HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESTAURANT PARKING REQUIRMENTSD,IC.A
Is
1•
1•
1•
Is
1•
10
L
1.
�\ J
*,_.,;
4 `\ 1
Restaurant. ...parking Requirements
r:
A Study Conducted
for the
Community Development Department
I•
U
I•
1•
I*
[7
1•
is
1•
I•
September 5, 1974
Mr. William Foley
Senior Planner
Community Development Dept.
City of Newport Beach
33 West Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Subject: Restaurant Parking Study
Report Submittal
Dear Mr. Foley:
GOVERNMENTAL
PROKESSIONAL
SERVICES
Herein is the "Restaurant Parking Study" which has been a
cooperative effort between the Community Development and
Public Works Departments, and our firm.
The objective of the study was to review the existing
parking requirements and to provide data so that the City
may up -date its restaurant parking requirements.
The report reflects the review comments made by the City
staff on the preliminary draft, dated August 16, 1974.
We appreciate the privilege of working for you and the
help and cooperation extended to us by members of the
Community Development Department and Traffic Engineering
staff of -the Public Works Department.
Ressppectfully Submitted,
� "' 11 /
R. Henry M h'le
President
I0
2101 E. 4th Street Suite 200 (Bldg, A), Santa Ana, California 92705, 714 547.6375
I•
Is
is
I•
I•
I•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND STUDY
SUMMARY'OF FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAT'I'ONS
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.
I0
•
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.
0
•
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
41 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.
•
•
•
0
1•
10
10
I*
I•
I49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
I
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
•
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
r
REQUIREMENTS
15
APPENDIX
G
BUILDING CODE OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS
16
APPENDIX
H
SAMPLE FIELD DATA SHEET
17
•
•
C
C
•
0
•
1•
1•
10
I*
1•
1•
[7
I•
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 parking requirement, 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: custo-
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'more 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
I•
-1-
I•
I•
1•
C
I•
I•
I•
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.
0
-2-
•
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 other than 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, Westcliff 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-
STUDY LOCATIONS ; . e14,15 116
1 Harry's New York
Bar & GrillOF 1;1, 2 j & 3
2 Blackbeards s �� , ., iv:
3 El Torito1'
L � f
4lsadores a -
5 Reubens
6 Reuben E. Lee
7 Rusty Pelican
8 Cannery
9 Red Onion0
10 Woody's Wharf
11 Coco's o i
12 Odiws i
13 Five Crowns pp0 a�LMICS
�
14 The Moonraker
15 Red Onion-
16 Gullivers
�,. °�' Q� �O '�,� jp '•�_. �`•. � �¢ - % - t- fir, .. J s. � . �-.
r ^ /�, ,� - � � � r 'jig • — , , • -•��
®af��j frrf
6'00(I Db,' Qd} �r"�`.-^:•`
_�-.��7�� .. _,,.e."�e i�'til'iiii ;liil^%',}:.:zr" 01..,.-�• \ ;C:r _. _•%.;e a�4O �dOO��'��' ��1 ' � t
t; ��_ �-�.,.� - •:G" ai .,q y[�'fi10; 1 °Ili t1=a-= -.fss. °Pitt ()'�u Hd
t r=��
;N -�• LAu���� emu. 3A. � '�tii. ti �j � q o` . d� e M1
toil 1 =., ,� "r .....,�n"pa..e. J:'�F :$ �o ''d6;rQ1� .. i - . ��il_�_ .....ee�C�."'J�F}y�i,`• ` _�_ �r r :o i Y
•.'-rrf� �' � iTT'r �, �p� ��777XFFFa p�oi~GrJO�'',��1c �_-. _ � `, - .nuo .__r---_ _ �.
/ -� r � f%Y, ==G� rf CIiY OF NEWPoRf BFACH
• � f h % `• F J C � IT`S ~ C E A N ouxa mrm, www. •-- __
STUDY LOCATION h
•
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, 31 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 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'l,ots 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 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 b.etween the Friday and Saturday periods.
-5-
V.NON Y}n LINE R2470 20 205quana to the inch
W
Ii�B't®iiEkiim���Hlgi��pl'p�I���igil��ig��lgl;e�56g23pt5a::,Ep�6i���p:�tE��siis7p�l�i�j—
®
•il
mIifii�flll5�®��
��ill����ti3�ll�I�flNirBlifiiilll9�i�illi3ii®H�l�®8®il�L7`-n�
r`A
, _� "
+
:�:
`-�®®
OPEN,RM11000
MMEENHElII
E�MONElEItHlE5a®
E
MMIME
UNEW
�i�ili�N�llillllillllf�ii�ll�illli��llllllilllil�l�l�l®�����I>919�Iii�il=ll�
[I99II��l�'d�lll�III�I®li��lli��i��l
�
E�Il�il��i��ll��lllll�l�l�i�®®®®�IIIIII�N1
®W
- ..
.
• •
-
..
SNEERMEMENl�0.
.
..
i
ISIIIII
ME
IIIIIIII
omom
IIIIo
SEES
II�Iilll
SIMME
MME
MEM�NII�I®91��1111911�111111�1111�1111i��lld
I11�IRi�il
M
MEMO
itp"
IN
�I
EMMIMIIII�i1ll3lll�MIMEI9
ERMEMI.Im
}��
91l
f
Mumma
0
• .:
-
• •
•
Im
M
�1�
®il
�9
III
1
I�
�
�
°Hzffz
mum
�ll�l
aE"Eei
a•�
HEM6�1�111i181fil
ID11�p'��Iyl��a�Iglll;liFIMER
�l�111
illllllllIBIA
l
M
012o1U.91—
�I®I��I�IIII���'71Y
RI®lill�l�l#III
M
Il
HRI
PPEXAVIle
i
ll������°��.��
"®�>Y:�r7�g
��gg
iii9�81H�����'
gg��
��
o
ryliiBEoEEE��o.�►I9EEEE19EiiNEEiiii�EEiiE
••aie�ea�iEE:EEEEaaEEiEElEEEiE�NEEi�EEEEEII���E
..
�p
�p
ems•
e�®
:ar
OM
®
�
�
•
� •
�li�/��i�
�I�aIIII.��i�di::
�
I�®�
®
�
al�`
•
-
_go
mok
EIME101411M
MqM
-
l
iME
t.�`.
I�illlllll
0111,
II99
M
EKMIi
EllE
llMEME�
ELM
91
��
SEEN
ipolllloolllll'.
.Hmc�lpll
•a
oI9
mums
Mum
Ill�f®11�1
1I1811f
9II�RlI;�I
IEI
°I
II
1.
Illfl
a
yll
III�IIIfl
l�l�a'•Iihillii
fflEM
l
iE
ae
Ea
:
MMUN
lu`��®il®1p®��e7�lil�i�l�ll�gll�l
a'
SIB
•
l��
'E��lp'i
l�l
�i
®®
•
MR
ME
OiHi®lBdil
1
81
®%IWAOI
d.s93.I'3��lml,
i�i
Lq,
�MM®E
il�aam
IlMEill�il�l�IREMIl�li�ll(ll9i�l�illil�10l
IMIl=�'
MIRD
'llIl
61119
IRIlIgME®®
HIll°a
:110Ilill�:
�I
H
..o
•
lHOIaUIIFIAII�:I..I%I
9
H
I I
IN -
:::I�all
SM.
..s
rg
ii.,lor
..
1�qq
�..,
•
,
� e
.I";I....
'
�Itya�.,,
Ey
?;
Ee
r�"e=.?
E
E9,=.,,
..
�
,..
' r::!I
::...II�IIIIH0MM0
•
Variati:ori of Vehicle' O'c'c'up'ancy-Re'st'aurarit' to' Restaurant
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.
0
A
s
i
0 • •
i
i
i
i
t
VEHICLE OCCUPANCY VARIATION
- __ BETWEEN RESTAURANTS
(FRIDAY NIGHT)
Lu
_ 7-1
,Lu
i.
a
Weighted Avg. - 1 Std.
Dev. 1.96
trl __F ,_ _':z;.;-�.'�•'� y., .ii ,•'. c�0 d:•- !LI _= - -.� c00 �' O GXi - N O
;t {
x �'�:; d:l:i: :;YQ; cQ .` wo T Caa
,-tt x :.!L o �V ;' a,,:i,.' crz op o :�h-i__., _` °3 - f
H itiI: # 7$f# i ii"i� ± . ;(;�V 1 ± 3 .i
± —.
'7..1 } , •� ��.� ii.tt _ _7'�' ''I'� -j
RESTAURANT
N•
U.B.C. Building Occupancy' 'L'i'mit'at'ibns
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).
♦ 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-
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
! 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
overall, however, will be at a maximum occupancy as permitted by
the Code. For the great majority of restaurants where there are
-7-
10
I!
Is
I•
C
�•
I0
Is
no separate public rooms, the use'of overall buildingeccupancy
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
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 _ 22.2aers�ons
15 S.F. veh.
1 person x 1 vehicle
15 S.F. 2.2 persons
0.454 veh.+ 0.109 veh.
15 S.F. 15 S.F.
= 0.563 veh.= 26.6 S.F.
15 S.F, veh.
+ 0.12 ems _ 1.1 elm
�F . veE.
+ 0.12�emp. x 1 vehicle
15S.F. 1.1 emp.
Parking demand = 1 parking space for each 27 square feet of public
or "net" area.
Determination Based on Saturday Night Vehicle Occupancies
Givens and Assumptions -
11
2
3.
"Occupancy load" maximum per U.B.C. = 1 occupant per 15
square feet of public or "net"..area.
"Employee load is 0.12 employees per 15 square feet of
public or "net" area.
Customer vehicle occupancy average = 2.5.
0 -8-
I•
I•
I•
C
I*
I•
I*
r
4. Employee vehicle occupancy average,= 1.1.
Calculation -
Parking demand
= 1_Uers-on
2�5 e�rso�ns
+ 0.12 emp. _
11 S T
veh.
15 'S.F. '
= 0.400 veh.+
0.109 veh.
5 S.F.
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
1.1 em-
ve
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 City requirement is one
space for each 45 square feet of public area assuming one
person for each 15 square feet (one space per three seats).
The adoption of say, the 30 square feet requirement would mean
a 50 percent increase in the number of required parking spaces
for restaurants. Implicit in setting a requirement of say,
27 to 30 square feet per parking space is that no allowance is
being made for individuality of the restaurant or other factor
considerations.
RECOMMENDATION
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.
0 -9-
1•
E
is
A
is
I•
0
Ul
1•
1•
I•
ri
APPENDIX A
PHOTO'S"OFSTUDY RESTAURANTS
The following photos are intended to give
the reader not familiar with the specific
study restaurants a better "frame of refer-
ence" in reviewing the data collected and
analyses made in the study.
The study locations
consultant and City
fairly good "cross
Beach restaurants.
are considered by the
staff to represent a
section" of the Newport
n
-10-
1•
IF
is
I*
is
I*
�0
�4
I•
I•
PHOTO NO. 1
EMKAY RESTAURANT COMPLEX
(EL TORITO, BLACKBEARDS,
HARRY'S NY BAR & GRILL)
LOOKING EASTERLY AT EL TORITO RESTAURANT
FROM END OF DOLPHIN STRIKER WAY
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 9
I0
1•
C7
la
I•
I•
[l
I0
I•
I•
C7
PHOTO NO. 2
EMKAY RESTAURANT COMPLEX
(EL TORITO, BLACKBEARD'S,
HARRY'S NY BAR & GRILL)
LOOKING SOUTHERLY AT NORTHERLY ENTRANCE TO
EMKAY RESTAURANT COMPLEX FROM SOUTHERLY END
OF MARTINGALE WAY. PHOTO SHOWS BLACKBEARD'S
ON LEFT, HARRY'S NY BAR $ GRILL ON RIGHT,
AND EL TORITO IN BACKGROUND
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 9
r,
1•
I*
is
10
10
�6
�4
I•
PHOTO NO. 3
REUBEN E. LEE RESTAURANT COMPLEX
LOOKING SOUTHERLY ALONG COAST HIGHWAY AT MAIN
ENTRANCE TO PARKING AREA WHICH SERVES ISADORE'S,
REUBENS, AND THE REUBEN E. LEE RESTAURANT COM-
PLEX. ISADORE'S IS IN BACKGROUND, REUBENS
TO THE RIGHT AND REUBEN E. LEE BEHIND AND RIGHT
OF PHOTO POSITION.
APPENDIX A
Page 3 of 9
0
1•
I•
10
[_]
I•
la
PHOTO NO. 4
RUSTY PELICAN RESTAURANT
LOOKING SOUTHERLY AT ENTRANCE TO RUSTY
PELICAN FROM COAST HIGHR'AY.
APPENDIX A
Page 4 of 9
I•
I*
I*
I*
I•
�•
•
I•
PHOTO NO. 5
CANNERY RESTAURANT
LOOKING SOUTHERLY AT ENTRANCE TO CANNERY
RESTAURANT.
APPENDIX A
Page 5 of 9
•
0
•
•
•
•
PHOTO NO. 6
THE RED ONION RESTAURANT
j'ws • <r
r r�iq.. � • - ,
• LOOKING EASTERLY AT ENTRANCE TO THE RED ONION
RESTAURANT AT 2406 NEWPORT BOULEVARD.
•
•
APPENDIX A
Page 6 of 9
•
•
•
•
C7
•
•
C
PHOTO NO. 7
WOODY'S WHARF
•
LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY AT ENTRANCE TO WOODY'S
WHARF WHICH IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE RED
ONION. THE RED ONION IS SHOWN IN THE BACK-
GROUND.
•
•
APPENDIX A
Page 7 of 9
C
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
PHOTO NO. 8
ODIE'S RESTAURANT
•
LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY ACROSS COAST HIGHWAY
AT ODIE'S, 400 WEST COAST HIGHWAY.,
a
a
APPENDIX A
Page 8 of 9
•
s
•
•
•
•
C
•
•
PHOTO NO. 9
FIVE CROWNS RESTAURANT
LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY FROM PARKING LOT OF
FIVE CROWNS AT THE RESTAURANT
APPENDIX A
Page 9 of 9
•
19
C
I•
I0
I0
I•
Is
Is
I0
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.
•
-11-
FRIDAY
JULY 19, 1974
DATA SUMMARY
Newport Beach Restaurant Vehicle Occupancy Study
I Page
1 of 2
*MID -DAY
TH18, 19
DULY 18, 1974
COCO'S
IVESTCLIFF
ODIE'S *
1400 West Coast
Highway
HARRY'S BAR 6 GRILL REUBEN'S
BLACKBEARDS REUBEN E. LEE
EL TORITO ISADORE'S
RUSTY PELICAN
THE MOONRAKER
RED ONION
GULLIVER S
'
RED ONION
24Bo Newport
Boulevard
WOODY'S
WHARF
CANNERY*
TOTAL
TIME INTERVAL
IN
No.
Obs.
Sid.
Day.
IN
No.
Obs.
Sid.
Dea
IN
No.
Obs
aid.
Dev.
IN
No.
Obs
Sid.
Dev.
IN
110•
Obs
Sid.
Dev.
IN
No.
Ob
Sid.
Dev.
IN
No.
Obs
Sid.
Day.
IN
INo.
�Obs
Sid.
Dev.
IN
No.
Obs
Sid.
Dev.
In
11To•
Obs
Sid.
Day.
11:30-11:45
2.00
11
1.43
7
2.01
72
2.09
46
1.40
i5
1.55
11
2.12
117
2.25
4
1.95
183
11:45-Noon
1.20
10
1.75
8
2.08
75
2.13
46
1.61
- 18
1.50
6
1.80
�10
2.13
8
1.95
181
Noon-12:15
1.63
16
1.60
10
1.61
36
1.83
53
1.94
18
1.40
5
2.33
; 3
2.75
S
1.80
149
12:15-12:30
1.38
13
1.62
13
2.21
42
1.99
69
2.29
7
1.50
2
1.00
2
2.38
8
1.98
156
12:30-12:45
2.00
10
1.71
7
2.03
31
2.06
52
2.00
13
2.00
3
1.29
1 7
2.50
8
2.01
131
12:45-1:00
1.55
11
1.40
5
2.18
22
2.09
33
2.00
1
2.40
5
2.00
3
2.83
6
2.07
86
1:00-1:15
1.69
16
1.00
3
1.81
32
1.85
27
2.09
11
1.80
5
2.00
'10
2.00
5
1.83
109
1:15-1:30
1.27
11
1.40
5
2.18
28
2.00
19
2.00
12
4.00
1
2.20
5
2.29
7
1.88
93
WEIGHTED AVG.
1.59
98
030
1.55
58
0.24
2.02
338
0.21
2.01
345
0.0
1.85
95
0.28
1.76
38
0.87
1.91
;57
OAS
2.41
54
o.291
1.94
1083
02,
6:00-6:15
2.20
10
3.00
5
1.60
25
2.02
47
2.00
11
2.04
52
2.25
4
1.75
4
2.00
158
6:15-6:30
2.45
11
1.60
5
1.76
46
1.90
41
2.00
14
2.48
29
3.89
9
1.80
110
2.10
165
6:30-6:45
2..33
12
3.00
1
1.44
27
2.56
43
2.15
13
2.00
33
2.00
3
2.33
1 3
2.13
135
6:45-7:00
3.00
7
1.17
6
1.88
65
2.08
48
2.07
15
2.03
63
2.00
6
2.00
4
2.00
214
7:00-7:15
4.00
3
2.17
6
2.04
74
2.71
45
2.00
10
2.00
27
2.60
10
3.00
2
2.28
177
7:15-7:30
2.89
9
1.89
54
2.34
47
2.29
17
2.51
43
2.14
7
2.25
4
2.26
181
7:30-7:45
2.50
6
1.50
4
2.12
67
2.33
33
1.91
11
2.41
63
3.00
7
2.00
12
2.27
193
7:45-8:00
2.14
7
3.13
8
2.08
59
2.75
44
2.13
24
2.27
48
2.00
1
2.33
3
2.34
194
8:00-8:15
2.17
6
1.20
5
2.04
48
2.47
34
2.33
24
1.97
29
2.00
4
2.50
j 2
2.15
152
8:15-8:30
1.90
10
2.00
4
2.13
56
2.13
54
2.53
is
2.17
53
3.50
2
1.00
j 2
2.16
196
8:30-8:45
2.30
10
2.00
4
1.96
54
2.87
31
2.80
10
2.40
42
4
2.00
1
2.35
156
8:45-9:00
2.38
8
2.00
1
2.07
55
2.19
37
2.15
20
2.03
33
5
2.43
7
2.13
166
9:00-9:15
2.57
14
2.00
4
1.80
46
2.00
38
2.46
13
2.20
75
2
2.00
2
2.10
194
9:15-9:30
2.00
6
2.00
1
1.93
41
2.43
37
2.11
19
•5
L2.
7
1.33
3
2.21
150
9:30-9:45
2.00
9
2.00
6
1.94
52
2.18
49
2.16
19
1.96
26
4
1.00
1
2.06
1661.71
7
2.20
5
1.57
23
1.91
45
2.00
13
2.12
32
2
1.40
51.98
132
WEIGHTED AVG.
2.35
135o.sa
2.06
65
0.s2
1.95
792
o.e
2.29
673
oat
2.19
248
o2i
2.21
684
0.za
77
oz
1.96
55
0•�
2.16
2729
012
DATA SUMMARY
Page 2 of 2
SATURDAY
July 20, 1974
COCO'S
WESTCLIFF
ODIE'S
1400 West Coast
Highway
HARRY 'S BAR 4 GRILL REUBENIS
BLACIBEARDS REUBEN E. LEE
EL TORITO ISADORE S
RUSTY PELICAN
FIVE CROWNS
RED ONION
2406 Newport
Boulevard
WOODY'S
WHARF
CANNERY
TOTAL
TIME INTERVAL
IN
NO.
Obs
Sid.
oev.
IN
No.
Obs
yid.
oev
IN
NO.
Obs
Sid.
oev.
IN
No .
Obs
Sid,
oev.
IN
No.
Obs
Sid.
ow
IN
No.
Ohs
Sid.
oev.
1N
No.
Obs
Sid.
oev.
IN
"70.
robs
Sid.
oev.
IN
No.
Obs
Sid.
oev.
IN
N0.
Obs
Sid.
oev.
6:00-6:15 p.m.
1.88
8
2.00
5
2.00
31
2.53
47
3.00
7
3.75
12
2.22
9
3.00
2
2.46
121
6:15-6:30 1
2.50
6
2.48
31
2.63
35
2.11
9
3.67
6
4.25
4
1.67
f 3
2.43
7
2.61
101
6:30-6:45
2.56
9
1.75
4
2.54
39
2.49
41
2.29
7
2.50
12
2.27
11
2.25
4
2.69
13
2.47
140
6:45-7:00
2.33
3
2.00
8
2.67
45
2.85
46
2.50
18
2.65
17
3.00
5
2.00
1
3.00
17
2.70
160
7:00-7:15
'2.63
8
2.00
5
2.52
66
3.02
51
2.00
19
2.50
16
2.33
6
2,33
3
2.69
13
2.60
187
7:15-7:30
3.33
6
1.40
5
2.50
40
2.70
43
2.59
17
3.60
10
2.75
4
2.20
5
2.80
10
2.67
140
7:30-7:45
3.00
8
1.50
4
2.60
45
2.71
41
2.31
16
2.79
19
2.00
3
2.50
4
2.81
16
2.62
156
7:45-8:00
3.17
6
2.25
4
2.58
55
2.67
54
2.23
22
3.13
15
2.91
7
2.33
1 3
2.81
21
2.65
187
8:00-8:15
2.27
11
1.50
2
2.65
57
2.61
69
2.41
22
2.83
12
2.00
3
2.67
j 3
3.24
21
2.64
200
8:15-8:30
1.67
6
2.00
1
2.42
48
2.39
57
2.73
15
2.50
8
2.00
7
2:24
17
2.37
159
8:30-8:45
1.63
8
2.30
10
2.66
47
2.55
58
2.52
21
4.43
7
2.00
9
2.00
2
3.37
19
_
2.65
181
8:45-9:00
2.57
14
2.63
8
2.43
47
2.55
62
2.00
25
2.86
7
2.60
5
2.00
! 2
3.00
13
2.49
183
9:00-9:15
1.83
6
2.00
2
2.61
61
2.66
59
2.87
15
2.80
5
3.40
5
2.25
4
2.80
10
2.65
167
9:15-9:30
2.00
3
2.25
4
2.09
32
2.06
48
2.85
13
3.00
6
2.00
1
1.00
1
3.00
14
2.30
122
9:30-9:45
2.00
9
1.75
4
2.18
55
2.16
70
2.11
9
2.80
5
2.00
2
2.80
is
2.22
169
9:45-10:00
2.00
3
2.67
3
2.19
43
2.20
59
2.11
9
2.50
4
2.17
6
2.00
3
3.71
7
2.28
137
WEIGHTED AVG.
2.36
114
o.sz
2.06
69
o.3e
2.47
742
o.zi
2.53
840
o.zs
2.39
244oaz
2.98
161
o.5s
2,46
89
0.63
2.18
38
o.az
2,90
215
0.35
2.53
251
0
L
1•
I•
I♦
is
Is
l0
10
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
• -12-
is
G
Restaurant
SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
,r
Coco
Odie's
Emkay
Reuben Complex
Rusty Pelican
Five Crowns
a
Red Onion
Woody's Wharf
Cannery
0
The Moonraker Complex
[:
II
a,
Thursday or Friday
Noon Period Friday Night
Observations Observations
98 135
58
338
345
95
Not Observed
38
57
54
Not Observed
65
792
673
248
Not Observed
V&A
55
Not Observed
684
Saturday Night
Observations
114
69
742
840
244
161
87
38
215
Not Observed
0
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX D
•
'EMPLOYEE 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 60
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-
G
1!
is
1!
1!
I•
10
I*
I•
�a
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
Peak (1)
Employee (1)
21
27
11
30
55
35
13
11
26
10
20
27
20
55
24
27
13
425
Employees Per
Maximum Occupant
Occupants(2) Q )
214 9.8
280 9.6
135 8.2
182 16.5
298 18.5
260
13.5
156
8.3
182
6.0
225
11.5
99
10.1
146
13.7
210
12.6
241
8.3
323
17.0
162
14.8
276
9.8'
90 *14'.4
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).
•
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 PARKING•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):
20.40.030 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 1f,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 0£ the City of
Newport Beach Zoning Code.
U
-14-
C
I0
I•
U
I•
Ia
I•
G
II
a
APPENDIX F
OTHER AGENCY RESTAURANT
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The following Appendix is a listing of the
parking requirements for restaurants for
the Cities in Orange County.
I•
I•
I•
1•
16
I0
U
I!
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 ten minimum spaces, one space is required per
100 sq. ft. of gross area up to 4,000 sq. ft. For more than
4,000 sq. ft. one space per 80 sq. ft. is required.
• City of Fullerton -
Restaurant requirements for Fullerton are onelarking space £or
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.
1 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.
•
C
1•
I•
I•
I•
1•
1•
I•
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.
w
I•
r
U
•
1
•
APPENDIX G
BUILDINGCODE 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•
C
I*
10
1*
1•
�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 occupants 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.
(c) 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 PASSACEWAY 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
r,
r
C
33•A
10
10
rl
L
10
r:
rl
I*
1•
1•
�•
�•
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
-:-
-----
3
I
,
_
20
�-
3
3-
-¢
-2�-A-:
!-.-3
zT-19
3.
20
-I3-a- :
z,
22
23
24
28
29
30
31
32
33
/•
.+�--U}-~mow!.
I-�--
-?--._._. J��
35
36
31
39
2-