO ROBERT,L WYNN, CITY MANAGER To COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1873.... + - * SUBJECT: REPORT ON-CITY'S ON -SITE -"AND OFF -SITE PARKING REGULATIONS FOR RESTAURANTS _ :2 Please prepare a -report pursuant.to Vice. Mayor Roger's request concerning the'E!U son site.,androff site..parking-regulations for restaurants t` y I assum ;for off -site, Nice- 6'ayor, Rogers>referred to some �`of'those,�.restau rant who have purchased parking, permits. -from the'City-forvsome City lot. This 1Cybe presented on the study session for September 24th. wi n � � 3 ex 'R x5�` 11 o gLol? a Y o���Q�.��� �e 11Ul V- a . . JR��ti� wantea r not "ROCOHMr7' p •• r� , �, t .�,, f k, UVtAA— sue" City Council Study Session Sept. 24, 1973 Item No. 5(c)-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 18, 1973 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Parking Requirements for Restaurants Background At the City Council meeting on September 10, 1973, the staff was requested to summarize the City's parking requirements as they pertain to restaurant uses. Number of Spaces Section 20.38.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code states that restaurants shall provide one parking space for each three seats. In the case of fixed seats and booths the requirement is calculated by merely counting the seats which have been provided. Where the seats are not fixed and seating arrangements are flexible, the occupancy of the restaurant is determined by allocating one person for each fifteen square feet of space in such areas as the dining room, cocktail lounge and reception and waiting rooms. Where danc- ing is permitted, one person is allocated to each seven square feet of dance floor. There is no separate parking requirement for employees. Drive-in, take-out and outdoor restaurants are regulated separately under Chapter 20.53 of the Code which requires one parking space for each employee and one space for each 50.square feet of gross floor area. Location of Spaces Except as provided under Sections 20.38.040 and 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code, all parking is required to be on site. Off -Street Parking on Separate Lot Section 20.38.040 provides that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve off-street parking on a separate lot from the building site where: (a) Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the building site o_r sites. (b) Parking on such lot will not create undue traffi-c hazards in the surrounding area. (c) Such lot and the building site are in the same ownership, or the owners of the building sites have a common ownership in such lot, and the owner or owners are entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof (ownership of the off - site lot must be ownership in fee or a leasehold interest of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites). (d) The owner or owners and the City, upon the approval of the City Council, execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, provid- ing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off-street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be n TO: City Council - 2. recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Department of Community Development. Restaurants currently using off -site parking lots include such establishments as Five Crowns, The Cannery, Monterey Still, Mackerel Flats Crab House and the Beach Ball. Commercial In -Lieu Parking Fees Section 12.44.125 provides that in lieu of providing the required parking on site, a commercial business may provide all or a portion of its required commercial off-street parking in a municipal fee owned lot by paying an annual fee of $250 per parking space. Said municipal parking lot must be so located within reasonable proximity to the commercial business as to be useful to said business. This provision does not apply to legal non -conforming businesses or to businesses which may have made special arrangements for parking at a lesser fee prior to the adoption of Section 12.44.125 in 1972. The only existing restaurants which provide a portion of their required parking using this procedure are located in the McFadden Square Area and are: (a) V and R's Pizza, 2108 3/4 W. Oceanfront - 3 Permits (b) Shakeys Pizza, 2307 W. Balboa Blvd. - 4 Permits Parkino Lot Desion The design and improvement of parking lots is regulated by standards adopted under Resolution No. 5763. All parking spaces are required to be self park except where the Planning Commission has permitted a tandem design in conjunction with a valet parking service. Existing or proposed restaurants utilizing on -site tandem parking layouts include The Cannery and the Red Onion (under construction next to Woody's Wharf). Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By— Q. ,mod/k. J a\mes D. Hr, As Director istant Director - Planning JDH/sh _7Pc, � 0 f(A(T d In '% 1 , City Council Study Session Sept. 24, 1973 Item No. 5(c)-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 18, 1973 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Parking Requirements for Restaurants Background At the City Council meeting on September 10, 1973, the staff was requested to summarize the City's parking requirements as they pertain to restaurant uses. Number of Spaces Section 20.38.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code states that restaurants shall provide one parking space for each three seats. In the case of fixed seats and booths the requirement is calculated by merely counting the seats which have been provided. Where the seats are not fixed and seating arrangements are flexible, the occupancy of the restaurant is determined by allocating one person for each fifteen square feet of space in such areas as the dining room, cocktail lounge and reception and waiting rooms. Where danc- ing is permitted, one person is allocated to each seven square feet of dance floor. There is no separate parking requirement for employees. Drive-in, take-out and outdoor restaurants are regulated separately under Chapter 20.53 of the Code which requires one parking space for each employee and one space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area. Location of Spaces Except as provided under Sections 20.38.040 and 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code, all parking is required to be on site. Off -Street Parking on Separate Lot Section 20.38.040 provides that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve off-street parking on a separate lot from the building site where: (a) Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. (b) Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. (c) Such lot and the building site are in the same ownership, or the owners of the building sites have a common ownership in such lot, and the owner or owners are entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof (ownership of the off - site lot must be ownership in fee or a leasehold interest of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites). (d) The owner or owners and the City, upon the approval of the City Council, execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, provid- ing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off-street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be TO: City Council - 2. recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Department of Community Development. Restaurants currently using off -site parking lots include such establishments as Five Crowns, The Cannery, Monterey Still, Mackerel Flats Crab House and the Beach Ball. Commercial In -Lieu Parking Fees Section 12.44.125 provides that in lieu of providing the required parking on site, a commercial business may provide all or a portion of its required commercial off-street parking in a municipal fee owned lot by paying an annual fee of $250 per parking space. Said municipal parking lot must be so located within reasonable proximity to the commercial business as to be useful to said business. This provision does not apply to legal non -conforming businesses or to businesses which may have made special arrangements for parking at a lesser fee prior to the adoption of Section 12.44.125 in 1972. The only existing restaurants which provide a portion of their required parking using this procedure are located in the McFadden Square Area and are: (a) V and R's Pizza, 2108 3/4 W. Oceanfront - 3 Permits (b) Shakeys Pizza, 2307 W. Balboa Blvd. - 4 Permits Parking Lot Design The design and improvement of parking lots is regulated by standards adopted under Resolution No. 5763. All parking spaces are required to be self park except where the Planning Commission has permitted a tandem design in conjunction with a valet parking service. Existing or proposed restaurants utilizing on -site tandem parking layouts include The Cannery and the Red Onion (under construction next to Woody's Wharf). Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By_ Q. .ttlJ nes D. Hewicker, As istant Director - Planning JDH/sh