HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, Applicant) 5180 Birch StreetSEW POgr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date.,
O� m COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Agenda Item No.:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
" - -- � Staff Person:
35o NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-30; FAX (949) 644 -5250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant)
5180 Birch Street
APPLICATIONS: AmendmentNo.876
Use Permit No. 3635
Traffic Study No. 166
August 10,
21
Patricia L. Temple
(949) 644 -3200
As requested by the City Council, the City's Transportation and Development Services Manager
and the consulting traffic engineer retained by the City for the project will be available at the
meeting to respond to questions of the City Council. Additionally, a memo has been provided by
the Public Works Department describing the methodology used for the parking analysis and the
basis for their concurrence with its findings and recommendations.
Parking for Restaurants
During the public hearing on this proposal, the City Council questioned the adequacy of parking for
this project, noting some properties where there is inadequate parking for the on -site food uses,
particularly the small commercial center at MacArthur and Campus.
As noted in the original staff report prepared for the City Council on this request, parking was also
the key issue for the Planning Commission. Their concern was based on problems the City has
experienced when food uses group in close proximity to each other.
Historically, parking for restaurants has been required by the Municipal Code at ratios much higher
than conventional retail or office uses. In recognition of the specific characteristics of various food
uses, there were also different standards for conventional restaurants and take out restaurants.
Through the Use Permit process, however, each establishment could be evaluated based upon its
unique characteristics, with a specific parking standard defined, or waiver of parking spaces
granted.
In the early 1990's the City became interested in facilitating smaller food service facilities. As a
result, the new category of "Specialty Food" service was established, including elimination of the
Use Permit requirement and the ability to use the regular retail parking rate of one space for each
250 sq. ft. This allowed smaller restaurants to occupy regular retail space without providing
additional parking. The center mentioned by the City Council at MacArthur and Campus was built
as retail, and parked at the normal retail rate. Then the retail spaces were occupied with food service
under the specialty food provisions of the Code. It is the problems which present themselves in this
center which caused staff to revisit the small scale restaurant provisions during the Zoning Code
update.
After studying the operating characteristics of the many types of restaurant facilities in the City,
staff developed the new categories for eating and drinking establishments contained in the Zoning
Code today. This included the elimination of the specialty food use, and the creation of new
provisions for "full service, small scale" establishments. In creating this new category, the City
maintained approval at the staff level, but provided additional flexibility for staff to review the
project and require a reasonable amount of parking. This is expected to minimize future problems
in small commercial centers.
In relation to the comparisons expressed by the City Council, it is fair to state that the ratio of
parking for this project (1 space for each 59 sq.ft. plus 2 employee spaces) far exceeds the ratio of
parking provided at MacArthur and Campus (I space for each 250 sq. ft.).
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
1. Attachment: Memo from Transportationand Development Services Manager
Amendment No. 876
August 10, 1998
Page 2
MEMORANDUM
July 31, 1998
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: BURGER KING /RESTAURANT PROJECT PARKING ANALYSIS
A preliminary review of the parking for this site disclosed that there was
inadequate room to provide parking per the Municipal Code. The site would
have a Burger King as well as a separate building with two small -scale
restaurants. The applicant proposed to undertake a parking study to determine
if this project would actually need the Code required parking or if a lesser
number of would be adequate.
The Planning Director and I met with the City's traffic consultant for the project,
Bob Kahn, and agreed upon the format to study similar fast food sites to
determine an appropriate parking requirement for the Burger King portion of this
project. Two nearby sites in Newport Beach and a Burger King in Santa Ana
were selected to be studied. They were considered representative of locations
with significant numbers of walk -in customers since the proposed Burger King is
within walking distance of numerous office buildings and across the street from
the court building.
There was considerable variation in the observed parking demand per thousand
square feet of fast food restaurant at the three study sites. The average eak
rate was used for the proposed Burger King project. While it is about one -third
less than the demand at the Taco Bell south of the site, it is about 50% greater
than the demand at the Der Wienerschnitzel next door to the site.
I believe it is reasonable to use the average rate because of the careful
consideration in selecting the study sites and the proximity of the proposed
Burger King to the court building and other office buildings should result in a
very high ratio of walk -in customers. Another factor that was considered is the
concentration of fast food uses in this area including another Burger King at the
corner of Bristol Street and Birch Street. The proposed Burger King will be
sharing the customer base with the other fast food restaurants.
Lei
e�PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: July 27, 1998
� yr
Co%ii\ium rY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 19
G�= PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Marc Myers
4 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD COUNCIL AGENDA (949) 644 -3210
NEWPORT BEACI 1, CA 92658 NO. ti 21 8/ L 8/ i/
10/98
(919) 643.3200; FAX (919) 641.3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROPOSAL: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant)
5180 Birch Street
PURPOSE: The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft.
casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant
buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80 -seat Burger King
Restaurant with drive - through service. The second structure will be a 2,510
sq. ft. building divided into two lease spaces for two, full - service small -scale
restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft. each. The project
involves the approval of:
• an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development
Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the
current limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant
sites), and to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the
Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
This hearing also includes consideration of an appeal of the decision of the
Planning Commission's approval of the following related applications:
• A use permit for the establishment of a take -out restaurant use as
specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a
portion of the required parking spaces, and
• the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study.
ACTION: 1. Conduct public hearing;
Y
AND
2. Sustain the recommendation and actions of the Planning
Commission:
a) Introduce Ordinance No. 98 -_, amending Koll Center
Newport Planned Community, and pass to second reading on
August 10, 1998; and
b) Approve. Use Permit No. 3635 and Traffic Study No. 116,
including an override of the provisions of the Traffic Phasing
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
ZONE:
OWNER:
Citv Council Action
Ordinance (4l51hs majority required), subject to the Findings and
Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A."
••
3. Deny Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No 3635 and Traffic Study
No. 116 with the Findings set forth in Exhibit `B."
Parcel 3, Map Book 198, Pages 27 and 28
P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community)
Timothy L. Strader, Newport Beach
The project requires City approval of an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community text, a
Use Permit and a Traffic Study. The amendment requires City Council action since it is a
legislative act. However, the Planning Commission's actions on the Use Permit and Traffic Study,
including an override of the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, do not require
consideration by the City Council unless they are appealed or called up for review.
On July 22, 1998, Mr. Thomas Wooldridge filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
on the Use Permit and Traffic Study. Four areas of concern are discussed in the appeal letter,
including the amendment to increase the allowable number of restaurant sites, the parking waiver,
waiving the traffic mitigation requirements and the nature of the proposed site plan. They feel that
the applicant is overburdening the property by putting two restaurant sites on one lot. The
correspondence is attached for the Council's review.
Summary of the Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applicationon July 9, 1998, at which time it
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. An excerpt of
the draft minutes of the Planning Commission, and a copy of the staff report prepared for their
consideration are attached for the information of the City Council. The two most significant issues
in this case, waiver of off - street parking and the override of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, are
discussed in detail in this report.
In making its decision, the Planning Commission took into consideration a number of key features
of the application, as follows:
• The waiver of required parking spaces,
• The number of spaces provided for stacking in the drive- through lane,
Amendment No. 876
Page 2
• The overall on -site vehicular circulation, and
• The override of the TPO.
The Planning Commission voiced concern about convenience food uses congregating in close
proximity to one another, availability and usability of parking, and on -site circulation. In taking its
action, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that the nature of the new restaurants, when
combined with the specific conditions of approval and based on the findings of the Traffic and
Parking Demand Study, would result in a reduced parking demand and would not have a significant
impact on the area. This was due to the following factors:
1. The Traffic and Parking Demand Study was prepared by professional Traffic Engineers in
the industry by a firm contracted through the city. Based on the information and analysis
presented in that study, the City Traffic Engineer concluded that site access, on -site
circulation and parking as proposed are adequate for the site.
2. Since additional stacking space for vehicles can be accommodated in the parking lot
preceding the entrance to the drive - through lane, the proposal met the City's minimum
standard requirements.
3. The Planning Commission suggested that the applicant re- evaluate the on -site circulation of
the proposed project for a means to provide more desirable vehicle drive - through stacking
configuration acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer.
4. The Planning Commission did not voice concern regarding the override considerations of
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance because the actual traffic increase generated by the project is
low, and the analysis in the staff report showed how consistency with the spirit and intent of
the TPO could be found.
The Planning Commission was aware, based both upon testimony from the public and individual
experience with parking in the area, that there is a circulation problem on this site. They felt that
through approval of this application a measurable improvement could be made, while recognizing
that the on -site circulation could be further improved with help from the City Traffic Engineer.
Waiver of Off - Street Parking
Since the required number of parking spaces could not be provided on -site for the proposed
restaurant uses, a parking demand study was prepared to determine the parking demand consistent
with other fast food take -out restaurants in the area. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 15
parking spaces.
Chapter 20.66.10 states that a use permit may be approved by the Planning Commission, or the
City Council on appeal or call for review, to modify or waive the number of off - street parking
spaces required by the terms of this chapter if one or more of the following conditions are met:
1. A municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful in connection with the
proposed use or uses on the site or sites.
2. The site is subject to two or more uses and the maximum parking requirementsfor such
uses do not occur simultaneously.
Amendment No. 876
Page 3
I
. 1 parking management plan for the site has been approved by the Planning
Connnissiora pursuant to Section 20.66.100 (B).
4. Tlne Plamiiiig Commission or City Council makes the follotivingfindings:
a) The parking demand ivill be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030.
b) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its
design, tivill not generate additional parking demand.
It is possible to make finding number 4(a) in this case. Page 3 of the Parking Demand Study,
located in Appendix D of the traffic study attached to the Planning Commission staff report,
presents a comparison of parking requirements in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code
(utilizing a standard requirement of I parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one
space for each peak time employee for a fast -food restaurant) to the actual parking demand based
on field measurement of similar uses in the area. The parking demand study indicates that one
parking space for each 59 sq.ft. of gross floor area plus two spaces would be adequate for the
subject restaurant, due to the amount of walk -in patrons expected from the neighboring office uses
and Newport Harbor Municipal Court. Additionally, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive -
through lane is provided to insure adequate drive - through lane capacity for queuing to insure that
all on -site parking spaces can be accessed freely.
The Planning Commission did consider whether the addition of more convenience food uses could
change the overall parking demand for the area, calling into question the conclusions of the parking
analysis. Their discussion was based on the practical experience the City has had in shopping
centers with a high number of convenience food businesses (Back Bay Court, Westcliff Plaza,
Harbor View Center). These shopping areas have had parking problems, particularly when food
uses congregate in close proximity to one another. It is possible that these groupings result in an
expansion of the market area beyond that of a more limited number of food service facilities.
Should the City Council determine to overrule the Planning Commission's waiver and use the
established parking requirements for take -out restaurants at 1 parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of
gross floor area, plus one space for each peak employee, then the requirement would be 78 parking
spaces and the applicant would be required to redesign the project to comply with these standards.
A redesign of this nature is likely to result in a reduction in the square footage of the project.
Traffic Study
A traffic study was prepared to analyze the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic
and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and Council Policy L-
18. The City Traffic Engineer identified five intersections which could be affected by the proposed
project. Each of those intersections are identified on page 22 and on Exhibit A of the traffic study
attached to the Planning Commission staff report. The traffic study indicates that the proposed
project will have an impact on the level of service at the following two intersections: Jamboree
Road at Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road. The project increases the AM
peak hour ICU value from .92 to .93 and from .94 to .95, respectively. However, the following
Amendment No. 876
Page 4
improvements (shown on Table 9), will reduce the ICU value to less than 0.90 and mitigate the
project impacts. For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive, the existing westbound
lane configuration should be re- striped to include one left turn lane and one shared through and left
turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at
Jamboree Road, an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard should be
provided.
The re- striping improvement at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive is a fairly small requirement
from a cost point of view. It is, therefore, an appropriate condition to attach to this project
approval. The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, however, is
a widening project of substantial cost and complexity. As a result, the analysis was presented to
the Planning Commission in relation to recent court decisions regarding the imposition of
conditions whose costs are not "roughly proportional" to the project's impact, as well as from the
typical Traffic Phasing Ordinance methodology.
Rough Proportionality
The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road has not yet been
designed and the actual cost of construction has not been estimated. The City's Traffic Engineer
has, however, indicated that the improvement is substantial in nature, requiring the acquisition of
right -of -way and the widening of a street. Since the project under consideration only contributes
2 trips to the critical movement which already has 376 (less than .5 % of the total), which causes
the ICU to increase from .94 to .95, burdening this project with the full cost of this improvement
could be considered not roughly proportional to the project's traffic impacts. Should the City
approve the project with the improvement requirement, it is possible that the applicant would
challenge the legality of the condition, and perhaps call into question the validity of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance generally.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Provisions
The basic standard for approval of a project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is
summarized below:
1. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of
service on any "major, " "primary-modified" or "primary" street; or
2. The project is required to construct major improvements to the circulation
system such that:
• An unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any
intersection for which there is an identified improvement; and
• The benefits to traffic circulation resulting from the major improvements
substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted, but
unimproved intersections; and
• There is an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at
impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at
those intersections, because of improvements required of the project.
Amendment No. 876
Page 5
In order to comply with this standard contained in the TPO, the improvements identified in the
traffic study must be made conditions of approval, because they are feasible.
The TPO does provide for relief from the requirement to make a feasible improvement identified
in the traffic study if certain findings can be made, as follows:
1. The time and money to complete the improvement is so clearly disproportional to
the size of and traffic generated by, the project that it would be unreasonable for
the City to condition the project on completion of the improvement; and
2. There is a strong likelihood construction of the improvement will commence
within 18 months from the date of project approval. This finding cannot be made
unless the following has been accomplished.-
• Conceptual plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to permit
preparation of cost and funding estimates,
• Cost and f:tnding estimates have been prepared,
• The improvement is consistent with the General Plan,
• An account has been established by the City to receive contributions to the
project, and
3. Approval of the project is conditioned upon the payment of a fee to fund the
project the amount of which is determined by the Traffic Engineer to be
proportional to the project's traffic when compared to other traffic anticipated
from other development which will occur from the date of approval to completion
of the improvement, and
4. The financial contribution outweighs the project's temporary impact on the
unimproved intersection.
In this case, staff is of the opinion that findings 1, 3 and 4 can be made, since the cost of the
improvement is considered by the Traffic Engineer to be clearly disproportional to the project's
impact, a proportional fee could be established, and the project's contribution to the overall
function of the intersection is relatively small. However, finding 2 cannot be made at this time,
because improvement plans, cost and funding estimates and establishment of an account to
receive funds have not been completed. Therefore, this project does not qualify for approval
pursuant to these findings, and could only be approved by 4 /5ths of the members of the Planning
Commission eligible to vote (6 affirmative votes). Due to the appeal of the decision of the
Planning Commission in regards to the traffic study, the City Council must also achieve a 4 /5ths
majority for the traffic study to be approved.
The project received the required majority to override the TPO from the Planning Commission.
There were two reasons for their action. First, there were facts present which provided sufficient
rationale for approval, consistent with the intent and spirit of finding 2. Growth Management
Area 8 (GMA -8), of which the City is a member pursuant to the County's Congestion
Management Program, has initiated study of improvements to the intersection of MacArthur
Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has been authorized to
Amendment No. 876
Page 6
retain a consultant to design and provide cost estimates for improvements which will satisfy the
TPO requirement for this project. It is also the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that it is highly
likely that the improvements can be accomplished within a 48 month time frame. So, while strict
compliance with finding 2 above could not be found, an exception to the TPO was found
justified by the Planning Commission in this case since compliance was more a matter timing
related to the design of the improvements, rather than an inability to complete the improvement
within the necessary 48 month time frame. The second reason for the override was the small
amount of traffic generated by the project to the critical movement which triggered the ICU
increase at the intersection, resulting in the improvement requirement.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
SHARONZ. WOOD MARC W. MYERS
Assis nt City Manager Associate Planner
Attachments: Appeal with attached correspondence
Letter from Legacy Company in response to letter of appeal
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit "A" - Findings and Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "B" - Findings for Denial
Excerpt of draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated July 9, 1998
Planning Commission Staff Report
Letters of opposition received by the Planning Commission
Site plan, floor plans and elevations
F:\users\pin\shared\lcitycnl\1998\0727\A876rpt
Amendment No. 876
Page 7
❑J_ -1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Application No.
Name of Appellant
or person filing-
Address:
Date of Planning Commission decision: A 19 qg
n .,
Regarding application of:
IMA
for
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission) AM ¢.+am pA+ 1'D .O 1 I C evt�FY
of
Reasons for Appeal:
//0Tv�
Date u ,z i / /gw
Si a ure of Appel ant _
CITY CLERK
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: --.19 T_
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the
tiling of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec.
20.95.050)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
r.DC °ALS Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0403
Appeal Fee: 5399 pursuant to Resolution No. 97 -17 adopted on 2 -10 -97
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account- #2700 -5000)
�S
Results from the Burger King on Main and Harvard in Irvine:
Number of 6 (11:00)
employees
Number of 38 total (2 handicapped)
parking spaces
11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00
Number of cars 13 17 36 36 34
in parking lot
Number of cars 2 2 10 13 8
in drive -tbru
Additional Notes:
• Cars were parking at nearby establishments because there Nvere not any
spaces left in Burger King's parking lot.
Notes From
/ The Field
dGVVB
On July 8th two local Burger King
restaurants were visited in order to
establish the lunch time traffic at a
typical Burger King restaurant in the
Newport Beach area. The following are
the results compiled by Doug
Koegeboehn, Jason Gibbs, and Chris
Caulfield. If you have any questions, feel
free to contact us at (714) 86� -0404.
Results from the Burger King ou Bristol and Birch in Newport
Beach
!Number of
employees
Number of
parkiiig spaces
Number of cars
iur parking lot
Number of cars
in drive -thru
Additional Notes:
8 (11:00)
23 total (2 handicapped)
11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 1:00
9 12 19 21 23 22 21 22 20
3 2 5 9 5 9 3 5 9
• At times there were not enough spaces. Therefore, people pulled
alongside curbs.
• An employee cam@ outside to assist the drive -thru line by taking orders.
He came out at 11:35 and was still there when I left at 1:00.
• Many cars entered and left because there .was no parking.
20 Eseeutioe Park- Suits 200. )mine, California 92714 (714) 863 -0404 FAX (714) 863 -0933 I�
July 17, 1998
Page 6
to the Burger King.
Due to the nearby office buildings, substantial walk in traffic will be present on the site.
Based upon national sales averages, Burger King will capture the majority of these
customers. These walk in customers will be competing with the increased traffic from
both the Burger King and the new restaurants. Because the Burger King is located in
the corner of the lot, all traffic entering on the Jamboree curb cut destined for Burger
King must drive the length of the lot to reach the drive thru, across the access paths of
pedestrian traffic.
17 of the proposed 63 parking spaces are located adjacent to the Birch alley. The use
of these spaces will require crossing the Birch street alley to enter and leave the
parking spaces, creating further congestion..
CONCLUSION
This project is a case of attempting to put "too much on too little ". Either of the
restaurant buildings could be located on the property and provide adequate parking
and site traffic control. Limiting this development to one restaurant may eliminate the
need for waiving parking requirements, waiving mitigation requirements and amending
20 year old agreements. To be sure, two restaurant buildings is to the financial benefit
of the property owner, but to the detriment of the adjacent owners, tenants and their
customers.
We respectfully request that this project as presently proposed by denied.
Galardi Group, Inc.
James D. Caul f
Ovice Presiden
cc: Thomas Wooldridge
Chuck Horning
Nelson Mamey (owner of the Birch Street Property)
Tim Strader
t�
1�
July 17, 1998
Page 5
Wienerschnitzel restaurant. Northbound Jamboree use this curb cut after
a U turn at the traffic signal at Jamboree and Birch.
Given the volume of traffic on Jamboree vs. Birch, it should be apparent that
most traffic will use the Jamboree curb cut. There is no deceleration lane on Jamboree
to access this cut (there is such a lane at the Jamboree access to the Taco Bell), and
the three parcels are screened from the street by a substantial landscape berm.
Furthermore, traffic destined for the Newport Federal Property south of the curb cut
must make an immediate left turn to enter the office building parking lot. The addition of
hundreds of cars per day to this curb cut to visit the Burger King and the proposed two
new restaurants will pose a severe hazard to the existing uses. Further those cars
leaving the three parcels for southbound travel on Jamboree must also exit from this
curb cut. Those who desire to leave for northbound travel on Jamboree will likely exit
the Birch street alley. At that point they will converge with the Burger King drive -thru
traffic, as they exit the drive -thru lane, and any traffic entering the sites from eastbound
Birch.
The Birch street alley access, although used less, will experience similar congestion.
The traffic exiting the property will compete with the drive -thru traffic exiting the lane,
the traffic entering the property from Birch, and the cars attempting to park in the
spaces behind the Burger King restaurant which back up into the alley. Due to
reciprocal easements, this access point can also be used by Wienerschnitzel and the
office building customers.
It would thus appear that both ingress /egress points are going to be substantially
congested by this project.
The proposed project is not creating this access situation. However, the combination of
a restaurant which is a part of one of the highest volume and largest fast food chains in
the world and a separate building with two restaurants and 50 seats will create an
intolerable situation.
B. On Site Traffic Circulation
The proposed drive -thru lane will stack 7 cars. The study done of nearby Burger King
restaurants shows a peak need for 9 to 13 car stacking. Assuming that this Burger King
is successful (the Burger King national sales average is 20% higher than Taco Bell and
the nearby Taco Bell has 60 peak cars in the lot at lunch), there is insufficient stacking
and cars will spill out into the lot. The result will be blocked or inaccessible parking in
the spaces next to the drive thru and blocked traffic circulation in the parking area next
13
July 17, 1998
Page 4
(hopefully to the Wienerschnitzel!).
The additional restaurant building will have two different restaurants using 50 total
seats. 18 spaces are required and provided for this building. The Staff Report suggests
a possible coffee & bagel use - Starbucks & Brueggers ?? Each of these chains also
has substantial sales (customers) who can't use the drive thru, so they will compete
with the Burger King customers for parking.
Is there a solution? The site is adequate in size to accommodate a Burger King and its
anticipated traffic but not TWO RESTAURANT SITES with three different restaurants.
3. TRAFFIC STUDY
The city selected RKJK & Associates to prepare a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis
study for this project. The report is dated May 12. This same firm was previously
selected by the Applicant to conduct a Trip Generation Study ( report dated February
23) and the parking study discussed above (report dated April 20.). The TPO report
prepared for the City recommended mitigation which included adding a turn lane at
MacArthur. Due to the cost of this improvement, a waiver was proposed which must be
approved by six of the Planning Commission members. Most of the planning
commission stated at the hearing that they had "no problem with the TPO ". But the
facts according to the TPO Analysis is that a current level of unacceptable traffic will be
further worsened by this project. Again, since all of the expert reports were prepared by
applicants Engineering firm and presumably based upon their parking studies of the
Santa Ana Burger King and "previous studies" the assumptions in the traffic analysis
may be inappropriate to the Burger King at this location.
4. SITE PLAN
It is difficult to understand the conclusion of Applicants Engineering firm and the city
staff that the site design is satisfactory. Each of the following areas pose significant
issues with respect to the existing uses and safety of customers:
A. Ingress /Egress
There are two access points to the three parcels fronting Jamboree:
i. An alleyway accessible only from eastbound Birch street traffic; and
ii. A curb cut on southbound Jamboree directly in front of the
r
t
l�
July 17, 1998
Page 3
adjacent Wienerschnitzel facility, the Taco Bell just south of the property and a Burger
King located in Santa Ana. The study reviewed the number of spaces used in each
restaurant during the three hour lunch period during three days of the week prior to
Easter. The average parking demand per 1,000 square foot of restaurant was
computed for each restaurant. These averages were then averaged and this ratio
applied to the proposed Burger King. This average of an average resulted in a
conclusion that 45 spaces would be sufficient parking. The report also recommended
that the drive thru lane accommodate 7 cars, based upon the firms "previous studies ".
The "previous studies" of the firm is contrary to the actual number of cars stacking in
the two nearby Burger Kings surveyed. As discussed below, this survey showed 9 to 13
cars in the drive thru lanes.
In comparing parking requirements, usage, etc between competing fast food chains it is
important to understand the typical sales for each concept. In the June 22, 1998 issue
of Nations Restaurant News, a trade publication, the top 100 chains in America are
listed. Among the sandwich chains Burger King has a 16% market share of the top 100
market, second to McDonalds with a 35% share. Taco Bell is third at 9.5 %. The
average sales per unit for Burger King is $1,100,000 per year, Taco Bell is $972,000.
Wienerschnitzel is not in the top 100 chains (Wienerschnitzel total restaurants - 293,
Burger King - 7,400, Taco Bell - 6,700) but has a sales average of $510,000 per year.
On July 8, 1 caused a parking study to be made of the Burger King restaurants located
on Bristol and Birch in Newport Beach and Main and Harvard in Irvine. Attached is a
copy of this study. These Burger Kings present a very different picture from the Santa
Ana Burger King on which the applicant's parking and traffic study are based. The
parking lots were full, drive thru lanes were overflowing (9 cars and 13 cars at times)
and customers leaving or using adjacent parking. The nearby Taco Bell (which on
average does 20% LESS in sales per unit than Burger King) had a 62 car peak on their
lot. The Wienerschnitzel had a 34 car peak in its lot (its average sales are HALF of
Burger Kings). To conclude that 45 spaces is sufficient for the Burger King does not
appear to be supported by industry statistics or local experience.
The Staff Report states that to waive the code parking requirements the Planning
Commission must find the "The parking demand will be less than the requirement in
Section 20.66.030 ". On the basis stated above, we submit that such a finding cannot be
made.
If there is insufficient parking for the Burger King what will happen? Most likely, those
customers will use adjacent parking (Wienerschnitzel /office buildings), use the drive
thru (in this site plan - thereby blocking the limited parking spaces available) or leave
Galardi Group
July 17, 1998
City of Newport Beach
Members of the City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: 5180 Birch Street Project
Dear City Council:
Ow CiX L
HAMBURGER
0 STAND
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 17 1998 PM
71819110111112111213141816
I am an officer of Galardi Group, Inc., the franchisor of the Wienerschnitzel restaurant
chain. Galardi Group leases the real property and improvements located at 4501
Jamboree from Thomas Wooldridge,the owner of the property (the "Wienerschnitzel
Property ").
The Jamboree Wienerschnitzel was built in 1978 at the same time that Galardi Group
relocated its corporate headquarters to Newport Beach in the Koll Center Newport
Office park. We occupy the same office space today.
On July 1, we were advised by Mr. Wooldridge that on that day he had received a
notice of a hearing before the Planning Commission on July 9 regarding the referenced
project (the 'Burger King Property "). I personally obtained a copy of the staff report on
the project after the fourth of July weekend. As you know this report is 124 pages in
length and includes parking and traffic studies. These reports are dated as early as
February, so it is obvious that this project has be in the planning stage for many
months.
I discussed this matter with Mr. Wooldridge and Chuck Horning, President of Newport
Federal, the owner of the office building on the parcel south of the Wienerschnitzel
Property (the "Newport Federal Property "). They each submitted written requests to the
Planning Commission for a continuance of the hearing to allow time to review the
reports, etc. and stated that they were opposed to the project based upon the
information they had.
At the Planning Commission hearing, I again requested a continuance, but the matter
was considered and approved.
I have submitted the Staff Report to outside experts for review and comment. I will not
have their responses by Friday, July 17, to submit with this letter, but will submit any
N
4440 VON KARMAN AVE. SUITE 9222. NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 -PHONE (714) 752.5800 FAX (714) 851 2615
July 17, 1998
Page 2
additional comments when received.
Subject to further information as stated, our objections to the project are in four areas:
1. Amending the Development Agreement to increase the allowed number of
restaurant sites on the Burger King Property from one to two.
Waiving 20% of the Code Required parking.
Waiving the required traffic mitigation requirements.
4. The proposed site plan.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Development Agreement approved by the city in 1972 provided for one restaurant
on each of two parcels included in the total site. The total site included the Newport
Federal Property, the Wienerschnitzel Property, the Burger King Property and another
office building, which fronts on Birch street and is located behind the Burger King
Property (the "Birch Property ").
In 1978 CC &R's were recorded affecting all four parcels which limited the restaurants
to two, consistent with the Development Agreement. In order to amend the CC &R's,
75% of the owners must consent. Based upon the letters from Newport Federal and Mr.
Wooldridge, this requirement cannot be met.
At the Planning Commission hearing, a commissioner stated that this was a matter
between the parties. Assuming that is correct, it begs the question - should two
restaurant buildings be allowed on a site where only one is now located? The owners
of two of the three adjacent parcels directly affected by this amendment are opposed.
The owner of the Birch Property has not yet taken a position, but that parcel will not
suffer the same traffic burden as the other two parcels. As discussed later in this letter,
many of the problems in the proposed development flow from locating two buildings
(from which three separate restaurants will operate) on a site a little larger than an
acre.
2. PARKING WAIVER
The proposed development requires 78 parking spaces under the current city code, but
only provides 63. The applicant commissioned a parking study which included the
A
10
Jul -20 -98 02:50P Westmont
The
-,;egacy
Company
July 20, ! 998
City of Newport Beach
:Vleroher of the City Council
3300 Newpnrt Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92958
Dear City Council:
As the ow•rer cf 5180 Binh Street, I am writing in cppesition to the letter of the Ualardi Group
dated July 17, 1998,
I have met wish represuntativcs of both adjacent office buildings and they do not nppose our
application.
The real problem with the Galardi Group project is in their intensive of a small site Enclosed is
the staff report from the Newport Beach Planning C.ommissiun dated February 10, 1983 in which
the Galardi Gruup asked for and received a parking waiver of 29 spaces based upon their awn
parking survey. Any problem with their site is a direct result of the parking waiver given to the
Galardi Group.
Thu Planning Cnnunission approved this project unanimously and we request your approval of
this project, The staff report containing the traffic and parking studies support such a conclusion.
'1'LS:car
Enclosure
cc: lames D. Caulfield
Thomas Wooldridge
Chuck Horning
Nelson Mamey
Very truly yours,
1
Timo6y 'trader
P.02
840 Nev.00rt Center Drive. Suite 420. Newport Beach. CA 92660 • (714) 719.6365 • Fax (714) 719 -6366
.;u1 -20 -9B 02:50P Westmont P.03
4 t.;�,r ltl V' ♦ y1r ,rf� } .,t > ♦r. )�. ]� �•�� a
n r �. t, r.fv: � }lyl. -rrj II , i r .r ♦ , ^ ?, T! -S' A�', �jE, f7y�"�lylr ��l l�,
PSannln Corm•Suion N 4 ♦!'r 'n� } "y /�• ^r•���•
9 oelSnq TeDruary 1Oj 1987 � �rF '�♦ ti ?+
�ha Agenda •imam Ro:'
k °w CITY or NEWPORT BRACR ♦ ,
9'O,' - Planning COMiaelon
•''Planning Department
..,' S'8.7LC"1 Die Permit No. 1191 (Amended) (Public Hearing)'.
.� .. Raquast- to' amend a previously ' approved Use permit, Mich •' r' '� -.i
r al owed.'• the establ /ehmnnt of, a :''take -out >rood }`
r - - eetablislmlent (Dar wlanenehnttzol) in the Xoll Center ';I
Newport Planned Ce, nity. The proposed amendment I. Via"
to allow the addition of an outdoor eating area to the
exlatir.q restaurant and a request to Valve a portion' of r';' -•.�;
�• Ue'' required off- street, parking.:Vepaces. for said
a" nalon.
'a LOCATION, Parcel 2 of Paroel flap No. 106 -27 (Re iuDdivlelon ho,
located at 4501 Jamboree .Road, on the ;' ".!
'north"Bterly side of 7ar�borge Road, ,betvaen Birch
S1`•( - Street and macArthur Boulevard,', in the Ko11. Center i
Newport Planned Community.
J r `
APPLICANT,` .;Der Nisnerschnitsel, Incorporated; Newport Deach��
OWNER, The Kell Company, Newport Beach 41
\:' ...:�
Application
• 'e
This is a request to amend a revlouel a �N
P Y approved We Perml! which
permitted the eetabliahoant of a Der Wienerachnitrel take -out food
restaurant in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. '
This Amntisant requests appro•.at of the addition of a new outdoor
eating area to the existing facility and a request to Valve a portion
or the required off - street parking spaces. In accordance with Section `r
II, Permitted Uses, Crot:p I D., 4 of the Kell Center Planned
Comwunity Development Standards, a restaurant facility is permitted in -,
'Office ate C', aublact to the securing or ■ use permit. U49 remit
A
procedures are outitned in Chapter 20.60 of the Newport Desch
municipal Code.. -
l;iti 1;,'.' v(, �i. �,iy�(TOnwenl�41��14++1fieance � ' .
MAO rI ,�ltl1'i `r'o aiet �4 been, rwlswd and !t ham been ldatermined 'to be n °V-
Lego 77ek�wpe {uhdsr' el ass L'aExistlnq..Tacilltles), frow.'the..,
A,. e4ulrwente O�lthe C9lifolmis LnY1r0Mauntallausllev Ae[ ?11Y
W
Jul -20 -98 02:51P Westmont
eI7a 'Der wienerschnitzel' take -out restaurant, related dr!va- through
lens and parking are located cn the property. To the north, is
Raxter-s Restaurant and related parking &real to the &date across
Jamboree Road is a perticn of the Vniveraity of California, :Nine,
• pmpertyl and to the south and west are commercial office and
industrial moon and related parking areas.•4
At its mating of July 15, 1976, . the planning Cotmiselon'approved Use
remit No, 1797, a request to establish the Dar Mlenerochnitzel
- take-out and- driva- through restaufant on the subject ptoperty, The
finding% made and conditions of approval lrpoeed in ennjunction with
granting this rec•sest are set forth in the attached excerpt frm the Y}j
U� minutes of the V ar.nlnq Comisslon maatiTq of July 15, 1976. JJ /•.
4'1.6:
'. ... •..
��•'
The existing Der wlsnerschnittal facility contains epprOxlmately i,145'-
1;
F�'.
sq.ft. of groaa floor area with a 670z sq•ft. interior dining roam,
serving and kit ^,hen areas, an oC! lee , and reeeroerna. .The applicant 14
Conformance wit'I the Ceneral Plan
4
"The Land,' U40 Lleaent of the
General Plan
designates the site for
.•
• .'Administrative, Profesalonal,
and financial
Commerciale and 'Retail
cf the proposed addition. No Increase in the maximum number of eight
ar.d Service Com reiale uses.
The sub;ect
restaurant conforms with
•
the used permitted, -
Drive In and Outdoor Restaurant Raqulrenent•
•
••3Uhject Property and Surrounding
Land lee
..
Municipal Code was adopted in 1967 by the city In order to give the
eI7a 'Der wienerschnitzel' take -out restaurant, related dr!va- through
lens and parking are located cn the property. To the north, is
Raxter-s Restaurant and related parking &real to the &date across
Jamboree Road is a perticn of the Vniveraity of California, :Nine,
• pmpertyl and to the south and west are commercial office and
industrial moon and related parking areas.•4
At its mating of July 15, 1976, . the planning Cotmiselon'approved Use
remit No, 1797, a request to establish the Dar Mlenerochnitzel
- take-out and- driva- through restaufant on the subject ptoperty, The
finding% made and conditions of approval lrpoeed in ennjunction with
granting this rec•sest are set forth in the attached excerpt frm the Y}j
U� minutes of the V ar.nlnq Comisslon maatiTq of July 15, 1976. JJ /•.
4'1.6:
'. ... •..
��•'
The existing Der wlsnerschnittal facility contains epprOxlmately i,145'-
1;
F�'.
sq.ft. of groaa floor area with a 670z sq•ft. interior dining roam,
serving and kit ^,hen areas, an oC! lee , and reeeroerna. .The applicant 14
proposing* to add approximately 8504 sq. ft. of exterior dining areas .to
the restaurant, including that area where there are currently four"
small tables and bAnches. Thers will be no other changes in any of
.•
the Currant operational characteristics of the restaurant as a ra Cult'
cf the proposed addition. No Increase in the maximum number of eight
employaea is anticipated during the pesk hours, which are from S1,C0
S.Z. to 2100 P.M.
Drive In and Outdoor Restaurant Raqulrenent•
Chapter 70.77, Drive In and Outdoor RaetAursnta, of the Newport peach
..
Municipal Code was adopted in 1967 by the city In order to give the
Planning Comnlaslon the opportunity to review any proposed 'cake -oVt'
restaurant through the use remit procedure. Development standards
are included In Chapter 70,77 to ensure that any proposed davelopmant
"
would be aesthetically cpapatlble to adjoining properties And streets.
Said davolopmnt standards include specific requirements for building
setback%, parking and trafflC circulation, walla- surrounding the
t4ke•out rostamrknt site, landscaping, p q, ax ce rSoc it lum Snation, signing,
underground utilities, &ad storage.
.'
"20.72.110
�.
i section of the Municipal Coda states that the planning
1
; .;Cavaioslon shall have the right to waive or rodify any of the above
• .' �l'
"(7.
.• ; swntionad •devolopmant standards -toe, etakerout•. rastauran:s if such
•`�
m„ �1;��; �;'�, (,- Modification or walvoi'Will. achieve substantlally.,the mom results ands:;, :J•S;
k��-� �, h, aA:: isiil) :in_ :no•.voy,be "detrlaantal;ta• adjacent: properties or 'lmprovamanta!'.h ?Iri e 'i�
jul -20 -98 02:52P Westmont
'At ,the•' -tine ate yarn! No,' 1797 -was approved by�.Ne planning
,�,• . Commission, -it was detained that the waiver of the development ..
.''standards pertaining to we., a, and portions of the parking and ■i9ninq -'
requlrener.ta would not be detrimental to adjoining properties. Staff
is of the opinion that the proposed addition will compliment the other
ccmercial used on the adjcininq proportion, end ham no objection to
waiving aportion of the required parking specs• in conjunction with
this request.
AeTaired off - street Parki`q
The Municipal Code requires one parkinq @pace for each enployao an
duty during peak hours and One parking apace for each So sq.ft, of
groes floor area within a take -out restaurant facility unless modified
or waivo.t by the Planning Coeoisalon.,. Sixty -sight (68) Parking Spaces
von14 therefore be required, mince there will be autxiaem, of eight 1S)
C employees on duty during peak hours, end there is approximately 2,9952
sq.ft, ,'of floor area propose4 for the take -out restaurant (2,1451
: sq,ft, existing ♦ BSCt aq,ft,p roporsd e.2,995t ■q,ft. -e So sq.ft. + e
r'�. . smP loyesa . 68 syaco7. ,
(• The plane submitted Indicate atotal of 71 parking spaces on the site..
no sstactinq +lane• for the drive - through window core also aeccereodate
at least eight additional vehicles for ■ total of 39 spaces. In
addition, covenants, Conditions, and Reatrletions (CCSR'a) have been
,recorded, providing for ccr n vehicular access to each of the
k.•. adjoining streete, and reciprocal parkinq on the eubjact property and
the three adjoining aitas. A total of 29 epacee (6U required minus 19
,i provided) must therefore be waived It this application 1e Approved As
.., requea�ed.
The applicant has aubmltted the n-.., ..... .. - .••• :._.--
wle■ Of a au ry ay conducted to
determine the percentage of patrons arriving at the facility by foot.
A copy of the full report is ■ttnch■d for Comelsaion review. In
ouxmary, the results of the survey Indicate that nearly three - fourths
(71,41) of the reatAurant'■ customer@ cone for lunch 111100 a.m. to
2i0a p.m,) and approximately one -fourth (21,7%7 of these lunch time
patrons arrive by foot.
Staff has observed the lunch tiro operation at the site and the
results of the aurvny Ara accurate, CUAtootra that parked their
vehicles and consumed food on the promises ware opandlnq approximately
20 Ainutse At the site. Thn■o patrons who went inside the facility to
order food to -qo spent approximately five minutoa inside before
leaving, Parking *pace turn -over was good, with spaces available
on -site throughout moat of the peak period. The drlva- through rfn4ov
operation Also functioned well and did not Snt*rfRre with the parking
lot Circulation, The City Traffic tnglnesr has indicated that he hoe
no objections to the proposed expansion and waiver of the required
L •
parking ■Pete■ Inasmuch a there does nut appear to De a problem rich
imam mt, operation, ■r@4. in aAdltione Nan equate psrking n In ourrou red SnQ parklnQ lots for oho j+n rklnq, The f parkinq spaces Se conai■tsnt wISA oNeeln ronte4 b nnlnq.,;, Caaakiuion' !n • Cpnjungtlon rlth tak�•out and rough reaiayranea ln.tlaia Ci�tyyy ;:4,•;`' „ q }�����!� ,�.i }Y�Ar �ai'C.'.r9Y'L)rA -51f �5 �..' :'r.. :'i..�.irl�i
P.05
Jul -20 -98 O2:53P Westmont P•O6
�'A'J
t l )4 1 a ` _ t '`w i t .� . I f r Z.1 r v nV y�• y.P i4Eiji �a ,yam �d'.
0. �,� `..! l� 'j1:,1 /'�(( /11+�j�i•, dry'
1 s cSYlo •lndln f ard�lrscermiendation fr
c 1 1•
'Order grant; gn 0[ the H#vpo }t Heach KunitiPel Code'provide# tint�ln , w 1
.'rordar to grant ' any use paralt, the Plenninq Coaniulon #1fe11''Llnd that'�p,r�,:.n(�,`•7
"the.�eetabllshmant, tealnunane�. or.0pe ration o[ths csN .;oia'DuL:dLnq' ^;�'�'y;��r',:+:
applied for will not, under.tM circumstances Of'thr partlw2ar -Case r "''.. `:: !� i!
be 'detrimental to the heelth;• tafetyr .peace, mrals� "coa,tort:•. and
Dent ral wlfars of persons rem,
u lding or working Sh the heighborhood of •:
"such propo#ad use or be detrimental or Injurious to property and.•
. lriprovemente in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City..
btnff rncr+aeINN ,.pproval of uxe Permit so. 1797: "'"1i.
.suggests that the Plannlnq Coe.,�lsafon take Such ectlon ■ubjs t�to the -• v'�jK 'i
findings end condition■ As Set forth In Exhlblt "A "i attached, 6hoo .5 ti ++ -j,
! tlla Coamlasirn with to deny, thi s application, the flndin f °,pi�
Exhiblt "D" pre su Mastod ❑ q■ 1
, outllred Lt1
rr' I P1NntINC rFP }P7NF11T
JWS D
MLw; CkLR D ,
irector
0.
- Associate .Planner'"
Exhibit NAI
JSttacimentsr' LxhlbLt "a•
Vicinity Map
Excerpt from rinutes of Planning cormi,gim -
.. Meating of July 15, 1976. - ........
_.
- Puteursnt survey and Data shear
Lx.sting Floor Plan
Plot Plan, Floor Plan and ESavatlon
r
_I: wi, r.[F•'l cih� e- ncf �4 �.. ?i'...�... .� 1, ll�'J�. J'.l •.., '. l: ... .. .. •!��� e.,.
Jul -20 -9B 02:54P Westmont
i�l
VEX
P.07
F.
r S.
EXHInIT 'A'
t
T.NnTNCS AWa COUNZrTICINS Or APPROVAL' •
j.
t. USZ Pr.RMZT NO. 1797 (Amended)
INCS
.T Tat the propage4 development In consistent with
th a General Plan. and Is compatible with
surrounding land oats.
2. Adequate off-street parking spaces and traffic
circulation are being provided for the proposed
development.
3. -he PcIlcs Department has indicated that they do
hot contemplate any problem@,
4. That the waiver of a pomlon of the parking
j
requl"ment■ for the expanded take -out restaurant
facility will not be detrimental to adjoining
properties.
'A
The approval of Via Permit Map 1797 (Amended) will
not, under the circuastancts of this case be
detrimental to the health, safety, p4scat morels.
comfort and general welfare of persons residing
.�,And working in the neighborhood or be datriveintal
or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
Cctmmoles
1. That daveloprownt shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan and floor
Plan.
2, 7hst a portion of the required offf-stract parking
spaces U,*. 29 spaces) are waived.
1. ThAt A— applicable conditions of approval of the
original Use Permit Map 1797 shall be maintained,
VEX
P.07
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE RESTAURANT SITES IN
OFFICE SITE G TO THREE SITES, AND AMEND THE
KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO PERMIT EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT KOLL CENTER
PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1998, Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1998, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
held public hearings regarding this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the project
has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The allowable 'number of restaurant sites in Office Site G of the Koll
Center Planned Community Development Regulations shall be 3 restaurant sites and the written
text shall include the provision that the approval of eating and drinking establishments
(Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be subject to the requirements of Title 20 of
the Municipal Code. All sections of the Koll Center Planned Community Development
a3
Regulations that refer to the establishment of eating and drinking establishments (Restaurants,
Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be amended to include the following text:
"...subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, in each case."
The following sections shall be amended to include the aforementioned phrase to the text. The
changes shall be made to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations
including, but not limited to the following sections:
• Section II, B., 4 (page 11)
• Section II, Group I, D (page 25)
• Section II, Group I, G., 2 (page 26.1)
• Section II, Group V, A. (Page 27)
• Section II, Group VI, A., 1., a., b. (Page 27)
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this
Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the
same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on July 27, 1998, and adopted on the 10th day of August 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
11A
c.
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3635,
and Traffic Study No. 116
A. Use Permit No. 3 63 5
Findings:
The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the property is
designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial' uses by the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this designation.
The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2
(Replacement or Reconstruction), and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations).
The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by
the public at large for access through, or use of property within the proposed development.
4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size, off - street parking and wall
requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal
Code for restaurants (eating and drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any
greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission
approves this application, for the following reasons:
Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property.
The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center
Planned Community Regulations.
The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site
is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators.
5. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since
the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses which primarily function during
daytime hours.
6. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the
Municipal Code.
The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive -thru food
service and waive a portion of the required parking will not, under the circumstances of the
�5
case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following
reasons:
• The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Municipal Code.
• The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll
Center Planned Community Development Plan.
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office
commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use.
• The project will not result in any significant environmental impact.
• The proposed development fully conforms to the established development
standards of the Koll Center Planned Community.
• The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use which serves
the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area.
• The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed
change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan.
• That the off - street parking spaces which exist in the common lot are for the benefit
of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property.
• The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the
Parking Demand Study.
f
Conditions:
Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor
plan, except as noted in the following conditions. ,
2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63
spaces) shall be provided on -site.
3. The gross floor area of the fast food take -out restaurant (Burger King) shall be limited to a
maximum of 2,531 sq. ft.
4. The development standard pertaining to off - street parking requirements and perimeter walls
shall be waived.
5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight,
daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an
amendment to this use permit.
6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment to this use
permit is first approved. l
a�
7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties
or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits,
the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to
confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval.
8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be
maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at
each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces.
10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive -thru lane shall be relocated so that it does not
block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive -thru lane.
11. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
12. All employees shall park on -site.
13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current
business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use.
15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the
proposed operation.
16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct
drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise
approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department.
17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on -site and
off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the
policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition.
18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit
or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination
that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
aq
Standard Requirements
1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by
the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be
directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be
introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building
Department and the Public Works Department.
3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code.
4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code.
6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located in compliance with the
City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L so that it does not block sight distance.
7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent
public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the
proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right -of -way, unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited,
with the exception of the required trash container enclosure.
11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash
enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring
properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash
dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded
or while being collected by the refuse collection agency.
12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This
may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam
cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department.
iI
I 3. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to
control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster.
14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance
for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be
considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line
shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height.
15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction
vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic
control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance
with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of
materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights -of -way.
16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted,
either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in
accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be
prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment
agreement.
B. Traffic Study No. 116
Findings:
That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project
on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L -18.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in
compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will cause and make worse
an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major; 'primary- modified,' or
'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on
transportation facilities.
4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not
proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result
of this single project.
O, _`
Conditions:
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed the
improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and
Campus Drive.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the
applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree
Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
J�
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF
Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635,
and Traffic Study No. 116
Findings:
The proposed project would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and be detrimental to
the general welfare of the City because the project site cannot provide off - street parking to
accommodate the proposed use.
2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal
Code since the project does not provide off - street parking to accommodate the proposed
use.
3. The parking demand for the proposed project will not be less than the parking requirement
in Section 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code.
4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planned
Community Development Plan since Office Site G only allows two restaurant sites.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Breckenridge Group (John G antes, appIicant)
5180 Birch Street
• Amendment No. 876
• Use Permit No. 3635
• Traff ic Study No. 116
The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft. casual
dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant buildings. One
building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80 -seat Burger King Restaurant with drive - through
service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq. ft. building divided into two lease
spaces for two, full- service small -scale restaurants that will occupy approximately
1.2 55 sq. ft. each. The project involves the approval of:
• an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development
Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current
limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites) and;
• amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations to
permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned
Communityas per Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and;
• A use permit for the establishment of a take -out restaurant use as specified in
the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a portion of the
required parking spaces, and;
• the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study.
Transportation Services Manager Rich Edmonston stated this project was
subjected to the standard traffic analysis required by the City's Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. He stated that result indicated two intersections would be impacted,
and under the Ordinance, it would require some mitigation. One of those was the
intersection of Jamboree and Campus. The mitigation there would is the re-
stripping of assignment of lanes on Campus Drive, which we have had a
preliminary discussion with the City of Irvine, which controls that intersection, and
they did see any problems going forward with that mitigation. Mr. Edmonston
stated the second mitigation is at the section of Jamboree and MacArthur. In that
case they are adding thirty some trips to that intersection in the morning, which is
enough to cause the I.C.U. to increase one notch (over the City's acceptable level
of .90) which requires mitigation. A preliminary view of that location suggests
there are three different mitigations that might be made, two of which would
specifically help mitigate their traffic in the morning. All three of these have been
identified preliminarily as very expensive mitigations, probably each one in the
range of several hundred thousand dollars, and one of them clearly over a million
dollars. Mr. Edmonston stated they are in the process of hiring a consultant to
provide more information in terms of cost, and the extent to which right -of -way
may be required. He stated because they believe the cost of that improvement is
not proportional to the impact of these 30 to 40 cars. What is suggested as a
condition in this case, is that the re- stripping mitigation at Jamboree and Campus
be done prior to occupancy of the project; and that this applicant would contribute
a prorated share for the cost of the identified improvement at MacArthur and
Jamboree. At this point there is not a dollar amount to share as to what that
condition will translate into; but believe it will be proportional to their impact. Mr.
13
INDEX
Item 7
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Traffic Study No. 116
Approved
J''
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998 INDEX
Edmonston stated the question has been raised if this improvement is covered by
the Fair Share fees, and he stated it is not.
Mr. Edmonston stated they had the traffic consultant study other fast food sites in
Irvine, as well as, the Weinerschnitzel next door to this site, in terms of traffic in
peak hour that was walk -in versus parking and coming and using the drive -
throughs. He stated they believe, as a result of that study, the applicant scaled
back the size of the project. Mr. Edmonston stated he is comfortable at this point
that the parking that is provided on -site should be adequate for both the Burger
King and the free standing building that has two restaurants proposed.
Commissioner Adams stated he noticed the traffic report discussed the drive -up
queuing lane and made a statement that it had a 7 -car storage. He asked if that is
adequate and if there was queuing study done to back -up that claim. Mr.
Edmonston said he did not believe there was. He stated he believes it refers to
the amount of storage that is available in the drive -up facility before it begins
blocking other parked cars. Mr. Edmonston stated it is fairly common in fast food
facilities in Newport to have drive -up where the line does extend past that and
snake through the parking lot. He stated, in this case. there is quite a bit of
additional storage before it ever backs up to any adjacent property with common
access or out to the public street.
Commissioner Fuller asked if there is reciprocal access or a common drive -way
from Jamboree. Mr. Edmonston stated the drive -way is actually on the
Weinerschnitzel parcel; this parcel does not have Jamboree access; it only has
access from Birch Street. Commissioner Fuller asked if there is an easement or
something we have to ingress and egress. Mr. Edmonston stated to his
knowledge there is not a recorded that the City is a party to. He stated it is his
understanding that there are cross - easements, and the site plan as presented to
us and as shown in the staff report, does have aisle ways that are continuous with
that adjacent property. Commissioner Fuller asked if the same owner owns both
properties. Mr. Edmonston stated he does not know.
Commissioner Adams wanted to follow -up on his question regarding the storage
for the drive - through. He asked if we are requiring them the on -site signage to be
reviewed by Traffic engineering; and also can the Burger King traffic that enters
from Jamboree Road, how are they going to be signed to get to the drive - through;
are they going to go along the aisle closest to Jamboree or will they be taken
around the new food service site around the back. Also do we have discretion
over that circulation? Mr. Edmonston stated the answer to the first part of
Commissioner Adam's question is he does not believe they have looked at
signage for this site up to this time. CommissionerAdams asked if that could be a
condition, and Planning Director Temple stated we could have that as a condition.
Chairman Selich stated it is understanding that the Weinerschnitzel next door has
a waiver for 29 parking spaces, and wanted to know the basis for that waiver. Ms.
Temple stated that part of the waiver was based in storage in the drive - through
lane, however they did not research the specific findings that the Commission
made in that waiver.
Planning Director Temple made a commentaryto clarify the circumstances of this
14
.5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
particular application. Ms. Temple stated Mr. Edmonston described in detail some
of the specifics of the traffic study as noted in the Staff report. The project does
not technically meet the criteria to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance with a simple majority. Ms. Temple stated that, in order to be
fully approved and recommended to the City Council, this project would require a
unanimous vote of those persons present of this Commission since the Ordinance
requires a 4 /5�° majority of all members eligible to vote. She noted that while
absent, Commissioner Kranzley is still eligible to vote. Ms. Temple stated she has
been informed by the City Attorney that 6 vote plurality is required unless one or
more of the Commissioners must excuse themselves because of conflict of
interest. She stated that should the Commission not be able to achieve that level
of majority in this particular action but still have the majority to approve the Zoning
Amendment and the Use Permit, those would still be valid approvals and would
move forward to the City Council with the recommendations for approval on the
City Amendment, and the Use Permit, but with a non - approval on the Traffic
Study. Ms. Temple stated that could still be handled at the Council level, however,
at the Council level it would still be required to achieve that same majority of 6 or 7
eligible votes to actually be approved. Ms. Temple stated this is the first time in
many years which they have been confronted with this particular issue but she
believes that they have provided within the staff report reasonable rationale for
override of the TPO in this case
Public Hearing Opened
j
Timothy L. Strader, the owner of property at 5180 Birch Street stated he wanted to
compliment the staff on their extensive analysis in the staff report. Mr. Strader
stated he purchased the property approximatelya year and a half ago when it was
operated as a Carrows restaurant which was 7500 sq. ft., per the Use Permit
from the City, and the City required 75 parking spaces for that use. Mr. Strader
stated in this particular case, this is a reduction in intensity in an existing
restaurant because theywill end up with 5,401 sq. ft., not 7500 sq. ft. Mr. Strader
stated, in this case, they are installing 63 parking spaces. He stated, in answer to
Commissioner Fuller's question that yes there is a reciprocal easement between
Weinerschnitzeland his property. Mr. Strader stated there are minor impacts that
this project creased based upon the assumptions of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, and they respectfully request that the Commission seriously consider
an ability to proceed so they can take it to the Council. Mr. Strader stated they
have started to work on this project with the Staff last February, and Mr. Gantes
has, under the City requirements, paid the cost of the traffic and parking
consultants. He stated they request the Commission adopt the Exhibit A findings
with the conditions of approval. Mr. Strader stated, to the extent the Staff is able
to come up the actual costs that might be applicable to this particular property,
they may have the numbers prior to the final hearing so they can put the numbers
in their financial performa.
CommissionerAdams asked if there are any prospective tenants for the parcel.
John Gantes, Franchisee of Burger King stated that, at this time, they have a
proposal from Starbucks for one -half of the space, and there is no one lined up for
the other half.
15
3 `�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
Corn mission erAdams asked staff if they are comfortable with the trip generation
and parking characteristics of the traffic study. Mr. Edmonston stated that, in this
particular case, Starbucks would be competing with Burger King for customers
looking for coffee and a light breakfast and did not particularly concern himself
with that. He stated they have a standardized ratio which is used for small scale.
full- service restaurants but did not look at what the particular tenant might end up
being other than the half of the building that might be occupied by Starbucks.
Commissioner Ridgeway stated there was a letter of objection to the project and
he wanted to make sure Mr. Strader had a copy of it. Mr. Strader stated he picked
up a copy of it this evening and wanted to point out that the final paragraph is not
correct. Mr. Strader stated that the CC &R's do not require the property owners'
consent. He stated the CC &R's and declarant is the AETNA Life Insurance
Company, and it requires their approval of the architectural plans and has nothing
to do with the property owner's consent. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr.
Strader has a letter from Der Weinerschnitzel, and Mr. Strader stated he does.
Mr. Strader stated he thinks this project will improve rather hinder their operations.
Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Edmonston if they considered the ITE manua!
has suggested anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the traffic that is on a system
would be drive -by and use operation of fast food. Mr. Edmonston stated on page
14 of the Traffic Study, in Table 4, based on an examination they looked at, they
allowed for 45 percent for Burger King and 20 percent for the other uses. He
stated that, in addition to that, they did try to quantity the walk -in aspect, but these
are the numbers used in the Traffic Study.
Planning Director Temple stated she would like to remind the Commission. in
approving the project, the full service, small scale categorywould provide for small
restaurants of a much more conventional nature. She stated they did not look for
specifics for what they think might occur now, but to what the entitlement is and
what could happen there in the long term and try to assess those credits in that
light.
Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Strader (because he is familiar with the history in
the area), why Weinerschnitzel was granted a waiver for 29 spaces. Mr. Strader
stated he did not recall what was in the staff report at that time.
CommissionerAshley asked regarding the Traffic Study stated it might be difficult
getting into the property if westbound and,asked to what extent do these types of
traffic conflicts interferewith ingresslegress that might be related to the office uses
that would be adjacent. He asked if this is something that we should be
concernedabout. Mr. Edmonston was something they asked the traffic consultant
to look at, and one of the things that is a little unusual in a traffic study is there are
different distribution patterns for inbound and outbound because, on Birch, there is
a center median island that blocks a left turn off of Birch into the drive -way. He
stated that, similarly, if you exit and want to get back into the area you have to go
down Jamboree to a median opening and comeback. Mr. Edmonston stated"
most of those would happen at the signal light intersections, and there is capacity
to accommodate that.
16
�5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
Jim Caulfield, Franchiser of Weinerschnitzel restaurant, which is leased from Mr.
Woolridge, stated that both Mr. Woolridge and the owner of the adjacent office
building have requested continuances of the hearing. Mr. Caulfield stated that
because of the length of the package, the report being 125 pages long, it does not
give them the opportunity to deal with the issues presented when they have less
than ten days, three of them being a holiday.
CommissionerGifford asked Mr. Caulfield, aside from the opportunity to digest the
entire report and perhaps have other items he wanted to mention, she asked if the
principal area of concern has to do with parking and traffic movement on the site.
Mr. Caulfield stated also that they believe as owners of the adjacent properties
have rights under the CC &R's which are being amended. Chairman Selich
clarified they are not dealing with CC &R's here.
Commissioner Fuller asked staff who commissioned the traffic and parking study,
was it developer paid for or selected by the City. Planning Director Temple stated,
as required by the City's policies, the Traffic Ordinance Phasing analysis is done
under contract by the City, funded by the applicant, and in this particular case, a
combined traffic and parking study was done under City contract funded by the
applicant. Commissioner Fuller clarified that the City selected who the consultant
was who prepared the reports. Ms. Temple stated that is correct, and the
consultant responsible to the City for its content.
Chairman Selich asked Mr. Caulfield if he was aware of the waiver of 29 spaces.
Mr. Caulfield respondedthat he was not.
Mr. Strader stated that, from the standpoint of the request for a continuance, this
matter will have to go to the City Council and there will be adequate time for these
people to study the matter and make a presentation at the City Council. Mr.
Strader asked for a decision this evening if it was any way possible.
Public Hearing closed
Commissioner Ashley stated that the project is asking for 15 spaces which is
below Code standard. He stated the uses are well balance and the uses being
proposed are reasonable. CommissionerAshley stated he has no objection to the
application. Commissioner Gifford stated she does not have a problem in terms
of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. She stated that the people come in from Birch
Street and go over to the Der Weinerschgitzel drive - through lane and block the
end of the parking lane. Commissioner Gifford stated people coming through also
seem to be in the middle of the road there, not allowing for right turns down that
parking lane. She stated there were pedestrians who have to walk in all the traffic
lanes, and this is her area of concern.
Commissioner Fuller stated they have a letter from Newport Federal, who is
adjacent to the Weinerschnitzel who said they were not noticed, and they just
found out about it today. He asked staff if they had been noticed. Planning
Director Temple stated they mail to the owner of record on the Assessors rolls.
She also stated, after looking it up in the files, that in this case it was directly
noticed to Newport Federal at 4425 Jamboree so they should have received it.
17
l..
�e
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
e stated they are typically mailed out ten days before the hearing.
Commissioner Adams also agrees there is no problem with the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance but is uncomfortable with the site plan. He is concerned about the
pedestrian traffic also.
Commissioner Ridgeway also agrees with Commissioner Adams in that he too
does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He stated his
problem is the on -site parking. Commissioner Ridgeway stated the waiver for the
Burger King project is 15 versus 29 for the Weinerschnitzel, but when looking at in
totality in the cumulative impact, it is 44 cars. He stated he is looking for a way to
approve it because it is a good use of a corner that has been under utilized.
Chairman Selich stated he would like to hear Mr. Edmonston's comments
regarding on -site circulation. Mr. Edmonston stated when the traffic engineering
consultant reviewed it, he indicated in his report that seven spaces in the drive -
through lane were a workable number. He stated there is a considerable amount
of overflow stacking from that standpoint before it would get out to that main aisle
that would block to from Der Weinerschnitzel. Mr. Edmonston stated, in that
regard, the Commission and Council have, on other projects, conditions that
require the applicant or owner to take whatever steps are necessary to insure that
the back -up from the drive - through does not obstruct the street. Chairman Selich
asked Mr. Edmonston's professional opinion, given the constraints on this
property, if this is a reasonable site plan for the property circulation wise. Mr.
Edmonston stated he has not spent a great deal of time looking at this and trying
to figure out if there are alternatives. He stated given the layout of trying to have
some parking that is away from the Weinerschnitzel, it looks like a reasonably
good site plan from that perspective.
Commissioner Adams asked if he had any comments on pedestrian access. Mr.
Edmonston stated he did not think there was an attempt to quantify the direction
the pedestrians are coming from. He stated there are connectors from the
sidewalk on Jamboree shown in the site plan. Mr. Edmonston stated the access
from the drivewayat Birch is not as clear. He stated there is a conditionthat does
require further review of access and parking by his office and typically that is the
point where they look at opportunities for sidewalks and other pedestrian
amenities.
Planning Director Temple stated the ,project currently exceeds landscape
standards and the plan does show sidewalks on both Birch and Jamboree with
connectionsto the property.
Chairman Selich stated he too does not have a problem with the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance aspect of it. He stated he was concerned about the parking but thinks
it is a good use of the property and would be inclined to support it.
Commissioner Fuller stated he would support this project. Motion was made by
Commissionerto approve Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635, and Traffic
Study No. 116 and recommend to City Council.
18
31
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
Without objection and by show of hands, Motion Carried.
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635,
and Traffic Study No. 116
A. Planned Community Amendment No. 876. Adopt Resolution No. 1470
(Attached), recommending to the City Council the approval of PC
Amendment No. 876, increasing the number of restaurant sites in Office
Site "G" to three sites and, permit eating and drinking establishments
throughout the Koll Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the
Municipal Code.
B, Use Permit No. 3635
Findings.
1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since the
property is designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial
Commercial' uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The
proposed use is consistentwith this designation.
2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or
Reconstruction). and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations).
3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of
propertywithin the proposed development.
4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size, off -
street parking and wall requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the
development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (eating and
drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by
strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission
approves this application, for the following reasons:
• Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the
subject property.
• The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements
of the Koll Center Planned Community Regulations.
• The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed
uses because the site is located in close proximity to major
pedestrian generators.
1. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding
properties since the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses,
19
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
which primarily function
hours.
INDEX
2. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
20.80.060 of the Municipal Code.
3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant
with drive - through food service and waive a portion of the required
parking will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of
the City for the following reasons:
• The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative
intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
• The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Koll Center Planned Community Development
Plan.
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding
professional office commercial uses in the area since
restaurant uses are typically a support use.
• The project will not result in any significant environmental
impact.
• The proposed development fully conforms to the established
development standards of the Koll Center Planned Community.
• The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service
use, which serves the neighboring commercial uses and visiting
business people in the area.
• The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by
the proposed change since the proposed uses are similar, and
consistent with the General Plan.
• That the off - street parking spaces that exist in the common lot
are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other
uses on the subject property.
• The number of parking spaces provided for the project is
adequate based on the Parking Demand Study.
Conditions:
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces
for overage (63 spaces) shall be provided on -site.
3. The gross floor area of the fast food take -out restaurant (Burger King)
shall be limited to a maximum of 2,531 sq. ft.
4. The development standard pertaining to off - street parking requirements
and perimeterwalls shall be waived.
20
jot
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
5. The hours of operation shali be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m.
and 12 midnight, daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be
subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit.
6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an
amendment to this use permit is first approved.
7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto
adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an
evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control
of light and glare specified by this condition of approval.
8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common
walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be
shortened by two feet at each end to facilitate access in and out of the
parking spaces.
10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive - through lane shall be relocated
so that it does not block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the
drive- through lane.
11. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic
Engineer.
12. All employees shall park on -site.
13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different
ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the
conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property
owner or the leasing company.
14. No live entertainmentor dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the
permitted use.
15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in
conjunctionwith the proposed operation.
16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as
to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or
storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and
the Public Works Department.
17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean -up
of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use
and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity
21
1,10
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
this condition.
INDEX
18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to
this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this
Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject
of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the
date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
Standard Requirements
1. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform
Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the subject business and approved by the Building Department. That
issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to
the South Coast Air Quality Management District
2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant
where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works
Department.
3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal
Code.
6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located in
compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L so that it does
not block sight distance.
7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent
properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in
accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
Community Noise Control.
9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside
and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any
public property or right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works Department.
22
q1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
INDEX
10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property
shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container
enclosure.
11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in
the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from
view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse
collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top, which shall
remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being
collected by the refuse collection agency.
12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to
control odors. This may include the provision of fully self contained
dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if
deemed necessaryby the Planning Department.
13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in
sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash
dumpster.
14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to
provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes,
landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight
distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall
not exceed twenty -four inches in height.
15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of
traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation
of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state
and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no
construction storage or delivery of materials within the Birch Street or
Jamboree road rights -of -way.
16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall
be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment,
unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the
Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -
of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in
conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or
encroachment agreement.
C. Traffic Study No. 116
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in
23
t
q;L
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1998
accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
and City Policy L -18.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and
found to be in compliancewith the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will
cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or
more ' major," primary- modified,'or'primary'streets; however, the benefits
outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities.
4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections
is not proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be
implemented as a result of this single project.
Conditions:
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall
have completed the improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the
intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall
determine, and the applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects
impact to the intersection at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard as
defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
SUBJECT: A Request of the Planning Director for Direction in
the Determination of Gross Floor Area in New
Development
Give direction to staff regarding a floor area determination for a project a 221
Heliotrope, and for aNypical patio design. Additionally, if desired, give direction for
staff to study potential amendments to the Zoning code related to the definition of
gross floor area. 1*� %,
Ms. Temple stated, in brief, the is es presented here are both related to what
constitutes gross floor area as provide or-in the Zoning Ordinance are incurring
problems at the Staff level as to what is ahrkls not counted. She stated Staff is
requesting the Commission authorize them do further study and perhaps
suggest proposed changes to the code in this reg
Mr. Jeannette stated he has pictures of various proj-ecks that he has done
throughout the City going back as many as 15 years ago, and dicating how they
were able to park more cars on the site without creating an addi al square foot
of buildable area because they were left open. In discussions Mr. JbQ nette had
in the past with previous Planning Directors, he stated their thoughts ba ' ally fell
behind the concept that, if a space were at least 50 percent open, that, i hat
case, meant the wall two sides or a side a rear were open to the extent that ea
24
INDEX
Item 8
A Request of
the
Planning Director
in the
Determination of
Gross
Floor Area in
New
Development
Planning Commission
directed Staff to
study
further.
u\s
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
O COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
m
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r,
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(q40) 644-32 —; FAX (944) 644 -325a
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
Refer to City
Council:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant)
5180 Birch Street
July 9, 1998
7
Marc Myers
(949) 644 -3210 {
Automatic
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 7,500 sq. ft.
casual dining restaurant and the construction of two new restaurant
buildings. One building will be a 2,531 sq. ft., 80 -seat Burger King
Restaurant with drive -thm service. The second structure will be a 2,510 sq.
ft. building divided into two lease spaces for two, full- service small -scale
restaurants that will occupy approximately 1,255 sq. ft. each. The project
involves the approval of
• an Amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development
Regulations to allow additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the
current limit of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites)
and;
• amend the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations
to permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center
Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and;
• A use permit for the establishment of a take -out restaurant use as
specified in the Koll Center Planned Community Text with a waiver of a
portion of the required parking spaces, and;
• the approval of a Traffic and Parking Demand Study.
ACTION:
Approve, modify or deny:
• Amendment No. 876
• Use Permit No. 3635
• Traffic Study No. 116
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
Parcel 3, Map Book 198, Pages 27 and 28
ZONE:
P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community)
OWNER: Timothy L. Strader, Newport Beach
tA
Points and Authority
• Conformance with the General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. A restaurant is a permitted use within this
designation as a support commercial use. The Land Use Element allocates a maximum
square footage for Office Site -G" in Koll Center of 81,372 sq.ft. The additional restaurant
site will not increase the square footage of Office Site "G" above that which is allocated by
the Land Use Element.
• Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act)
It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Replacement
or Reconstruction).
• Use permit and restaurant development standards, procedures and requirements are set forth
in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code.
• Waiver of off - street parking requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal
Code.
• Traffic Study requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Pago'1 a 5
VICINITY MAP
Amendment No. 8761
` Subiect ProoeM and Surrounding Land Uses
Current Development:
Is an existing 7,500 sq. ft. one -story restaurant with subterranean parking to be removed.
To the north:
across Birch Street is the Newport Harbor Municipal Court.
To the east:
is Cal -West Credit Union office building and related parking.
To the south:
is an existing Weinerschnitzel Restaurant with drive -thru lane and related parking.
To the west:
across Jamboree Road is a vacant parcel, outside the City limits.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Pago,r `l
ANALYSIS
Amendment to Koll Center Planned Community
The Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations identify the subject property as
Office Site "G," and allows two (2) restaurant sites within the site. The amendment to the Koll
Center Planned Community Development Standards, as proposed, will increase the allowable
number of restaurant uses permitted in Office Site "G" from two to three. This amendment is
required to accommodate construction of the two proposed restaurant buildings where one currently
exists. The proposal also includes the addition of eating and drinking establishments throughout
Koll Center Planned Community subject to the standards and requirements of Title 20 of the
Municipal Code. This will allow staff to regulate eating and drinking establishments within the
food service facility through the subsequent review and approval of a Planning Director's Use
Permit. This will insure that those uses will be compatible, in terms of peak parking demand, with
the take -out restaurant. Changes to the land use limitations do not include any increase in the
existing entitlement of the site or statistical area.
The intent of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations, as set forth within the
P.C. Text, is to provide for the development of hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small
retail and service center, service stations, restaurants, and a site for the Courthouse, with the balance
of the acreage developed as a business and professional office park emphasizing open space. Staff
is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Koll Center Planned
Community since the proposed project is providing support commercial uses which are similar to
that which is existing, but at a smaller scale. The proposal also provides landscaping per the
requirements of Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations. Additionally, the
proposed Burger King and Food Service facility will contain a total of approximately 5,041 sq. ft.
compared to the existing 7,500 sq. ft. restaurant to be removed.
Use Permit
The project site is located in the P.C. District. The adopted P.C. Development Regulations for Koll
Center Newport allow drive -thru or take -out restaurants subject to the approval of a use permit. The
proposed take -out restaurant with drive -thru food service complies with all of the Koll Center
Planned Community Development .Regulations with the exception of off - street parking
requirements. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic and parking demand study
for the proposed food uses. The key issues analyzed by staff are the adequacy of the proposed
parking and compliance with the Restaurant Development Standards contained in the Zoning Code.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
PageA` Ll1
Project Characteristics Table
The subject site contains a gross square footage of approximately 45,205 sq.ft. The site is currently
occupied by a 7,500 sq. ft. building, previously used as a high tum -over sit down restaurant, which
will be removed if this project is approved and implemented. A Burger King fast -food restaurant
and a food service facility are proposed for the site. Also located on the site is a Weinerschnitzel
take -out restaurant with related off - street parking.
As shown on the site plan, the new Burger King building will be located along Birch Street facing
Jamboree Road, on the comer. The food service facility building will be located between the
Burger King building and the Weinerschnitzel Restaurant building, fronting Jamboree Road.
Access to the new buildings will utilize the existing entries off Jamboree Road and off Birch Street.
3 Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility.
' Based on 1150 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus one for every peak employee
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page a
Burger King
Food Services
Restaurant Building
Building
Gross Bldg Area (sq.ft.): TOTAL:
2.531 sq.ft.
2.510 sq.ft.
Net Public Area
Interior Dining Area:
1,295 sq.ft.
570 sq. ft. each (1,000 sq.ft. or less)
SUBTOTAL:
1,295 sq.ft
1,140 sq.ft.
Other area:
Restroom, kitchen,
storage and service areas:
1,236 sq.ft.
1,370 sq. ft.(685 sq. ft. each)
TOTAL AREA:
2,531 sq.ft.
2,510 sq.ft.
Required Parking: take -out Restaurants:'
60 spaces
Full Service Small - Scale:
18 spaces (9 spaces each)
Provided for Subject Restaurant:
45 spaces (+ 7 in drive -thru)
18 spaces
TOTAL Parking Provided on -site:
63 spaces
Parking Study Recommendation:
45 spaces
18 spaces
1 sp. /59 sq. ft. gross floor area
I sp. /3 seats (25 seats max.)
plus I /peak employee +2
(WAIVER OF 15 SPACES)
NO WAIVER PROPOSED
Live Entertainment:
NO
NO
Dancing:
NO
NO
Outdoor Dining:
NO
NO
Valet Parking Service:
NO
NO
Number of Employees:
Approx. 9 total
Approx. 10 total
Hours of operation:
6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. daily
6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., daily
The subject site contains a gross square footage of approximately 45,205 sq.ft. The site is currently
occupied by a 7,500 sq. ft. building, previously used as a high tum -over sit down restaurant, which
will be removed if this project is approved and implemented. A Burger King fast -food restaurant
and a food service facility are proposed for the site. Also located on the site is a Weinerschnitzel
take -out restaurant with related off - street parking.
As shown on the site plan, the new Burger King building will be located along Birch Street facing
Jamboree Road, on the comer. The food service facility building will be located between the
Burger King building and the Weinerschnitzel Restaurant building, fronting Jamboree Road.
Access to the new buildings will utilize the existing entries off Jamboree Road and off Birch Street.
3 Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility.
' Based on 1150 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus one for every peak employee
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page a
The Koll Center Planned Community establishes that off - street parking requirements for take -out
restaurants, or any eating and drinking establishment with drive - through or drive -up service, shall
be in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code
requires I parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area contained within the building or in
any outdoor area capable of being used for the purpose of serving food or beverages and one
parking space for each employee on duty. Based on the proposed 2,531 sq. ft. of take -out restaurant
and assuming 9 peak employees, 60 parking spaces are required for the proposed Burger King
restaurant. The parking requirement for the other food services building is based upon the City
requirements for a full service small scale restaurant. The parking requirement for these facilities is
based upon I space per 3 seats, for a total of 18 spaces.
The required amount of parking spaces (18) are provided on -site for the food services facility. It is
anticipated that at least one of the food services will be a breakfast oriented restaurant such as a
bagel or muffin shop which would have its peak parking demand occur in the early morning. This
would not conflict with the Burger King since the fast food restaurant will have a noon hour peak
demand. The total parking required for the entire site including the Burger King and the food
services facility is 78 spaces.
Waiver of Off-Street Parking Requirements
Since the required number of parking spaces could not be provided on -site for the proposed
restaurant uses, a parking demand study was prepared to determine the parking demand consistent
with other fast food take -out restaurants in the area. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 15
parking spaces.
Chapter 20.66.10 states that a use permit may be approved by the Planning Commission to modify
or waive the number of off - street parking spaces required by the terms of this chapter if one or more
of the following conditions are met:
1. A municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful in connection with the
proposed use or uses on the site or sites.
2. The site is subject to two or more uses and the maximum parking requirements jar such
uses do not occur simultaneously.
3. A parking management plan for the site has been approved by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 20.66. 100 (B).
4. ne Planning Commission makes thefollowingfndings:
a) The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030.
b) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its
design, will not generate additional parking demand.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 6_
%AR
It is possible to make finding number 4(a) in this case. Page 3 of the Parking Demand Study,
located in Appendix D of the attached traffic study, presents a comparison of parking requirements
in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code (utilizing a standard requirement of 1 parking
space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space for each peak time employee for a fast -
food restaurant) to the actual parking demand based on field measurement of similar uses in the
area. The parking demand study indicates that one parking space for each 59 sq.ft. of gross floor
area plus two spaces would be adequate for the subject restaurant, due to the amount of walk -in
patrons expected from the neighboring office uses and Newport Harbor Municipal Court.
Additionally, storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive -thru lane is provided to insure adequate
drive -thru lane capacity for queuing to insure that all on -site parking spaces can be accessed freely.
The Planning Commission could also determine that the addition of more convenience food uses
could change the overall parking demand for the area, calling into question the conclusions of the
parking analysis. This conclusion could be based on the practical experience the City has had in
shopping centers with a high number of convenience food businesses (Back Bay Court, Westcliff
Plaza, Harbor View Center). These shopping areas have had parking problems, particularly when
food uses congregate in close proximity to one another. It is possible that these groupings result in
an expansion of the market area beyond that of a more limited number of food service facilities.
Should the Planning Commission uphold the established parking requirements for take -out
restaurants at I parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area, plus one space for each peak
employee, then the requirement would be 78 parking spaces and the applicant would be required to
redesign the project to comply with these standards. A redesign of this nature is likely to result in a
reduction in the square footage of the project.
Restaurant Development Standards
Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants, as outlined
below. Those development standards include specific requirements for restaurant sites, building
setbacks, off - street parking, traffic circulation, walls, landscaping, lighting (exterior illumination),
underground utilities, supply storage and refuse storage. Section 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code
states that any of the development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if strict
compliance is not necessary to achieve the purpose or intent of the standard.
11
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 7
J�
Development Standards
Staff is of the opinion that the on -site development standards as they apply to site, off - street parking
and wall requirements should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application,
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 8 1
REQUIREMENT
PROPOSED
Site
Site shall be suflicicnt size and configuration to
Waiver. The project complies with setbacks- curb cuts.
satisfy all requirements for off - street parking.
landscaping and refuse storage requirements of the Koll
setbacks, curb cuts. walls. landscaping and refuse
Center Planned Community District Regulations which
storage as provided b) Section 20.82.040 of the
are more restrictive than the provisions of the Zoning
Municipal Code.
Code. but does not comply with the minimum site size
requirement since the project does not satisfy the
requirement for off- street parking.
Setbacks:
30 foot setback at Jamboree Road and Birch Street,
Complies. The project provides 55 ft. from Jamboree
zero setback at interior lot lines and 10 foot setback
Road. 30 ft. From Birch Street and 140 ft. between
betw'ecn buildings per Koll Center PC District
buildings.
Regulations: to protect the public health, safety and
welfare or to insure compatibility with uses on
contiguous properties (per Section 20.82.040 A -2.
NBMC).
OJI-- Street
Off- street parking in accordance with the provisions
waiver. A parking demand study has been conducted
Parking:
of Koll Center PC District Regulations (I spaces per
which finds that 1 space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross Floor
50 sq.fl. of gross floor area plus one per employee).
area, plus 2 spaces will be adequate for the Burger King
restaurant. The food service facility complies with the
parking requirement of 1 space for every 3 seats
established by the Code.
Circulation.:
Parking areas and drivcways to facilitate traffic and
Complies. The traffic circulation has been reviewed and
circulation of vehicles on and around the facility and
conceptually approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
to provide adequate sight clearances.
Walls (adjacent
A solid masons wall 6 feet high shall be erected on
Waiver. The requirement to provide a 6 foot high wall at
to the interior
all interior property lines of the subject property.
the interior property line would adversely impact the
property lines):
Walls 3 feet in height shall be erected between the
shared drive access which serves the adjacent restaurant
on -site parking areas and the public rights -of -way.
site. No walls are proposed between the on -site parking
and the public rights-of-way. However, staff believes that
the intent of the requirement is satisfied by the perimeter
landscaping and increased setbacks along Jamboree Road.
Landscaping.
10% of entire site. 3 foot wide landscape area shall
Complies. The requirement of landscaping for an area
be provided to screen the parking area from the
equal to 10% of the site is adequately addressed by the
public right -of -way (alley). A 3 foot wide landscape
requirements of the Koll Center Planned Community
area adjacent to the interior property lines shall be
District Regulations which govern the entire project. The
provided.
project provides 28% site landscaping which exceeds the
minimum requirement. A landscape plan for the entire
project is required and will be approved for the project.
Lighting:
Parking lot and site illumination height and intensity:
Complies.
to minimize the reflection of lights to the streets and
neighboring properties.
Utilities
All utilities required to be undergrounded.
Complies.
Supply Storage
Supply storage to be contained within a building.
Complies.
Refuse Storage
Refuse storage outside of a building shall be hidden
Complies. The site plan identifies two separate trash
from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height
enclosures for the project, one for each building, screened
with self- locking gates.
from view by 6 ft. solid masonry walls.
Staff is of the opinion that the on -site development standards as they apply to site, off - street parking
and wall requirements should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application,
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 8 1
since the granting of the waiver will generally achieve the same results as would strict compliance
with the requirements of Chapter 20.82.
Traffic Study
A traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak
hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and
Council Policy L -18. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five intersections which could be
affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections are identified on page 22 and on
Exhibit A of the attached traffic study. The traffic study indicates that the proposed project will
have an impact on the level of service at the following two intersections: Jamboree Road at
Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road. The project increases the AM peak
hour ICU value from .92 to .93 and from .94 to .95, respectively. However, the following
improvements (shown on Table 9), will reduce the ICU value to less than 0.90 and mitigate the
project impacts. The required improvements are as follows: For the intersection of Jamboree Road
at Campus Drive, the existing westbound lane configuration should be re- striped to include one left
turn lane and one shared through and left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. For
the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road, an additional northbound right tam
lane on MacArthur Boulevard should be provided.
The re- striping improvement at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive is a fairly small requirement
from a cost point of view. It is, therefore, an appropriate condition to attach to this project
approval. The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, however, is
a widening project of substantial cost and complexity. As a result, staff presents this analysis in
relation to recent court decisions regarding the imposition of conditions whose costs are not
"roughly proportional" to the project's impact, as well as from the typical Traffic Phasing
Ordinance methodology.
Rough Proportionality
The improvement identified at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road has not yet been
designed and the actual cost of construction has not been estimated. The City's Traffic Engineer
has, however, indicated that the improvement is substantial in nature, requiring the acquisition of
right -of -way and the widening of a strtet. Since the project under consideration only contributes
2 trips to the critical movement which already has 376 (less than .5 % of the total), which causes
the ICU to increase from .94 to .95, burdening this project with the full cost of this improvement
could be considered not roughly proportional to the project's traffic impacts. Should the City
approve the project with the improvement requirement, it is possible that the applicant would
challenge the legality of the condition, and perhaps call into question the validity of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance generally.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 9
6 �-
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Provisions
The basic standard for approval of a project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is
summarized below:
1. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of
service on any "major, " " prinumy- niodifued " or "primacy" street; or
2. The project is required to construct major improvements to the circulation
system such that:
• An unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any
intersection for which there is an identified improvement; and
• The benefits to traffic circulation resulting front the major improvements
substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted, but
unimproved intersections; and
• There is an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at
impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at
those intersections, because of improvements required of the project.
In order to comply with this standard contained in the TPO, the improvements identified in the
traffic study must be made conditions of approval, because they are feasible.
The TPO does provide for relief from this mandate if certain findings can be made, as follows:
1. The time and money to complete the improvement is so clearly disproportional
to the size of and traffic generated by, the project that it would be
unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of the
improvement; and
2. There is a strong likelihood construction of the improvement will commence
within 48 months from the date of project approval. This finding cannot be
made unless the following has been accomplished:
• Conceptual plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to permit
preparation of cost and funding estimates,
• Cost and funding estimates have been prepared,
• The improvement is copsistent with the General Plan,
• An account has been established by the City to receive contributions to the
project, and
3. Approval of the project is conditioned upon the payment of a fee to fund the
project the amount of which is determined by the Traffic Engineer to be
proportional to the project's traffic when compared to other traffic
anticipated from other development which will occur from the date of
approval to completion of the improvement, and
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 10
x
4. The financial contribution outweighs the project's temporary impact on the
unimproved intersection. t
In this case, staff is of the opinion that findings 1. 3 and 4 can be made, since the cost of the
improvement is considered by the Traffic Engineer to be clearly disproportional to the project's
impact, a proportional fee could be established, and the project's contribution to the overall
function of the intersection is relatively small. However. finding 2 cannot be made at this time,
because improvement plans, cost and funding estimates and establishment of an account to
receive funds have not been completed. Therefore, this project does not qualify for approval
pursuant to these findings, and can only be approved by 4 /5ths of the members of the Planning
Commission eligible to vote. In the case of a seven member Commission, this ratio equates to 6
affirmative votes.
There are facts present, however, which could provide sufficient rationale for approval,
consistent with the intent and spirit of these findings. Growth Management Area 8 (GMA -8), of
which the City is a member pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Program, has
initiated study of improvements to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road.
The Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has been authorized to retain a consultant to design and
provide cost estimates for improvements which will satisfy the TPO requirement for this project.
It is also the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that it is highly likely that the improvements can be
accomplished within a 48 month time frame. So, while strict compliance with funding 2 above
cannot be found, an exception to the TPO may be justified in this case.
t
Conclusion
While no specific findings are set forth in the Code for the approval of an amendment to Planned
Community District Regulations and Development Plans. staff is of the opinion that the proposed
changes are consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan since restaurant uses are
permitted uses in this area. The proposed location of the additional restaurant building and the
proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained are consistent with the General
Plan and the purpose and intent of the Planned Community in which the site is located. Adequate
parking is provided and the project is located within a large commercial office center and therefore
is compatible as a support use with the existing surrounding development.
Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beath Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use
permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
Based upon the analysis contained in this report, it could be found that the findings for approval of
the use permit can be made for the proposed take- out/drive -thru restaurant since the proposed drive -
thru restaurant and food service building will comply with the objectives of the Koll Center
Amendment No. 876
Use Petmit No. 3635
Page 11 q
the site as proposed. Because of the site's location in an office park planned community, there is
little potential for problems associated with hours of operation and noise generated by the proposed
restaurant operation.
It can also be found that the physical attributes of the proposed site improvements limited by the
reciprocal parking and ingress and egress arrangements, complicate the ability to bring the property
into full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code with regard to
walls. In addition, staff also believes that the provisions of the Koll Center Planned Community
District Regulations adequately address site requirements and provide for uniform landscape
treatment throughout the center to offset the requirements of perimeter walls.
It can also be found that the project meets the intent of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, because
although adverse impacts to two intersections have been identified, a feasible improvement suitable
to the scope of the project has been identified for Jamboree Road and Campus Drive, and the spirit
and intent of the requirements to assess a proportional contribution to an improvement at Jamboree
Road and MacArthur Boulevard are met. It should be noted, however, that the project does not
actually meet all of the requirements for this proportional assessment, so six affirmative votes are
required to approve the project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3635, the findings and
conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested.
It is also possible to make findings for denial of this project. The project's inability to provide the
required off - street parking could result in traffic and parking problems that will negatively impact
the surrounding commercial uses. Also, an additional restaurant site would create a high
concentration of convenience food services in that location which may result in additional traffic,
parking and circulation problems in and around the site. Should the Planning Commission wish to
deny this project, the findings set forth in Exhibit `B" are suggested.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE MARC W. MYERS
Planning Director Associate Planner
�tG ta
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Appendix
Traffic Study
Parking Demand Study
Plot Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations
F: WSERSPLNISHAREDU PLANC0M11 9 9810 7- "76.DOC
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 12 .�
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Amendment No. 876, Use Permit No. 3635,
and Traffic Study No. 116
A. Planned Communitv Amendment No. 876: Adopt Resolution No. (Attached),
recommending to the City Council the approval of PC Amendment No. 876, increasing the
number of restaurant sites in Office Site "G" to three sites and, permit eating and drinking
establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community per Title 20 of the
Municipal Code.
B. Use Permit No. _635
Findings:
The proposed development is consistent 6vith the General Plan since the property is
designated for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial" uses by the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this designation.
2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2
(Replacement or Reconstruction), and Class 5 (Minor Changes in Land Use Regulations). 1
3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by
the public at large for access through, or use of property within the proposed development.
4. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to site size, off - street parking and wall
requirements, meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal
Code for restaurants (eating and drinking establishments) and will not be achieved to any
greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Commission
approves this application, for the following reasons:
• Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property.
• The restaurant facility complies with the landscape requirements of the Koll Center
Planned Community Regulations.
• The number of parking spaces adequately serves the proposed uses because the site
is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators.
5. The proposed parking lot lighting will not adversely affect the surrounding properties since
the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses which primarily function during
daytime hours.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 13
,rti
6. • Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the
Municipal Code.
7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3635 to establish a fast food restaurant with drive -thru food
service and waive a portion of the required parking will not, under the circumstances of the
case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following
reasons:
• The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Municipal Code.
• The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll
Center Planned Community Development Plan.
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding professional office
commercial uses in the area since restaurant uses are typically a support use.
• The project will not result in any significant environmental impact.
• The proposed development fully conforms to the established development
standards of the Kell Center Planned Community.
• The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use which serves
the neighboring commercial uses and visiting business people in the area.
• The nearby commercial uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed
change since the proposed uses are similar, and consistent with the General Plan.
• That the off - street parking spaces which exist in the common lot are for the benefit
of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property.
• The number of parking spaces provided for the project is adequate based on the
Parking Demand Study.
Conditions:
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor
plan, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. One parking space for each 59 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 2 spaces for overage (63
spaces) shall be provided on -site.
3. The gross floor area of the fast food take -out restaurant (Burger King) shall be limited to a
maximum of 2,531 sq. ft.
4. The development standard pertaining to off - street parking requirements and perimeter walls
shall be waived.
Amendment Flo. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 14
5�
5. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight,
daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an
amendment to this use permit.
6. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless an amendment to this use
permit is first approved.
7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties
or uses. That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits,
the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to
confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval.
8. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be
maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
9. All landscape island curbs at the end of the parking spaces shall be shortened by two feet at
each end to facilitate access in and out of the parking spaces.
10. The trash enclosure adjacent to the drive -thru lane shall be relocated so that it does not
block sight distance of patrons leaving the site from the drive -thru lane.
11. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
f
12. All employees shall park on -site.
13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current
business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use.
15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the
proposed operation.
16. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow direct
drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise
approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department.
17. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on -site and
off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the
policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition.
18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit
or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 15
�a
that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to
the health. safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
19. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Standard Reouirements
Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by
the Building Department. That issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be
directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
2. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be
introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building
Department and the Public Works Department.
3. The proposed restaurant facility and related parking shall conform to the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code.
4. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code.
6. The proposed monument sign at Jamboree Road shall be located in compliance with the
City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L so that it does not block sight distance.
7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent
public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
9. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the
proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right -of -way, unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
10. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited,
with the exception of the required trash container enclosure.
11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash
enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring
properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 16
dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded
or while being collected by the refuse collection agency.
12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This
may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam
cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department.
13. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to
control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster.
14. Intersections of public streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance
for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be
considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line
shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height.
15. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction
vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic
control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance
with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of
materials within the Birch Street or Jamboree road rights -of - -way.
16. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted,
either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment_ unless specifically permitted in
accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be
prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment
agreement.
C. Traffic Studv No. 116
Findines:
That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project
on the peak -hour traffic and c%culation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L -18.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to be in
compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will cause and make worse
an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major; 'primary- modified; or
'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on
transportation facilities.
Am;ndment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 17
�-o
4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not
proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result
of this single project.
Conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have completed the
improvement identified in the Traffic Study for the intersection of Jamboree Road and
Campus Drive.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the
applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Jamboree
Road and MacArthur Boulevard as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Amendment No. 876 i
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 18
lr l If
EXHIBIT "B'•
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF
Amendment No. 376, Use Permit No. 3635,
and Traffic Study No. 116
Findings:
1. The proposed project would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and be detrimental to
the general welfare of the City because the project site cannot provide off -street parking to
accommodate the proposed use.
2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal
Code since the project does not provide off - street parking to accommodate the proposed
use.
3. The parking demand for the proposed project will not be less than the parking requirement
in Section 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code.
4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Koll Center Planted
Community Development Plan since Office Site G only allows two restaurant sites.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 19
0
LOCATION: 5180 Birch Street, Parcel 3, Map Book 198, Pages 27 and 28
ZONE: P.C. (Koll Center Planned Community)
APPLICANT: Breckenridge Group
(John Gantes, applicant), Rancho Santa Margarita
OWNER: Timothy L. Strader, Newport Beach
Expanded Traffic Study Analysis
The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and
Council Policy L -18. The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table 2, located on Page 11 of
the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation
forecasts is set forth on Page 7 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five
intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are shown on
Exhibit A, located on Page 22 of the attached traffic study.
The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis, taking
into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any
intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of
the projected 2%: hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) analysis is required.
Based on an analysis of each of the five intersections, the increase in traffic at each intersection leg
exceeded 1% of the projected 2 -V2 hour morning and afternoon peak traffic on three of the
intersections and was less than 1% on two of the intersections, as indicated on Table 7, located on
Page 25 of the attached traffic study. An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was
prepared for each of the above noted three intersections. As indicated in Table 8, located on Page
31 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the A.M. peak for these three intersections
exceeded 0.90.
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 20
t
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE KOLL CENTER
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE
RESTAURANT SITES IN OFFICE SITE G TO THREE SITES,
AND AMEND THE KOLL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO PERMIT EATING AND
DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT KOLL
CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AS PER TITLE 20 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport
Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, Section 20.35.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides
that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by the Planning
Commission setting forth particulars of the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures
for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport
Beach; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community
Development Regulations is, necessary „in order to allow for a third restaurant site to be located in
Office Site G; and
WHEREAS, the proposed change to add a restaurant site to Office Site G is
consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated as APF, and restaurant uses are
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 2l t
considered support commercial uses within this designation and are compatible with the
surrounding uses as a support use since it there are existing restaurant uses on the site; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Kell Center Planned Community
Development Regulations is necessary in order to regulate the establishment of eating and
drinking establishments throughout Koll Center Planned Community consistent with Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach conducted a public hearing regarding Amendment No. 876 at which time this Planned
Community amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations was
discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan and
the intent of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the project
has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).
\OW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach approve Amendment No. 876 to change the allowable number of restaurant sites in Office
Site G of the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations from 2 to 3 restaurant
sites and amend the written text to include the provision that the approval of eating and drinking
establishments (Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be subject to the
requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. All sections of the Koll Center Planned
Community Development Regulations that refer to the establishment of eating and drinking
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 22
t,
establishments (Restaurants, Bars, Theaters and/or Nightclubs) shall be amended to include the
following text:
"...subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, in each case."
The following sections shall be amended to include the aforementioned phrase to the text. The
changes shall be made to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Regulations
including, but not limited to the following sections:
• Section II, B., 4 (page 11)
• Section II, Group I, D (page 25)
• Section II, Group 1, G., 2 (page 26.1)
• Section II, Group V, A. (Page 27)
• Section II, Group VI, A., 1., a., b. (Page 27)
IC
M
ADOPTED this 9`" day of July. 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
Michael C. Kranzley, Chairman
Thomas J. Ashley, Secretary
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Amendment No. 876
Use Permit No. 3635
Page 23
BIRCH ST. /JAMBOREE RD, BURGER KING
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS
Newport Beach, California
�i
61
r
R K JK
& ASSOCIATES INC.
May 12, 1998
Mr. Rich Edmonston
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Birch Street /Jamboree Road Burger King Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis
Dear Mr. Edmonston:
RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to submit the Birch Street /Jamboree Road
Burger King Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis. This report provides a summary of
the findings, analysis procedures and evaluation of the proposed project, for peak
period and peak hour conditions, including site access, and on -site circulation pursuant
to City of Newport Beach requirements.
Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned
circulation system, with off -site improvements. In addition, the site access and on-
site circulation are adequate for the project site.
If you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call at (714)
474 -0809.
Sincerely,
RKJK & ASSOCIATES,
y� QpdFESS /Qnrq!
Pw w Q yy ym Z3 6
Robert Kahn, P.E. NO 0655 Tom Huang, EIT
Principal EXP 12/31101 Transportation Engineer
RK:TH:kgd /8005
JN:0559 -98 -01
TRAM ?P. iRTATICIN PLANNING • 4 ;Iti • TRAFFIC ACOL- STICAL ENGINEERING U
1601 Dove Street. Suih1 290 • Newport Reach. L:A 9261,0 • Phone: x949- 474 -0809 • Fax: 19491 474 -0902
BIRCH STREET /JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Prepared by:
RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1601 Dove Street, Suite 290
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Kahn, P.E.
Tom Huang, EIT
May 12, 1998
JN:0559 -98 -01
RK:TH:kgd /8005
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................
1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . ...............................
4
III. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION .....................
7
A. Project Trip Generation
B. Project Trip Distribution
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................
20
A. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects
B. Regional Traffic Growth
C. Study Intersections
D. Determination of Impacted Intersections
V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ............
27
VI. SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE ISSUES .......................
33
A. Site Access
B. On -Site Parking
VII. SUMMARY .......... ...............................
35
APPENDICES
ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ................ A
ICU WORKSHEETS ........ ............................... B
TRIP GENERATION STUDY (FEBRUARY 23, 1998) ................. C
PARKING STUDY (APRIL 20, 1998) ........................... D
L
I
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
PAGE
A
LOCATION MAP .... ...............................
5
B
SITE PLAN ........ ...............................
6
C
PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ..................
8
D
PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION .................
9
E
PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..............
16
F
PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..............
17
G
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............
18
H
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..............
19
I
YEAR 2000 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............
28
J
YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............
29
t1l
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 LAND USE SUMMARY ............................... 10
2 TRIP GENERATION RATES ............................ 11
3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .......................... 13
4 NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS -BY TRIPS .............. 14
5 COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST .......................... 21
6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES ............. 23
7 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY .................... 25
8 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY
UTILIZATION SUMMARY (WITH EXISTING LANE
CONFIGURATION) ... ............................... 31
9 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION i
SUMMARY (WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATION) ........ 32
Ja
BIRCH STREET /JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Burger King located
at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street in the
City of Newport Beach. As required in Newport Beach for all new development
projects exceeding 10,000 square feet or generating greater than 300 daily vehicle
trips, the traffic analysis conforms to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis
procedures specified by the City.
The Traffic Phasing Ordinance study format requires that project traffic impacts be
presented in progressive analysis steps. Following a description of the project location
and site plan, the trip generation and distribution for the proposed project are
presented. Traffic impacts at intersections are then determined for AM and PM peak
hours.
The traffic analysis is conducted at a time frame one year after the proposed
completion of the project. This time frame is selected because traffic from the project
is assumed to have reached a stabilized flow condition that is typical of project traffic
conditions. Traffic from other projects, which have been previously approved by the
City of Newport Beach (committed projects) but which are not completed or currently
generating traffic, is included in the analysis. Information on committed projects and
their traffic are furnished by the City. Arterial roadways in the City which carry a
regional traffic component are also identified by the City. Because the traffic volume
which represents the regional traffic component increases without regard to the
1
J3
approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be {
accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, the annual regional
growth rate for the study area is specified by the City. With the completion of this
project contemplated in the Fall of 1999, assuming approval by the City, the analysis
year for this project has been assumed to be 2000.
Project traffic is then combined with existing, committed project and regional growth
traffic to simulate traffic conditions during the analysis year. Project traffic volumes
are first subjected to a one - percent test at study intersection locations. Project traffic
on each intersection approach during the AM and PM two and one -half hour peak
periods is compared to one percent of the traffic projected to exist in the analysis year
without the project. If the project traffic volume is greater than or equal to one
percent of the intersection approach volume, further analysis must be completed at
this intersection location during the peak hours.
Intersection analysis during the peak hour is performed using the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology expresses intersection
performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of
the intersection. An intersection which is operating with an ICU of 1.00 is said to be
operating at capacity. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that intersections
operate at an ICU of 0.90 or less during AM and PM peak hours. If the ICU with
project traffic is projected to exceed 0.90, a mitigation improvement must be
proposed which will cause the ICU during that time period to be reduced to an
acceptable level. For the purposes of the analysis, the incremental increase in
intersection capacity due to the improvement must be limited to 70 percent of it's
value to insure some reserve capacity.
2 °—
In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a review of on -site traffic
circulation, and site access from the adjoining street system.
3 �5
•ROJECT DESCRIPTIQN
i he project site, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Birch Street
at Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a
Burger King and a food service facility. The site location with respect to the
surrounding area is shown in Exhibit A.
The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as
a Carrow's (high turnover sit -down) restaurant. Carrow's restaurant has recently
closed and a Burger King and a food service facility is being planned for the site. The
food service facility will include two full service small scale restaurants. The project
site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Municipal Court which
generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the
Burger King and the food service facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a
significant portion of patronage will come from walk -in and pass -by traffic.
As shown in the site plan (Exhibit B) the project includes a 2,531 square foot Burger
King restaurant with drive -thru and a food service facility of 2,570 square feet which
is anticipated to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site
includes a total of 63 on -site parking spaces.
Entry to the site will be via the existing right -in /right out only access driveways on
Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree Road is shared with an
existing Wienerschnitzel fast food restaurant and an existing office building.
n
V
!r
�
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAP
10 = STUDY AREA INTERSECTION
N
m5iom 11
EXHIBIT B
SITE PLAN
\ I
AY
" did
s.
Aw
i
i
SP
�
KJwt
'1 �
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
This section of the report discusses project trip generation and trip distribution. Trip
generation rates which are appropriate for the project are identified and the resulting
trip generation is determined. RKJK has previously prepared a trip generation study
dated February 23, 1998 for the preliminary site plan. The trip generation study is
included in Appendix "C ". The distribution patterns that project trips will then use for
routing through the roadway network are identified and depicted graphically in
Exhibits C and D.
Project Trio Generation
The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as
a Carrow's high turnover sit -down restaurant. The Carrow's restaurant has recently
closed and a Burger King and a food service facility is being planned for the site. The
food service facility will include two full service small scale restaurants. The project
site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Municipal Court which
generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the
Burger King and the food service facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a
significant portion of patronage will come from walk -in and pass -by traffic.
As shown in the site plan on Exhibit B, the project includes a 2,531 square foot
Burger King restaurant with drive -thru and a food service facility of 2,570 square feet
to be used as two full service small scale restaurants. The project site includes a total
of 63 on -site parking spaces. The gxisting and proposed uses for the site are
quantified in Table 1.
The trip generation rates used for this study are included in Table 2. Trip generation
has been based upon trip rates which occur during the peak hour of the street, which
7
1I
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
IU = YL'ILNI IU YKUJGUI
N
i
�
S;
EXHIBIT 0
PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGENDi
10 = PERCENT FROM PROJECT 5
SIT
J 1 5
N
RKJK--�►
i
TABLE 1
LAND USE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE CATEGORY
SIZE (TSF)'
Existina Use
Carrow's
High Turnover Restaurant
7.500
Proposed Uses
Burger King
Fast Food W /Drive -Thru
2.531
Food Service
High Turnover Restaurant
2.570
TSF = thousand square feet of building.
10
ME
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION RATES
LAND USE
UNITS
PEAK -HOUR RATES
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
High Turnover Sit Down
Restaurants
TSF
4.82
4.45
6.52
4.34
130.34
Fast Food Restaurant
W /Drive Thru
TSF
25.43
24.43
17.41
16.07
496.12
11
�3
usually occurs between 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM. This is typical practice in the City
of Newport Beach and Orange County. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates, the 1
project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 3
The trip generation included in Table 3 does not take into account pass -by or diverted
and additional pedestrian oriented trips which are a result of the specific location of
the site. The previous use ( Carrow's) would generate 978 trip -ends per day with 69
vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM
peak hour. The proposed uses would generate 1,591 trip -ends per day with 149
vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicles per hour during the PM
peak hour.
In order to properly assess the net difference in trip generation between the existing
and proposed uses, the actual net trip generation must be determined. This takes into
account both the overall trip generation and the net trip reduction as a result of pass -
by /diverted trips and walk -in trips. RKJK utilized the factor of at least 45 percent for
the pass -by /diverted and walk -in traffic for the fast food restaurant and approximately
20 percent for the high turnover sit -down restaurant and full service small scale
restaurant.
The net trip generation for both the existing Carrow's restaurant and the proposed
Burger King and the food service facility is shown in Table 4. The Carrow's restaurant
would generate a net trip generation of 782 trip -ends per day with 55 vehicles per
hour during the AM peak hour and 65 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The
proposed use would generate 959 net trip -ends per day with 88 vehicles per hour
during the AM peak hour and 70 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
L�
12
`A
TABLE 3
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
PROPOSED USE
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Carrow's
36
33
49
33
978
PROPOSED USE
DIFFERENCE
PEAK -HOUR
AM
PM
DAILY
IN
OUT
IN
F OUT
Burger King
64
62
44
41
1,256
Food Service
12
11
17
11
335
TOTAL
76
73
61
52
1,591
DIFFERENCE
13
g5
PEAK -HOUR
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
DAILY
Existing Use
36
33
1 49
33
978
Proposed Use
76
73
61
52
1,591
Difference
+40
+40
+12
+19
+613
13
g5
TABLE 4
NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS -BY TRIPS
EXISTING USE
PROPOSED USE
PASS -BY
%
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Carrow's
20
29
26
39
26
782 :]
PROPOSED USE
NET DIFFERENCE
PASS -BY
%
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Burger King
45%
35
34
24
23
617
Food Service
20%
10
9
14
9
268
TOTAL
+6
45
43
38
32
959
NET DIFFERENCE
MCl
.•
PEAK-HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Existing Use
29
26
39
26
782
Proposed Use
45
43
38
32
959
DIFFERENCE
+16
17
-1
+6
+177
MCl
.•
The net difference in trip generation between the proposed and existing use of the site
is also shown in Table 4. The proposed use would result in a net increase in trip
generation of 177 trip -ends per day with 33 vehicles per hour during the AM peak
hour and 5 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, based upon the ITE Trip
Generation rates
Peak hour trip generation is used to assess the project's traffic impacts using the
Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology as required by the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. However, before the ICU calculations are performed, determination of
impact to an intersection is first assessed through a One Percent Test. The One
Percent Test reviews traffic flows during the morning and evening two and one -half
hour peak periods.
Prog =ct Trio Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project
site. The inbound and outbound trip distribution patterns for the project are
graphically depicted on Exhibits C and D.
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been
based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial
highway and local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation
and distribution, project related AM and PM traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits E
and F. The existing AM and PM traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits G and H.
15
N
EXHIBIT E
PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES f
�JK-�
BIRCH STREETTAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, California
0559- 98- 01:07A R INt
EXHIBIT F
PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0959-98 -01 /JA R K) K--
BiRCR STREET JAMBOREE ROAD BURGER KING, Newport Beach, CoYtomio k ISmO1J6 p(0.
0q
EXHIBIT G
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0559-98-01:02A R �JK--- BIRCH JA STREET UBOREE ROAD BUflGER KING, Newport Beatty, Calilamio a Afwmm wt
qo
EXHIBIT H
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
N
aaa ac "
1�-
a�o
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS f
This section of the report discusses the impact of project traffic determined in the
previous report section. Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is
estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at
its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time
is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately
and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects
One of the components of future traffic is committed projects traffic. Committed
projects are projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach under
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Because these projects are potentially under
construction or are in their one -year maturity period, they are either not currently or
are only partially generating traffic. As such, their traffic impacts are not reflected in j
the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City.
To account for this traffic component, the City maintains a database which tracks the
committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this
committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic
consultant preparing the report. The committed projects are listed in Table 5.
Pursuant to the City staff, 80% of the trip generation is assumed for all the committed
projects at one year after the opening of the proposed project as a result of the
a
potential interaction of these projects.
20
C��
TABLE 5
COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST
PROJECT
NUMBER
-T
I PROJECT NAME
CURRENT
PERCENT OF
OCCUPANCY
121
Newport Village
00% Occupancy
124
Civic Plaza
00% Occupancy
125
Corporate Plaza & West
12% Occupancy
129
Hoag Hospital Extension
2% Occupancy
134
Interpretive Center
00% Occupancy
142
Hoag Hospital Expansion
00% Occupancy
147
Balboa Bay Club Expansion
00% Occupancy
148
Fashion Island Expansion
00% Occupancy
152
Fletcher Jones Mercedes
00% Occupancy
154
Temple Bet YAHM Expansion
00% Occupancy
158
Corona Del Mar Plaza
00% Occupancy
157
Ford Development
00% Occupancy
158
TLA Drive -Thru Restaurant
00% Occupancy
555
CIOSA - Irvine Project
00% Occupancy
910
Newport Dunes
00% Occupancy
930
City of Irvine Dev.
00% Occupancy
21 `A
iJP
Recional Traffic Growth
Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis
is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic
component represents traffic which essentially passes through the city on roadways
within the City of Newport Beach.
This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project
approvals by the City of Newport Beach. The amount of annual growth is identified
by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as
a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. The regional growth percentages
are shown in Table 6. The future analysis year is Year 2000, and the existing counts
are taken at Year 1997. For the approaches on Jamboree Road and MacArthur
Boulevard, a growth factor of 1 percent per year for 3 years, which is a total of 3
percent, has been used in this study.
Study Intersections
Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on the impacts to intersections during
peak periods, the study intersections define the specific analysis locations within the
city circulation system. These following intersections have been designated by the
City staff for possible analysis in this report, and they are also shown on Exhibit A:
Jamboree Road (NS) at: S
i
• Campus Drive (EW)
• Birch Street (EW)
• Bristol Street North (EW)
• Bristol Street South (EW)
22
N
c) �I
TABLE 6
REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES'
Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth.
23
q5
PERCENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT
ANNUAL
GROWTH
JAMBOREE ROAD
All Segments
1
MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
All Segments
1
Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth.
23
q5
MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at:
• Jamboree Road (EW)
Determination of Impacted Intersections
The first assessment of the project's traffic is made to determine if the project
significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection
leg approach volumes at study intersections during the AM and PM two and one -half
hour peak periods. This assessment is referred to as the "One Percent Test ".
During these peak periods, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic
analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's
traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared to the
total non - project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than
one percent of the non - project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time
period is concluded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one percent j
threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be impacted by the
project, and a peak hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine
the level of capacity utilization at the intersection.
The results of the One Percent Test are shown in Table 7. Analysis worksheets for
each intersection are included in Appendix "A ". The results of the analysis indicate
that AM project volumes will exceed the one percent threshold at the three following
intersections:
Jamboree Road (NS) at:
• Campus Drive (EW)
• Birch Street (EW)
24
91
TABLE 7
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
25
q1
PROJECT VOLUME GREATER
THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT
Of PEAK HOUR VOLUME
INTERSECTION
AM
PM
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
• Campus Dr. (EW)
Yes
No
• Birch St. (EW)
Yes
Yes
• Bristol St. N. (EWI
No
No
• Bristol St. S: (EW)
No
No
MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at:
Yes
No
• Jamboree Rd. (EW)
25
q1
MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at:
• Jamboree Road (EW)
Only one intersection, Jamboree Road at Birch Street, exceeds the one percent
threshold for the PM peak period.
z
26
`�
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
This section of the report presents the peak hour intersection analysis for the
intersections which exceeded the one percent threshold. The Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology is utilized for this analysis as required by the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of
capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is
expressed as a volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio in decimal percent for each approach
lane group. Critical lane groups, whose movements conflict with each other (i.e.,
must move independently under the control of a unique signal phase) and have the
highest V/C ratios, are then identified. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane
groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane
capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turn lanes
and do not include a factor for yellow clearance time. ICU calculations are presented
rounded to two decimal places.
To operate an acceptable level of service, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally
requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution
of project traffic. In situations where the ICU will exceed 0.90, the project must
propose an improvement which will restore an acceptable level of service.
The Year 2000 traffic volumes for the study intersections are shown on Exhibits I and
r
J. The traffic volumes are based on existing traffic volumes, annual regional growth
and the trip generation for the proposed and committed projects. For the approaches
on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a growth factor of 1 percent per year
for 3 years, which is a total of 3 percent, has been used in this study. The results of
27
9q
EXHIBIT I
YEAR 2000 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
N
xAm'j as ' I �t
r
EXHIBIT J
YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
N
�!CjNK
the Year 2000 ICU calculations are presented in Table 8. The Year 2000 ICU
worksheets are included in Appendix "B ". As shown in Table 8, the ICU for the
following two intersections will exceed 0.90 for the AM peak hour:
Jamboree Road (NS) at:
• Campus Drive (EW)
MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at:
• Jamboree Road (EW)
However, with improvements shown on Table 9, all the analysis intersections will not
exceed 0.90. The required improvements are listed as follows:
For the intersection of Jamboree Road at Campus Drive:
• Restripe existing westbound lane configuration to include one left turn
lane, one shared through and left lane, one through lane, and one right
turn lane.
For the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road:
• Provide an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard.
1 30
I�
TABLE 8
YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
(WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION)
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L - Left; T = Through; R - Right; > > - Free Right
Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 2000 with regional growth and Committed projects traffic.
3 NA - Not applicable (Project traffic lase than 1% of total traffic).
31
10
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
ICU'
NORTH-
SOUTH-
EAST-
WEST-
WITHOUT
WITH
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
PROJECT
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
Jamboree Rd. INS) at:
• Campus Dr. (EW)
1 4 0
2 3 0
1.5 1.5 1>>
1 2 1
0.92
NA*
0.93
NA
• Birch St. IEW)
1 3 0
1 3 1>>
1.5 0.5 1 > >
0 1 0
0.56
0.60
0.59
0.61
MacArthur Blvd. INS) et:
• Jamboree Rd. (EW)
1 3 0
1 3 1>>
2 3 1>>
2 3 1>>
0.94
NA
0.95
NA
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L - Left; T = Through; R - Right; > > - Free Right
Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 2000 with regional growth and Committed projects traffic.
3 NA - Not applicable (Project traffic lase than 1% of total traffic).
31
10
TABLE 9
YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
(WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATION)
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function ea a right turn lane there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L - Left; T = Through; R - Right; > > - Free Right; 1 - Improved Lanes
t Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 2000 with regional growth and committed projects traffic.
NA = Not applicable (Project traffic lase then 1 % of total trefficl.
A
32
Ibl
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
ICU'
NORTH-
SOUTH-
EAST-
WEST-
WITHOUT
WITH
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
PROJECT
PROJECT
INTERSECTION
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
Jamboree Rd. INS) et:
• Campus Dr. (EW)
1 4 O
2 3 0
1.5 1.5 1 >>
1_5 1_5 1
0.83
NAL
0.84
NA
• Birch St. (EW)
1 3 O
1 3 1>>
1.5 0.5 1 >>
0 1 0
0.56
0.60
0.58
0.61
MacArthur Blvd. INS) at:
• Jamboree Rd. (EW)
1 3 1
1 3 1>>
2 3 1>>
2 3 1>>
0.87
NA
0.87
NA
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function ea a right turn lane there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L - Left; T = Through; R - Right; > > - Free Right; 1 - Improved Lanes
t Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 2000 with regional growth and committed projects traffic.
NA = Not applicable (Project traffic lase then 1 % of total trefficl.
A
32
Ibl
SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE ISSUES
This section of the report presents a discussion of issues related to vehicle movement
at the site including site access and on -site circulation.
,Site Access
As shown on the site plan (Exhibit B), the project is located on the southwest corner
of the intersection of Birch Street at Jamboree Road. Access to the site will be from
the existing right -in /right -out only access driveways on Birch Street and Jamboree
Road. The driveway on Jamboree Road is shared with the existing Wienerschnitzel
fast food restaurant and an existing office building.
There will be no significant problems related to site access. However, certain
movements may require additional maneuvers or detour routes.
Traffic entering the site southbound from Jamboree Road will turn right at the
driveway on Jamboree Road. The returning traffic will exit at Birch Street and turn
left at the Jamboree Road /Birch Street intersection to go northbound on Jamboree
Road.
Traffic entering the site northbound from Jamboree Road will make a U -turn right at
the Jamboree Road /Birch Street intersection and then a right turn at the driveway on
Jamboree Road. The returning traffic will exit at the driveway on Jamboree Road.
Traffic entering the site eastbound from Birch Street will turn right at the driveway on
Birth Street. The returning traffic would require a detour route, because no u -turns
are permitted on Birch Street. Therefore, the return traffic would exit at Birch Street,
33
jt� 1
turn left at the Jamboree Road /Birch Street intersection, and then turn left the
Jamboree Road /Campus Drive intersection to go westbound on Campus Drive.
Another possible detour route is to exit at the driveway on Jamboree Road and then
make a right turn at MacArthur Boulevard to return to Birch Street.
On -Site Parking
RKJK has previously prepared a parking study dated April 20, 1998 for the project.
The parking study is included in Appendix "D ". Based on the findings of the parking
study, the Burger King would require 45 parking spaces and the two full service small
scale restaurants would require 18 parking spaces. Therefore, the total parking
demand for the entire site is 63 parking spaces. Since the current site plan shows 63
parking spaces, the project does provide adequate parking.
34
jb�
SUMMARY
The proposed project would be located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Jamboree Road at Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. There is an existing
7,500 square foot building previously used by Carrow's restaurant, and this building
will be removed by the project. The proposed project will include a 2,531 square foot
Burger King fast food restaurant and a 2,570 square foot food service facility. The
food service facility is anticipated to be used as two full service small scale
restaurants. The project site includes a total of 63 on -site parking spaces.
Entry to the site will be via the existing right -in /right -out only access driveways on
Birch Street and Jamboree Road. The driveway on Jamboree is shared with an
existing Wienerschnitzel fast food restaurant and an existing office building.
The previous use (Carrow's) would generate 978 trip -ends per day with 69 vehicles
per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
The proposed project would generate 1,591 trip -ends per day with 149 vehicles per
hour during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
Based on the One Percent Test, the following three intersections are analyzed for peak
hour intersection operations:
Jamboree Road (NS) at:
• Campus Drive (EW)
• Birch Street (EW)
MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at:
• Jamboree Road (EW)
35
101
Based on the peak hour ICU analysis, two intersections exceed ICU of 0.90. The
required improvements for the two intersections are as follows:
Jamboree Road (NS) at Campus Drive (EW):
• Restripe existing westbound lane configuration on Campus Drive to include
one left turn lane, one shared through and left turn lane, one through lane and
one right turn lane.
MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road (EW):
• Provide an additional northbound right turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard.
Based on the finding of a parking study previously prepared by RKJK (dated April 20,
1998), the total parking demand for the entire site is 63 parking spaces. Since the
current site plan shows 63 parking spaces, the project does provide adequate parking.
Site access, on -site circulation and parking are adequate for the site as proposed.
k
36
jb�
APPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
69
Y �LLL �qI
f I % Traffic Volume Analysis
It1l2rSeCf1�0 JAhWPEYE BL /CAMPUS DR.
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 AM )
1
Approach
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
1 % of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 2 112 Hour
PEAK 2 112 Hour
PEAK
Peak 2 112 Hour
peak 21/2 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
2651
(�O
43Z
S1169
Southbound
4162
I'25
I sg
9 2q5-
Easthound
576
O
'Zi 4 p
$ i (0
$
(F
Westbound
I 2080
I O
240
2) 320
2 .3
W
Project Traffic in estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
r
DATE: I
a
1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAMWRM BI,/CAf4PUS DR
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 PM
Approach I
Direction
Existing IP..,k2i,112
Peak 2 1R Hour
Hour
egnal
Growth
Approved
Projects
PEAK 2 112 Hour
Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour
1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour
Project
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Volumes
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
3920
l i p
1.) b I S
rJ, 0S3
5 1
3 G
Southbound
3915
( 1 7
40g
[ J- V )
4 AL
/o
Eastbound
1734
O
-7 Z
$Q (7
$
l Z
Westbound
1444
O
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
r
DATE!
1 % Traffic Volume Analvsis
Inlersedon jAmBOPIE RD/BIRai sT
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 1997
AM
Approach
Direction
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Peak 2 112 Hour
Re ionel
Gr i=
Volume
Approved
Projects
PEAK 2 112 Hour
Volume
Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
P
Northbound
2868
Q ( p
49 i
3,4-0'3'
, 4-0S
34-
Southbound
3960
1 1 9
11 152;
s3 z3-1
5 2.
Eastbound
345
O
O
3
Westbound
19
O
O
l
O
1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
°
IOfefS2CI100 .7AMBOREE RD/IIPCH ST
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 PM
Approach
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
1
1 Ys of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 2 12 Hour
Volume
Growth
PEAK 2 12 Hour
Paak 2 112 Hour
peak 2 12 Hour
Peak 2 /2 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
3389
0?-
969
4,L�(Oc)
-,+S
2L+
Southbound
3658
10
Z+2-7
4 195
L- -2—
22-
Eastbound
1210
Q
((p
I , -zz(O
12—
((
Westbound
23
Q
23
v
❑ Project Traffic is estimated t0 be less than 1 % of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
IU
r�..•rvyQ.
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection JAM30PEE PD/-%C ARMUR BLVD
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter] Spring 1997 Are )
i
Approach
Direction
Existing
Peak 2 12 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
APpro'red
Protects
projected
Peak 2 112 Hour
1 % of Projected
2
peak 2 1 Hour
Project
Peak 2 12 Hour
Volume
G rowth
Volume
PEAK 2 12 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
4408
1 3 Z
Z$ $
4s2-'8
49
4
Southbound
1024
3
L4-9 0
I, Sri j
15
f �j
Eastbound
3758
HIS 3
Z32
4 ('03
4K0
g
Westbound
1904
9-7
2-62-
2) 2-ZS
'22-
3 G
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % or Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Trafric Volume.
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
r
DATE
1t�
e4 -"49r
6
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
"`o•e'r JAmBORFB RD/IIGIRTHUR BLVD
I�tersecGoo
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/ Spring 19 97 PM )
Approach
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
Approved
Protects
Projected
1'h of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 2 1* Hour
Growth
PEAK 2 112 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Peak 21/2 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
2278
2-79
Southbound
3600
1 DIK
3` +
Lk 052
41
j Z
Eastbound
2546
Z6
3 S 1
Z, 9 -r 3
3 o
Westbound
5014
150
.565
j —(zq
s7
33
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Inlersecticn Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
DATE:
�I L
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
'r,ror�• BRZswL STREET N()`aWJAbffiO ROAD
Intersecton
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 AM
Approach
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Approved
Projects
Projected
1 % of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 2 112 Hour
Re ,onaI
g
Growth
PEAK 2 12 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Peak 2 12 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
7467
2?-L'
5q c)
�V+�olume
b , 28 �
'? 3
Southbound
1981
59
2-9 L{—
2) 33(+
23
8
Eastbound
_0_
C-)
D
C
p
Westbound
_0_
C�
C)
Q
Q
® Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 1 % of Projected n
Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
r
van rcCT:
1 }sp
DATE:
SEW �4�
1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
IOI@rS2CG011 BRISTOL STREET NORI'H/JAMBORFE AW
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 19 97 PM )
Approach
Direction
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
Gr°M11s
Volume
Approved
Projects
PEAK 2 112 Hour
Volume
Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
1 % of Projected
Peak 21Q Hour
Volume
Project
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Northbound
6406
1 q 2-
3(o t+
(p (oZ
Z C
g
Southbound
4461
13 +
Eastbound
-0-
O
O
O
O
Westbound
I -0-
Q
O
d
O
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
1:1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 21R Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
x
DATE:
1'7
I
I % Traffic Volume Analysis
�` "O -•'' nersecion PJmL sT /JAIIIOi� 10
C
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 AM )
Approach
Direction
Existing
Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
1 /. of Projected
Project
Peak 2 112
Volume
Growth
PEAR 2 112 Hour
Peak 2 1!2 Hour
Peak 2112 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
4625
139
83+2-
5,.30(,o
53
(-
Southbound
1098
33
2—Li G
i 3-7—%
1 L-.
1-
Eastbound
5551
9-77
G12-3
(Of
r
1
Westbound
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'R of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.V.) Analysis is required.
v
lI�
DATE:
PROJECT:
a 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis
B-M=L sT /JA'wPm RD
I�iersecGon
( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 PM )
Approach
Direction
Existing
Peak 2 112 Hour
Peak 2 112 Hour
Regional
Growth
Approved
Projects
PEAK 2 112 Hour
Projected
Peak 2 1 our 12 H
1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 How
Project
Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
4243
t 2-1
80o
Southbound
2075
Z
970
2�
29-
4
Eastbound
6056
D
?j7 Q
q-2.G
4-
�i-
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
11 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected
Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
x
M
DATE: Y
APPENDIX B
ICU WORKSHEETS
JA4305AM-
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION:
JAMBOREE ROAD &CAMPUS DRIVE 4305
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
__.
WINTER /SPRING
1997AM
.. ................ .. .... __._._ .-
I I EXISTING I
._....... -..... _ - _-- .._. - -_- -
PROPOSED I EXISTING I
____— _
EXISTING I
- --- --
REGIONAL I
-- .- .. -. - -- -
COMMITTED
........ _._...� -- ........___
PROJECTED I PROJECT
..._.._.__ _
I PROJECT I
I Movement I Lanes I
Lanes 1 PK HR I
V/C I
GROWTH I
PROJECT I
VIC Ratio I Volume
I V/C I
I I Capacity I
Capacity I Volume I
Ratio I
Volume I
Volume I
w/o Project I
I Ratio I
I I I
I I
I
I
I
Volume I
I I
.._.._- . - - - --• -- - -
I NL 1 16001
-- - -- - - -- - - -
1 1201
- -- -
0.08
- ---
L� I
- - -
GLI- I
_... - - --
O- 12*
--
13
- -- I
I O•13 -y
I NT ,
I 1097
1 1
I
9
I I
1 ................ 1 6400 . .
............... ............... 1
0.18 --
...__ ..... _ --
..........-- -
0. Z, . -- ------
----
'- Q. z I
I NR 1
............ ... .. ... - ..... - .-
1 77
---------------- -- ---_..._.... -- --
1
----_..__..- --
Z 1
--- - -- - -p- - -_
12 1
- _- _- - -.__- -
1
_..........._._._ -
Z
I I
1 SL 1 3200 1
-------- - - - --- - -• - -- ....._....-
1 282 1
...... _ _._._.....- -
0.09 1
-
O 1
- - --
p I
- ._. -� _
o. a 9 I
.._...-•- -•- -
0
,
l 0.09 I
I
I ST ,
, 1305
1
39 1
4-79 1
1I[
q
1
1r,1�
-- .— . -...._ 1 4800 ..
.............. _ _— .-_.._ 1
0.33
._
._....._
o.'sT 7i -
-^
11'
0.41+
I SR ,
---------- - - - - -- -- -------------- - --
, 273
---------- - - - - -- -- - --- --• - --•- ••
I
-- --•-- -
$
-•-• -- --
; p i
------ --•---
V
i F
1 EL I
I Bo
1
0 1
`1(0 I
I
.. 0
I I
. ................ 1 4800 --
................ -- - ... - ......... I
0.04 •
................ --
............ -
b.0 Co
I ET 1
1 121
1
0 I
g 1
I
O
I 1
1 .... ...... . ... .. .................. ..
I ER I N.S. I
................ . . ................ ..
I 2S I
....... --•-- _
I
................ ..
O I
... ........_.- .-
1 (0 1
--- .......--- _. -._.. --
1
'�
I
I 1
I... ... ..............- ---------- --
I WL 1 16001
I------ -- -•------ -- ••--- -- -- - -- --
---------- - - - - -- -- --- ----- ---- -- --
- - -I 3681
-------- ----- -- --------------- -'
- ---- - ---•- -
0.23 .
-- -- -
------------ _ -- --
0 1
--•-- -----. ••
--------- __._ _
10Li- 1
......... -- -
......... ............ .....---
0.30 7F
-•--- ---- •- ------ ......__.._
------
Z
-- ...... _..... 1
1 0.30 aFe
.. .... ._._ I
I WT 1 3200 1
1
1 532 1
0.)7 1
0 1
1 G 1
O. 1% 1
0
1 0.17 1
--•-------• - - - -- •- --------- - - ---• --
I wR 1 1600 1
1 .................
----- ---------- ....------------- •-
1 218 1
•. . ..
---- --•- -- -
0.14 1
----- - -__._ ..
---- ----- - - - - -- --
D 1
..... .......... --
----- - - - --- .-
(' I
.. ........... - -
- - -__.- -'
0. 14- 1
----------- _........ -- ............
0
I
10-14-1
-- ......-- -• I
I EXISTING I.C.U.
1
0.68 1
I
1 ------- --- - - - -- -- ---------------- -- -•----------- -- -- -- ------- - - - - -- -- ----- -•--- --- --
I EXISTING - REG GROWTH . COMMITTED WYPROPOSEO IMPROVEMENTS
. ................ .. ............... .. ................ .. .............. .. .......... -- ..
--•------ - - - - -- ••
I.C.U.
................ ..
-------•- - - - - -- -
1
............... ...
---------------- - - - - -- ..
0,92- '
...................... .. ..............
1
I
.. ....... _._. 1
I EXISTING . COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH . PROJECT I.C.U.
I o -93 I
1.1 Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
r
1.1 Projected . project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement;
PROJECT - - - -�- - - -•- -- - _~-- - - _ - _ V -_— FORAM
JA430SAM
1al
JA430SAM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 CAMPUS DRIVE 430S
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRINC 1997 AM
1.1 Projected. project traffiCI.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J r s
I_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
>-<Projected . project traffic I.C.U. w /Systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Ia Projected . project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT
JA430SAM
FORM It
t
1) 0
I EXISTING I PROPOSED I
EXISTING I
EXISTING I
REGIONAL I
COMMITTED
PROJECTED I
PROJECT
I PROJECT 1
Movement
I Lanes I Lanes I
PK HR I
V/C 1
GROWTH I
PROJECT I
V/C Ratio 1
Volume
I V/C I
I Capacity I Capacity 1
Volume I
Ratio I
Volume
I Volume I
w/o Project 1
I Ratio I
I I 1
I
1
I I
Volume 1
1 I
.......NL
1 1600 1 1
120 1
0.08 '
4- I
goy- 1
O, tZ
13
1 0.13 1�
NT
I I
1097
1
33 I
I Li" 3 I
I
q
1 1
---- __ -_ - --
1 6400 .- ..._— .. ...... ..
.......... — }
0.18 _
-- - -_. --
-- - - - - - -- -
.L .-
....- ... -._
NR
I 1
77
I
2 1
12 1
- I
2
I I
SL
1 32001 I
2821
0.09 1
8 I
p 1
0.09 1
O
1 0.01 1
ST
I I
1 4800 _ --- -------- _
1305
._ J
I
0.33
39
1 T79 1
- -- -
I
O- 4-J-{�
9
1 I
- 17S`
D•1
SR
1 1
...._..
273
I
g
I p 1
p
I
EL
I I
80
I
0 1
...............
1 4800 .................. ..
- ... .......... I
0.04
.._ ........ — - - -- ----- -- -
O.0 (p t
....... _._
D 1
ET
.................
1 I
........... ... .................. --
121
............... ••
I
-- - -- - -
O
-- ........-
I g I
- - — -
...... - ... - - --
p
1 I
Ell
I N.S. I I
.... .. .............. _ ..---------
2S I
---... --
1
-- -
—
- -- --
1
-7
....... _—
1 I
WL
1 16001 1
3681
0.23
p
1 Ip T 1
1
2
1
- - -- --
- - -------------- •- 4 $Oo.................
-
--- -
- -- _ —
- - -- -
0.2 l 4
...... --
WT
1 32001 1
S321
0.17 1
p
1 1(0 1
1
O
I 1
---------- ------
WR
..... . .........
- -- ........... . .. ..... _ ......... ..
1 1600 t 1
.. ............. _ __ ......._ ....... -
....... _.._.
218 1
.....
0.14 1
- - - -
-- -----....
-- --- ---.... -
-
EXISTING
I.C.U.
1
0.68 1
1
.............. ...
EXISTING .
.. ...............................
............ ... -- ................ .. ............ -..... _..._- .... _.. . ...............
AEG GROWTH . COMMITTED WIPROPOSEO IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
-- ................. ............. ......._.....__ ...._ ...........
.. ..... - ..... -- '
I
.......... _
......---------...... -
p 8 3 1
.._..............._ ..
.............
1
I
.. .....
EXISTING .
COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH . PROJECT I.C.U.
.. _..
1 O .g �- I
1.1 Projected. project traffiCI.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J r s
I_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
>-<Projected . project traffic I.C.U. w /Systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Ia Projected . project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT
JA430SAM
FORM It
t
1) 0
JA4308A.4 -
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION:
JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET +308
EXISTING TRAFFIC VCLUMES
.......... _
BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
— ...... - -.... . .
TRAFFIC
........... —
..............
WINTER /SPRING
.._...........
1997 AM
.. ................ ..
I I
—..
EXISTING I
_ ................
PROPOSED I EXISTING I
...
EXISTING I
_ _
REGIONAL I
. j
COMMITTED 1-
.....................
PROJECTED
...
I
....... .._.
PROJECT
_ ...... —..— _
I PROJECT I
I Movement I
Lanes 1
Lanes I PK HR 1
V/C I
GROWTH I
PROJECT I
V/C Ratio
I
Volume
I V/C I
I I
Capacity I
Capacity I Volume I
Ratio I
Volume I
Volume I
w/o Project
I
I Ratio I
I I
1
I 1
I
I
1
Volume
I
I 1
I NIL I
I---- ---- - - - - --
16001
- -- - --- -- --
1 201 I
--- ------ ----- - --- -- ------ _- --
0.17
------ --- - -- - -- -
(�
-- -
-- ------ -- -
------------- -- - ---
-
- --
0.14 1*
- - -- 1
I NT
1
I 1276
1
3$ I
2Z6 1
1
I I
1 ---------- - - - - -- 1
I NR
4800 ......------
I
- - - - -- -- --------- - -.... I
I S
0.27 --
I
--- ----- - - -..._ —
1
----------- - - - - -- ..
1
O. 3Z
--
1
--- - - -
I
b
Q
I
I................ ..
I SL 1
I---------- - - - - -- --
.............. _ ..
1600 1
---- _- ..._ —. --
................ .. ................ ..
1 S 1
---------- - - - - -- .. _ --------- --- - .
............. — --
0.00 1
--- — . -.._— --
------- - - - - -- _
C:> I
--- -....—
.
I
• Q�
I
I 1
I ST I
+aoo l
I 1254 l
026
Jg I
S 7 1 1
0.39
-11�
18
1 0.39 f1C
I SR I
1 -------------- - --
N.S. I
--------- -._... --
I S75 I
---------- - - - - -- .- ._.- .-- ..._--- ...._..._
I
-.._ .-
i-T I
. - - - -- -
g 1
--------- -...._ _
.- _-------------- —
I
Q
I I
I EL
I
1 91
I
C) 1
C> I
I
I--------- --- -- -- 1
1200 --
--------- ------- -- -- ----- - -- ---- 1
0.03 •
--- --- -- -- ----- --
------- -- - -- --- --
I ET
1
1 3
1
0 I
O 1
I 1
I---- ------------ --
I ER I
1 -- ----- --- ---- --
------- ------- --
N.S. 1
---------- ----- ------------------
---------------- ..---------------- --
1 631
-- ---------- - - - --- --
---- -- -- ------ --
1
---------- - - - - -- --
---- ------ - - - --
0 1
--- - - - - -- - - - - - ..
---------- ------ -
D 1
------ .----------- --
--- --- ------ ---
--------- - - - - -- ......
- ------'-
1
--
2
----- -- ----
- -------- I
1 I
- --._--- .— 1
I WL
1
1 2
1
Q 1
p 1
1
Q
I I
I................ 1
I WT
--- - - - -- 1
......
16001
............................... J
1 3
---------- - 1
..
0.01 •
-- --- ..... --- --
O 1
--------- - ---
..............._. ..
D I
.._.
Q -O 1
..
-f
-----------
0
1 0 -01 'T
- --- --- -
I WR
--
I
- - - -- -- ----------------
1 6
.-
1
- - -
O I
-._..------- --
p 1
.-
I
Q
1 1
1 ------------- --
--`----- -- -
------ --- - - - - -- -- ------ ------ --
----- -- ---- --
---------`— -
---------- - - - - -- --
---------- _----------
-
----
- -- --- 1
I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.43 1 1
I........................................................................... ............................... ................ I ...................... I
I EXISTINC - REG CRC•s'H • COMMITTED W; PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I C.U. C) 5 (0
I---------- - - - - -- -- --------------- ...- ------- - - - - -- _ ---------------- ..---------------- -- --- _--- - - - -.— -- --------- .. -. -.._ .- ---------------------- - ..- ..- ...__.- -- ---------- —
I EXISTING . COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH . PROJECT I -C.U. 1 O .52� I
Qq,Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
LI Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Ll Projected . project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
r
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U- with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project
- - ------- - - - - - - ....................... ...............................
Description of system improvement-
PROJECT
IA430SAM
FORM II
a -3
I
JA4308P.4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
i
4
INTERSECTION:
JAMBOREE ROAD 6 BIRCH STREET 4308
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
.. .............. _ ..
_._..- .........._..._......_.
WINTER/SPRING
1997 PM
.. ................ .. ............ ... ..
I I EXISTING I
................ .. ...............
PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I
REGIONAL
_
I COMMITTED
... ............. ._...
PROJECTED 1
....... .....
PROJECT
.. .......... _. _
I PROJECT 1
I Movement 1 Lanes I
Lanes 1 PKHR I V/C I
GROWTH
I PROJECT I
V/C Ratio I
Volume
I WC I
1 I Capacity I
Capacity I Volume I Ratio I
Volume
I Volume I
w/o Project I
1 Ratio I
I I I
I I I
I I
Volume I
I I
..... - -
I NL 1 16001
1 ................ .. .......... __ -
------- _ --- --- •- ------- --- •- -._...._- -
1 491 0.03
---------- _._........
----- °-.._
....
.. ....
1 D 1
---- -- -
C)-Q3 1
-•-• --•
12
...._...-
1 0.0+ 1
I
I NT I
I 161S I
-I g
1 4g5 I
I
C)
I I
I................ I 4800 ...
...._.._....................... 1 0.34 ••
................
.. ............... - _
II{{ cc
0 T_7
...
-
I NR I
1 .. ............ _.....................
I 2 I
... .. ............ .........._...................-------
I p l
.........................
(]
I I
................
I SL 1 16001
1 ... ...... ... .- _
............
1 21 0.00 1
..._....._..- -- --- ....._..._....._....._— _
Q
...._.. --- .._-
-
1 0 1
_ .- ._........_ - --
_
0,QQ 1
-...
...........
0
1
1 0.Oo 1
.............. .
I ST 1 48001
....... 1 1658 1 0.75
.._....._ ----- -- -- ..._. —_ ..
SO
- ..__.._
I S� I
_ ........__— _
--- -----------
p
_..._..._......._ _
...- .._.._
I
_ .._ —.
I SR I N. S. I
1 ................ .. ............ _...
1 1641 I
... _ ........... .. ............... ... .......... — ....
S 1
----- -------
S 1
-- ---- ...._.._._ _
1
.. ................ .
d
I I
.. ........ � I
I EL 1
1 481 1
0 1
O 1
1
I I
I------ --------- 1 3200 ..
.... ............ .. .... ........... I 0.15
------ _-------- --
-- .. -------- _._ -
I ET 1
1 0 1
C) I
i
1 ................ .... ----------- -....
................. --- ---- ------- -- ------------- ._ .......
........... ..
... ........... ---- _
....... ------- *------- --
--------- _._
-- - ----'-'-
1 ER I N.S. I
1 ................ .. ........... ..... ...
I 1531 I
.... ........... .. ... ..... ...... .. ..... ........... ..
I
................
1
._ .................. ..
1
............. ........ ..
2
..............
1 1
.. ....... ... - 1
I WL I
1 0 1
C) 1
0 1
1
p
I I
I................ I _
1 WT 16001
................ .......... ...... _ I ..
1 I 0.00
..... I ...... _.
Q I
. ..... ........ ... _
(� 1
�. Q
O
1 0.00
I................ I ..
I WR I
..... _ ......... .................. I ..
1 0 1
................
b 1
.. ............ ..... ..
p I
..................
I
D
1
I 1
I................ .. ............. ....
I EXISTING I.C.U.
...... .....'---- -- -------- ------- -- ---------- ---- ............
1 0.53 1
......
............. .._........-
............_.....-
......................
--- -----------
-- ----- ---- ---- I
1
1 ...........................................................................
I EXISTING . REC GROWTH .
J................ ..... ............. ..
...............................
COMMITTED W; PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
... .... ......... .. ....... ........ .. ................ .. ................
..................
.. _ ................ ..
O . (00
........... .......... . .
..............
I
I
................ I
I EXISTING . COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH . PROJECT I.C.U.
I 0.(.D1, I
61cjected . project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will he greater than 0.90
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
_ Y
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will he less than I.C.U. without project
. ..... .......... ......... _ .... ....._.. .... _ ......__. -_-._ _ _... -...— ......._._ ..
Description or system improvement.
PROJECT FORM II
JA4308PM
i
i
{
JA4275M
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RO(E -YO 6MACARTHUR BL(N -S) 4279
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
" "' - " ---•••- ^•••• -- • WINTER/SPRING
. - ....._ ............. _ ....... - -- . 1997 AM
I EXISTING " " " " "- _ _
I PROPOSED I EXISTING - COMMITTED I ...•.RODE-_..... __ __
I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PRO ECTEO
I Movement 1 Lanes I Lanes I PX H0. I V/C I GROWTH 1 I PROJECT I PROJECT I
I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume I PROTECT I V/C Ratio
I I I I i Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project Volume I V/C
Volume I Ratio I
...._.._._......— .._.... I I
NL I 1600 I I 21 S I 0.17 I - -
I I 1738 4300 1 - --'•
_ _ I I I I I .. ......... _ .... ! . . : ............. . • . – . I NR I 0.47 I S . . . . . . 2 . 1 2 1 g 2
338 ..........
1 I �.0...., .. .C.1 . ..1 . 7 ... .. !FI . .– .. ...... 0 ..__ I . 1
. 0.
.. I SL I 1600 I Z I
ST _. .__.. ................... _ ... ........ _ -- –2 .... _ g
................ .. ....... _ ------ _ ------ - 243 I _..........-- -- ...... 79
I o.os
I
I .
I I 1 O$ I
I SR I N.S. I ......_._ ..._.._......... _ 0.07 I
I I 128 I I
.............._ .. ........................._...._ - ...... - --.......---...........I...... 4. _ :...... I I
I EL 1 32001
I S98 1 0.19 p................. _ .........._ .
................. i.......- .11331 0.24 1 6J I ---Z-* 0 �.z.- T
- .._ ....... .... .. .............................._ .. I 4800 I
_ ..... __..........__.......... �.. I
I .......... _ ._...._------ . 2(0� ' 0 , 30
1 ER I N_S. I ....... ...
I I 14S 1 I [ I
..................... ................_..................... ....._...........T............. � I
I Wl 1 3200 1 I 0
I 1371 0.04 S .......2..' ...............
I
WT 1 4800 1 .............� .. - °..._ .......... _ _ ... _..:...... -- O °os
..................... ............................... ............S.. 1 ..II 1/ I 1 ()^� I +....t
IwR I N.S. I - ... ....... . .............t......... .. ............ `�__..._ ...'........ �
I ' 3.1 ........ . ...._
...... ....... ........ .. ................ .. ................ I 0.78 I i
I EXISTING 1 C.V. •••••- - " " "_"
I
......................... .
................ .. ................ .. ........... ........_ ............. .. ................ .. ................ .. .................. ...........
I EXISTING . REG GROWTH . COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C, U.
...............
I ................ .. .............. _ . I I
I EXISTING . COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH . PROJECT I.C.V.
.......................
I_I Projected . r ' -........... --
p project traffic I.C.U. will he less than or equal l0 0.90
rojected . project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1.1 Projected . project traffic I.C.V. w /systems improvement will be be less than or equal to 0.90
1.1 Projected . '
project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project
...... .. ......... _.....
Description of system improvement: .. ................ " ......
PROJECT -- -- --
JA427SAM - - - -- - _
FORM II
X45
JA427SA4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
l
INTERSECTION:
JAMBOREE RD(E-H) 6 MACARTHUR BL(N-S)
427S
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
WINTER /SPRING
1997 AM
.. ............... .....................
I I
EXISTING 1
...__............._....._......
PROPOSED I EXISTING I
............ ..._—
EXISTING I
........
REGIONAL
.. ............... ..
I COMMITTED
.............. ...... _
PROJECTED I
....... _...
PROJECT
..... —.— _
I PROJECT I
I Movement I
Lanes I
Lanes I PK HR I
V/C I
GROWTH
I PROJECT 1
V/C Ratio I
Volume
I V/C I
I I
Capacity I
Capacity I Volume I
Ratio I
Volume
I Volume 1
W/o Project I
I Ratio I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
Volume I
1 1
I NL 1
I---------- - - - - -- _
16001
.._..__.—
I 21S 1
0.13 I
(0
1 1+ I
C, I+ I
0
I NT
1
6+&o01 1738
I
,$2_
1 (12 1
0,40 =
O
I 0.40 I r
1 .... 1
4800 ...._._._
...................... I
0.43 •
.... -----------
-- ....._...___. _
..
_ ....... _....
1
I NR
I
IfaOp 1 338
1
1 Q
1 28 1
O -ZIl I
2
I.._ ..... _ ..... ..
I SL 1
............ _ ..
1600 1
... .... ....... .. ..... _ ......... ..
i 79 1
_ ... ........ _ ..
0.05
..... _ .........
'Z
.. .......... -- -
I S$ I
---------------- - - - - -- •.
------- —7—
I ST 1
1 ....... _ ....... ..
48001
__.......__ -
1 2431
__... - -_ .. _..___.......
0.0S 1
_..__� ..._.
7
—.....
1 1
- ___.""— _
O•p� 1
- - -_._._ ...._..._—
C7
I 0.07 1
I SR I
N.S. 1
1 1281
1
T
1 1
I
Q
_ ....._ I
I I
I---- ------ - - - - -- -
I EL 1
--- -------• -- -
3200 1
-------------- -- - ---- -- - -•-- --
1 S98 1
--------- --- ....._-----
0.19
- - - - --
(g
-- -------- --• --- •
I g3 1
O. 2•L*
O
I
1 0.2.•L 1„
I................ ..
I ET 1
1 -- -••-- -----•• -
..... _ --- _....
48001
----- -- - ----• --
--------------- ......._--- - - - - -- --
1 11331
- • - -----------
--- ...._.._...
0.24 I
---------- --- -
--'
3L-i'
•-------- - -----
1 2-6-7 1
-- ••-----• - --- -
0.30 I
------------- --•------
I I_ .•
T
I
1 0.3o l
I ER I
................ ..
N.S. 1
............ ... _
-- ---------- ---- -- --
1 14S 1
... ............ .. ._ ............. ..
- --
1
............. _ ..
L..(..
--------------
1 1 (0 1
-- ------------ . ..
--
1
...................... ..
------- - - -:._
Q
......... _._
. 1
I I
. I
I WL 1
1 ................ -
3200 1
........ ....–
1 137 1
. - ----- -- ------ . ..
0.04 I
......... _.– .-
L-
--- ------- _
1 20 1
-- ----------- — ...._..._.._--
0-o-5- 1
- - - - -- _
Z
--- ------ - - - --
1 0.0S I
-- -----•- -- I
1 WT 1
I...... _........ _
48001
......... ...... .....................
1 S35 J
..........................._...
0.11 •
-•
16
-------
1 (O3 I
-
•
I
I WR I
N.S. 1
1 179 1
1
5
I $ I
1
13
1 I
1 ................ ..
1 EXISTING
............... ..
I.C.U.
..... ........... .. ..... .......... ..
1
............... ...
0.79 1
............ ....
......... ....... ..
...................... .. ..............
.. ...... _.— I
I
1 ..... .... .... ....... ... ........ ... .....
1 EXISTING . REG GROWTH .
................ .. ............ -- _
... .......... .. ........ ....... ... ............... .....
COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
... _._._.......__ ......... .. ................ ....
.............
I.C.U.
.............
....... ............ ..
1
.. .......... .... _...
...................... ..
0.2-7 1
...................... ...............
I
.. ......... .— 1
I EXISTING . COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH . PROJECT I.C.U.
1 $ 7 I
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 p
`1.11 Projected . project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
KProjected . project traffic I C.U. w /systems improvement will he be less than or equal to 0.90
1_I Projected . project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project
_ . ............ . _ ... ............ _ .. . ........... .. ...... ... ..._ .. ............ ........ .. ... ... ...... _ ........
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM
JA427SAM
1,� i
APPENDIX C
TRIP GENERATION STUDY
(FEBRUARY 23, 1998)
p')
5180 BIRCH ST.-BURGER KING /FOOD SERVICE
TRIP GENERATION STUDY {
Newport Beach, California
1
� J
1
I
ram rtK m J" VA
,;.J�
RK K
ROBERT KAHN • IOHN IDLY J& ASSOCIATES INC.
February 23, 1998
Mr. Brian W. Price
Director of Development
BRECKENRIDGE GROUP
P.O. Box 80340
30252 Tomas, Suite 200
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Subject: 5180 Birch Street, Newport Beach Trip Generation Study
Dear Mr. Price:
INTRODUCTION
RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has completed a trip generation study for the
proposed Burger King and Food Services facility to be located at 5180 Birch Street in
the City of Newport Beach. The project is located at the southwest corner of
Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street as shown in Exhibit A. The proposed site plan
for the facility is shown in Exhibit B.
The site currently includes a 7,500 square foot building that was previously used as
a Carrow's high turnover sit -down restaurant. Carrow's restaurant has recently
closed and a Burger King and Food Services facility is being planned for the site. The
project site is located directly south of the existing Newport Harbor Court which
generates a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, which is anticipated to utilize the
Burger King and Food Services facility. As a result of this, it is anticipated that a
significant portion of patronage will come from walk -in and pass -by traffic.
As shown in the site plan the project would include a 3,140 square foot Burger King
restaurant with a drive -thru. The site would also include a Food Service facility of
2,570 square feet which is anticipated to be uses which are similar to a high turnover
restaurant. The project site includes a total of 64 on -site parking spaces.
The purpose of this trip generation study has been to determine the specific trip
generation for the proposed site and compare it to the trip generation for the closed
Carrow's restaurant. The net trips would represent the difference between the
previous and the proposed uses, taking into account the project's trip generation,
pass -by and walk -in traffic. The trip generation study has been completed by
reviewing available documents regarding trip generation including the ITE (Institute of
TRANSPORTATION PLANNI\( • Gh • Ti:4FFIC AL'UL STIC\L E:.NGI \SERI. \G
1 hf11 D.,%e Strcot. mi tr TtU • \e,c hem h. ( '. "_wo. • ph or'. .-1.: 4-081- f -: -14. 4 -4 ()90'
I
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAPS .
1:01A
i-
Me.
)3b
EXHIBIT B
SITE PLAN
I
2A
K--
131
Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, SANDAG Trip
Generation Report and the City of Newport Beach Trip Generation rates.
A review of potential walk -in traffic was based upon a field review of the adjoining
Weinerschnitzel fast food restaurant located directly to the south of the site. It is
anticipated that significant amount of the project traffic will be walk -in traffic to the
fast food facility.
FINDINGS
1. The net difference in trip generation between the previous use (Carrow's
restaurant) and the proposed Burger King /Food Services facility would be 343
trip -ends per day, with 50 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 16
vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. This takes into consideration both
the project trip generation, the previous and proposed uses and the potential
net reduction as a result of pass -by trips. Trip generation has been determined
based upon using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition and pass -by
trips percentages estimated by both ITE and SANDAG.
2. It is anticipated that a significant portion of the traffic for both of these uses
will come from walk -in traffic from the adjoining Newport Harbor Courthouse.
A review of an adjacent fast food restaurant indicates 19% of the patrons were
"walk -ins." This could even further reduce trip generation from what is
indicated in Item 1 above.
9
3. Based upon the City's Traffic Model trip generation factors, it is anticipated that
the net difference in daily trips would be approximately 309 trip -ends per day.
This correlates closely with the ITE Trip Generation rate calculations included
in Item 1 above.
4. The net ITE trips and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Model trip generation
factors are significantly less than the total trip generation for the site as a result
of this significant amount of pass -by and walk -in trips that would occur at the
site.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of trips that are produced or attracted by a
project. In addition, pass -by trips represent trips that are already on the highway
system that divert to the site, but have not made a special trip to the facility. In
addition, due to the specific location of the proposed Burger King and Food Services
4
j �a
facility which is located within walking distance to the Newport Harbor Courthouse,
it is anticipated a substantial amount of walk -in traffic would occur to the site.
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the net trips to and from the site to
compare the previous Carrow's high turnover sit -down restaurant to the Burger King
and Food Services facility. In order to do this, RKJK conducted a review of the
professional literature to compare the trip generation rates for the site. This included
the ITE Trip Generation Manual, SANDAG Trip Generation Report and City of Newport
Beach Traffic Model Generation Assumptions. Additionally, RKJK generated trips
utilizing the trip generation computer program developed by MicroTrans which is
based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition.
The existing and proposed uses for the site are quantified in Table 1. The Carrow's
restaurant included 7,500 square feet of building and is classified as a high turnover
sit -down restaurant. The proposed uses include a 3,140 square foot Burger King with
a drive -thru and a 2,570 square foot Food Services facility, which is classified as a
high turnover sit -down restaurant. Trip generation has been based upon trip rates
which occur during the peak hour of the street, which usually occurs between 7 to
9 AM and 4 to 6 PM. This is typical practice in the City of Newport Beach and
Orange County.
Utilizing the trip generation by MicroTrans software, RKJK generated trips for the
existing and proposed uses of the site. The trip generation printouts are included in
Appendix "A ".
The Trip Generation rates used for this study are included in Table 2. Based upon the
ITE Trip Generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in
Table 3. The trip generation included in Table 3 does not take into account pass -by
or diverted and additional pedestrian oriented trips which are a result of the specific
location of the site. The previous use ( Carrow's) would generate 978 trip -ends per
day with 69 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 82 vehicles per hour
during the PM peak hour. The proposed uses would generate 1,893 trip -ends per day
with 180 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 133 vehicles per hour during
the PM peak hour.
In order to properly assess the net difference in trip generation between the existing
and proposed uses, the actual net trip generation must be determined. This takes into
account both the overall trip generation and the net trip reduction as a result of pass -
by /diverted trips and walk -in trips. RKJK has reviewed various publications with
respect to these factors. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition included
substantial documentation on pass -by and diverted trips for fast food restaurants.
The ITE studies indicated pass -by trips ranged from 25 to 56 percent with an average
5
33
TABLE 1
LAND USES
0
Zr
A
)3q
TYPE
SIZE (TSF)
Existina Use
Carrows
High Turnover Restaurant
7.50
Proposed Uses
Burger King
Fast Food W /Drive -Thru
3.14
Food Service
High Turnover Restaurant
2.57
0
Zr
A
)3q
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION RATES
LAND USE
UNITS
PEAK -HOUR RATES
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
High Turnover Sit -Down
Restaurants
TSF
4.82
4.45
6.52
4.34
130.34
Fast Food Restaurant
W /Drive Thru
TSF
25.43
24.43
17.41
16.07
496.12
7
13�
of 43 percent for seven (7) fast food restaurants. SANDAG, in their trip generation
report, indicates that fast food restaurants have a pass -by rate of 40 percent, while
sit -down restaurants have a pass -by /diverted rate of approximately 20 percent.
RKJK also reviewed the additional trip reduction which may occur as a result of walk -
in traffic to the site, due to the proximity of the existing Newport Harbor Court. At
the present time, there is a Weinerschnitzel fast food restaurant located directly south
of the proposed project. Field observations during the noon hour indicated that nearly
19 percent of the persons entering and exiting the site occurs as a result of walk -in
traffic. These persons did not drive to the site. This value is significant and would
be typical for the proposed Burger King and Food Services facility, due to their
proximity to the near -by Newport Harbor Court.
As a result of these factors, RKJK felt it was applicable to utilize the factor of at least
45 percent for the pass -by /diverted and walk -in traffic for the fast food restaurant and
approximately 20 percent for the sit -down high turnover restaurant. The net trip
generation for both the existing Carrow's restaurant and the proposed Burger King and
Food Services facility is shown in Table 5. The Carrow's restaurant would generate
a net trip generation of 782 trip -ends per day with 55 vehicles per hour during the AM
peak hour and 65 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed use
would generate 1,125 net trip -ends per day with 105 vehicles per hour during the AM
peak hour and 81 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
The net difference in trip generation between the proposed and existing use of the site
is also shown in Table 5. The proposed use would result in a net increase in trip
generation of 343 trip -ends per day with 50 vehicles -per hour during the AM peak
hour and 16 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, based upon the ITE Trip
Generation rates.
In order to compare the results of this analysis with data developed by the City of
Newport Beach, RKJK has obtained the trip generation rates utilized in the City of
Newport Beach's traffic model. The traffic model does not necessarily categorize the
restaurant uses in the detail as the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It does include trip
rates which do account for trip reduction due to pass -by and diverted other factors.
For a fast food restaurant, a trip rate of 142 trip -ends per 1,000 square feet per day
is utilized and for sit -down restaurant and value of 66.9 trip -ends per 1,000 square
feet is utilized. Based upon these factors, the net difference in trip generation would
be approximately 309 trip -ends per day This value is close to the value which has
been calculated and shown in Table 5, based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates.
9
13�
TABLE 4
WEINERSCHNITZEL NEWPORT BEACH
NOONTIME TRAVEL MODES
TIMEFRAME
PERSON TRIPS
DRIVE -THRU
PARK/WALK -IN
WALK -IN ONLY
TOTAL
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Noon - 1:00 PM
75
75
48
50
26
31
149
156
TOTAL In & Out
150
98
59
305
TOTAL In & Out
Percentage 1 %)
49.2
32.1
18.7
100.0
10
31
TABLE 5
NET TRIP GENERATION WITH PASS -BY TRIPS
EXISTING USE
PROPOSED USE
PASS -BY
%
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Carrows
20 1
29
26
39
26
782
PROPOSED USE
NET DIFFERENCE
PASS -BY
%
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Burger King
45%
44
42
30
28
857
Food Services
20%
10
9
14
9
268
TOTAL
+11
54
51
44
37
1,125
NET DIFFERENCE
11
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Existing Use
29
26
39
26
782
Proposed Use
54
51
44
37
1,125
DIFFERENCE
+25
+25
+5
+11
+343
11
RKJK has completed a trip generation study for the proposed Burger King and Food
Service facility to be located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach.
Based upon this study, the project would generate approximately 343 trip -ends per
day more than what was previously generated on the site, based upon net trip -ends.
This trip generation value can be utilized in determining the appropriate City traffic
fees for the site.
RKJK appreciates this opportunity to provide this review of trip generation for the
proposed Burger King and Food Services facility with the BRECKENRIDGE GROUP.
Please do not hesitate to give me a call at (714) 474 -0809.
Sincerely,
RKJK & ASSOCIATES, I
�O QPpf ESSlpyq` �
� m
Robert Kahn, P.E. NO 0555 a
Principal EXP 12/31/01
RK:nam /7814 *'5>4 AFF GALW
OF
JN:1O30 -98 -01
Attachments
12
134
APPENDIX A
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS,
1'iD
CARROWS
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION
FOR, 7.5 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF HIGH TURNOVER (SIT -DOWN) RESTAURANT
2/13/98
Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
��ti
AVERAGE
RATE
STANDARD
DEVIATION
ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR
DR -WAY
VOLUME
AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL
130.34
43.77
1.00
978
7 -9 AM PK HR
ENTER
4.82
0.00
1.00
36
7 -9 AM PK HR
EXIT
4.45
0.00
1.00
33
7 -9 AM PK HR
TOTAL
9.27
7.46
1.00
70
4 -6 PM PK HR
ENTER
6.52
0.00
1.00
49
4 -6 PM PK HR
EXIT
4.34
0.00
1.00
33
4 -6 PM PK HR
TOTAL
10.86
9.83
1.00
81
SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL
158.37
0.00
1.00
1188
PK HR ENTER
12.60
0.00
1.00
95
PK HR EXIT
7.40
0.00
1.00
56
PK HR TOTAL
20.00
16.54
1.00
150
SUNDAY 2 -WAY
VOL
131.84
0.00
1.00
989
PK HR ENTER
10.15
0.00
1.00
76
PK HR EXIT
8.31
0.00
1.00
62
PK HR TOTAL
18.46
13.74
1.00
138
Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
��ti
BURGER KING
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION
FOR 3.14 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF FAST -FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU
2/19/98
r'
{
AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DR -WAY
RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME
AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL
496.12
242.52
1.00
1558
7 -9 AM PK HR
ENTER
25.43
0.00
1.00
80
7 -9 AM PK HR
EXIT
24.43
0.00
1.00
77
7 -9 AM PK HR
TOTAL
49.86
29.60
1.00
157
4 -6 PM PK HR
ENTER
17.41
0.00
1.00
55
4 -6 PM PK HR
EXIT
16.07
0.00
1.00
50
4 -6 PM PK HR
TOTAL
33.48
19.25
1.00
105
SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL
722.03
295.62
1.00
2267
PK HR ENTER
30.04
0.00
1.00
94
PK HR EXIT
28.87
0.00
1.00
91
PK HR TOTAL
58.91
23.95
1.00
185
SUNDAY 2 -WAY
VOL
542.72
206.86
1.00
1704
PK HR ENTER
34.92
0.00
1.00
110
PK HR EXIT
37.82
0.00
1.00
119
PK HR TOTAL
72.74
11.95
1.00
228
Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
f
i
)`;l
FOOD SERVICES - FAST FOOD W/O DRIVETHRU
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION
FOR 2.57 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF FAST -FOOD RESTAURANT W/O DRIVE THRU
2/19/98
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
63
AVERAGE
STANDARD ADJUSTMENT
DR -WAY
RATE
DEVIATION
FACTOR
VOLUME
AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL
716.00
0.00
1.00
1840
7 -9 AM PK HR
ENTER
26.32
0.00
1.00
68
7 -9 AM PK HR
EXIT
17.55
0.00
1.00
45
7 -9 AM PK HR
TOTAL
43.87
0.00
1.00
113
4 -6 PM PK HR
ENTER
13.34
0.00
1.00
34
4 -6 PM PK HR
EXIT
12.81
0.00
1.00
33
4 -6 PM PK HR
TOTAL
26.15
10.51
1.00
67
SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL
696.00
0.00
1.00
1789
PK HR ENTER
26.73
0.00
1.00
69
PK HR EXIT
27.82
0.00
1.00
71
PK HR TOTAL
54.55
0.00
1.00
140
SUNDAY 2 -WAY
VOL
500.00
0.00
1.00
1285
PK HR ENTER
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
PK HR EXIT
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
PK HR TOTAL
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
Note: A zero
rate indicates no rate
data available
Source: Institute of Transportation
Engineers
Trip
Generation,
6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
63
APPENDIX D
PARKING STUDY
(APRIL 20, 1998)
)�i�l
5180 BIRCH ST.-BURGER KING /FOOD SERVICE
PARKING STUDY
Newport Beach, California
R!(J -
K
ROBERT F;!91N KAHN . IO6 ASSOCIATES INC.
April 20, 1998
Mr. Brian Price
BRECKENRIDGE GROUP
P.O. Group 80340
30252 Tomas, Suite 200
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Subject: Burger King (5180 Birch Street), Newport Beach Parking Study,
Dear Mr. Price:
INTRODUCTION
The firm of RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to provide the
BRECKENRIDGE GROUP this parking study for your proposed Burger King to be
located at 5180 Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located at
the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach
as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
The revised Burger King building is estimated to include 2,530 square feet of building.
The adjoining food service facility would include 2 spaces of 1,285 square feet each
with a net public space of 617 square feet (48 %) within each of two spaces.
Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Engineering
Department, a survey of existing fast food restaurants with drive - throughs was
conducted to determine the appropriate parking rate for the proposed fast food portion
of the proposed site. Since the proposed site is located in close proximity to major
pedestrian generators (i.e., Newport Harbor Court, offices, etc.), the following three
sites were selected to represent conditions where a high degree of walk -in traffic
would occur.
Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach, the following three sites
were surveyed during three mid -week time frames (Tuesday through Thursday, April
7 through 9, 1998):
• Burger King = 2,130 sq. ft. of building
701 North Main Street
Santa Ana, CA
• Der Weinerschnitzel = 2,295 sq. ft. of building
4501 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA
IFS \NNI% W I%I it IN 1.1 \\\I\,
IFVIH VI-1 Nil(
M.I.MiFIM.
I�
ja
I
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAP
• Taco Bell = 2,397 sq. ft. of building
4101 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA
The parking survey was conducted over a three day period to adequately assess the
peak parking demand at the three sites. Parking was monitored during the hours of
11 AM to 2 PM at 15 minute intervals, which reflects the peak period for the three
sites. The forms used to collect the parking survey data are similar to Table 1, The
completed parking survey forms are included in Appendix "A ".
Based upon our meeting with the City of Newport Beach, a parking survey can be
utilized as an alternative to the City's parking code for these types of uses. Since the
proposed site is located in close proximity to major pedestrian generators (i.e.,
Newport Harbor Court, offices, etc.), increased amount of walk -in traffic may be
expected at the proposed Burger King. The City of Newport Beach parking code
requirements for fast food restaurants are 1 space per 50 square feet of building plus
1 space for each peak employee. Based upon the City's parking code, 60 spaces
would be required assuming nine (9) peak hour employees during the noon period.
The parking requirements for the food services building has been based upon the City
requirements for a full service small scale restaurant. This type of facility is limited
to 25 seats with no live entertainment and a net public area of less than 1,000 square
feet per restaurant. The parking 'requirements for these facilities is based upon 1
space per 3 seats. I
FINDINGS
The following findings were made with respect to the parking survey.
1. There was substantial variation in parking demand between the three sites.
The Newport Beach Taco Bell represented the highest parking demand of the
three sites with a peak parking demand of approximately 25.9 spaces per
thousand square feet of building. The Burger King in Santa Ana had the lowest
parking demand with a peak parking demand rate of 9.4 spaces per thousand
square feet of building. The size of buildings for the three survey sites is
relatively similar with a range of 2,130 square feet to 2,397 square feet.
2. The Newport Beach Taco Bell appears to be one of the most successful fast
food restaurants with respect to overall demand.
3. The average peak parking demand rate for the three sites was 16.85 spaces
per thousand square feet of building. Based upon this rate, the proposed 2,530
square foot Burger King building would require 43 spaces to meet peak parking
3
jq�
TABLE 1
PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey:
Land Use:
Address:
Building Sq. Ft.:
Number of Parking Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY °% 2
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1.000 SQ.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
12:00 Noon
12:15 PM
12:30 PM
12:45 PM
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
RK:nam/8010
JN:1030 -98 -02
Date: April 7, 1998
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
4
I�9
demand. An additional two spaces is recommended to provide some overage,
for a total of 45 spaces. While this amount of parking is less than the existing {
Newport Beach parking code, it is anticipated to be adequate given the location
of the site and the propensity for walk -in traffic. Another recently constructed
Burger King in San Juan Capistrano, utilized a parking rate of 1 space per 60
square feet, which would result in a similar parking requirement as the average
of the three peak parking demand rates in this survey.
4. The parking requirement for the food services building (two 1,285 square foot
spaces) is estimated to be 18 spaces based upon the City's parking code
requirement for full service small scale restaurants.
5. Total parking for the entire site including the Burger King and the food services
facility would be 45 + 18 = 63 spaces,
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING SURVEY
An on -site parking survey of fast food with potential walk -in traffic was conducted at
three sites between April 7 and April 9, 1998 (Tuesday through Thursday). The three
project survey sites were selected at a meeting with the City of Newport Beach staff.
Each of the three sample sites had the potential for more walk -in traffic than a typical
fast food restaurant.
The parking demand data was collected at 15 minute intervals during the time frame j
of 11 AM to 2 PM. Additionally, the building square footages were obtained from the
appropriate public agencies. A summary of the fast food restaurant parking demand
is included in Table 2. The detailed parking survey sheets are included in Appendix
"A ". As shown in Table 2, the maximum parking demand for the Burger King ranged
from 19 to 21 spaces; for the Der Weinerschnitzel ranged from 22 to 34 spaces; and
for the Taco Bell ranged from 56 to 62 spaces. The parking provided at each of these
facilities was as follows:
• Burger King = 54 spaces
• Der Weinerschnitzel = 39 spaces
• Taco Bell = 66 spaces
The peak parking demand was contained with the existing available spaces at each
of the project survey sites. '
Parking demand rates were determined for each of the survey sites. A summary of
the hourly and maximum parking demand for each site is included in Table 3. The
parking demand rates are expressed in terms of parking spaces per thousand square
feet of building. The Burger King peak parking demand ranged from 8.92 to 8.86
)Jr,
TABLE 2
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
TIME
BURGER KING
BLDG. = 2.130 TSF'
DER WEINERSCHNITZEL
BLDG. = 2.295 TSF
TACO BELL
BLDG. = 2.397 TSF
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
11:00 AMI
8
ial
5
41
2
4
34
34
29
11:15 AM
8
19
9
9
4
12
33
35
38
11:30 AM
10
15
11
12
8
11
40
46
41
11:45 AM
11
18
12
16
23
17
45
55
51
12:00 NOON
12
12
11
28
24
20
51
58
61
12:15 PM
10
9
20
34
24
22
56
51
61
12:30 PM
14
16
17
24
25
21
541
46
62
12:45 PM
16
14
17
281
21
21
46
48
52
1:00 PM
20
9
21
19
17
18
45
42
45
115 PM
16
51
11
24
16
19
43
44
56
1:30 PM
14
10
8
15
19
10
50
48
49
1:45 PM
12
11
8
12
17
7
38
44
38
2:00 PM
8
61
8
8
16
6
38
45
38
Maximum
Parking
Demand
20
19
21
341
25
22
56
58
62
' TSF = thousand square feet of building
151
TABLE 3
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PARKING DEMAND RATE PER TSF'
' Parking spaces per thousand square feet (TSF).
Z TSF = thousand square feet of building
A
)6a
ER KING
BimED.. 0 TSF2
DER WEINERSCHNITZEL
BLDG. = 2.295 TSF
I
TACO BELL
BLDG. = 2.397 TSF
I
TIME
THURS.
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
TUES.
WED.
THURS.
11:00 AM
3.756
8.451
2.347
1.743
0.871
1.743
14.184
14.184
12.098
11:15 AM
3.756
8.920
4.225
3.922
1.743
5.229
13.767
14.602
15.853
11:30 AM
4.695
7.042
5164
5.229
3.486
4.793
16.688
19.191
17.105
11:45 AM
5.164
8.451
5.634
6.972
10.022
7.407
18.773
22.945
21.277
12:00 NOON
5.634
5.634
5.164
12.200
10.458
8.715
21.277
24.197
25.448
12:15 PM
4.695
4.225
9.390
14.815
10.458
9.586
23.363
21.277
25.448
12:30 PM
6.573
7.512
7.981
10.458
10.893
9.150
22.528
19.191
25.866
12:45 PM
7.512
6.5731
7.981
12.2001
9.150
9.1501
19.191
20.025
21.694
1:00 PM
9.390
4.225
9.859
8.279
7.407
7.843
18.773
17.522
18.773
1:15 PM
7.512
2.347
5.164
10.458
6.972
8.279
17.939
18.356
23.363
1:30 PM
6.573
4.695
3.756
6.536
8.279
4.357
20.859
20.025
20.442
1:45 PM
5.634
5.164
2.817
5.229
7.407
3.050
15.853
18.356
15.853
2:00 PM
3.756
2.817
3.756
3.486
6.972
2.614
15.853
18.773
15.853
Maximum
Parking
Demand
9.390
8.920
9.859
14.815
10.893
9.586
23.363
24.197
25.866
' Parking spaces per thousand square feet (TSF).
Z TSF = thousand square feet of building
A
)6a
spaces per thousand square feet; Der Weinerschnitzel ranged from 9.59 to 14.82
spaces per thousand square feet; and the Taco Bell ranged from 23.36 to 25.87
spaces per thousand square feet. As can be see by the survey data, the Taco Bell had
substantially greater parking demand than either of the two other survey sites. This
particular Taco Bell has one of the greatest overall demand for a fast food facility in
this area.
A summary of the peak parking demand rates at the three survey sites is included in
Table 4. The average parking demand rates (non- weighted) would be 16.85 spaces
per thousand square feet. This rate represents a level greater than the lowest and
middle survey site, but less than the demand rate generated by the Taco Bell facility.
This level of demand is most appropriate to utilize for calculating the expected parking
demand for the proposed Burger King site.
The currently proposed Burger King is expected to be 2,530 square feet. Based upon
that square footage and the average peak parking demand rate, it would be
anticipated that the Burger King would require a minimum of 43 spaces. This would
cover the maximum peak demand expected during the noon hour. Some additional
spaces (approximately 5% - 2 spaces) should be provided as an overage factor to
account for variations in peak demand. This would yield a total of 45 spaces for the
Burger King.
FOOD SERVICES FACILITY PARKING REQUIREMENT
The proposed food services facility building would consist of a total of 2 spaces with
a total building square footage of 2,570 square feet. It is anticipated that two full
service small scale restaurants would occupy these spaces for a total of 1,285 square
feet each. Based upon the preliminary architectural plans, the public use spaces will
be approximately 48% of the space or approximately 617 square feet for each
restaurant.
The City of Newport Beach parking code permits full service small scale restaurants
to be parked at 1 spaces per three seats, however, use restrictions are required
including: (1) a limitation to a maximum of 25 seats, (2) no live entertainment and
(3) net public spaces of less than 1,000 square feet. Each of the two proposed food
service restaurants would have to meet these criteria. It is anticipated that at least
one of the food services facilities would be a breakfast oriented restaurant (i.e., bagel
or muffin shop) which would have its peak parking demand occur in the early morning.
This would not conflict with the proposed Burger King fast food restaurant would
have a noon hour peak parking demand.
E -7
I�'
TABLE 4
FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
SUMMARY OF PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATES'
SITE
BUILDING
SIZE (TSF)'
PEAK
PARKING
DEMAND
PEA
PARKING
DEMAND'
Bu er Kin
2.130
21
9.859
Der Weinerschnitzel
2.295
34
14.815
Taco Bell
2.397
62
25.866
[Average Three Sites
2.2741
39
16.847
' Parking spaces per thousand square feet (TSF).
2 TSF = thousand square feet of building
m
9 I5`i
Assuming a maximum of 25 seats for each of the two full service small scale
restaurants, it is anticipated that a maximum parking requirement of 9 spaces each
for a total of 18 spaces would be required for the food service facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made with respect to the overall site:
1. The 2,530 square foot Burger King should provide approximately 45 parking
spaces to accommodate peak parking demand.
2. The two full service small scale restaurants should provide a total of 18 parking
spaces. These two restaurants would have to be limited to 25 or fewer seats
each, have no live entertainment and have less than 1,000 square feet of public
space each.
3. Total parking for the entire (Burger King and food services facility) site would
be 63 spaces.
4. The site design for the Burger King should be reviewed to insure that adequate
drive - through lane capacity is available queuing to insure that all on -site parking
spaces can be accessed. Based upon previous studies completed by RKJK,
storage for at least 7 vehicles in the drive- through lane is necessary to insure
adequate storage in the fast food drive - through lane.
CONCLUSIONS
RKJK has completed a parking survey of fast food restaurants for the proposed 5180
Jamboree Burger King site. Based upon this study parking demand has been
estimated and recommendations with respect to specific amount of parking for the
site has been recommended. If you have any questions regarding this or need further
review, please give me a call at (714) 474 -0809.
Sincerely,
RKJK & ASSOCIA'
Robert Kahn, P.E� * EXP 12131/01 /
Principal \ \
RK:kgd /8010 \"r�AL N:1030 -98 -02 Attachments
10
1 �'5
APPENDIX A
PARKING SURVEY WORKSHEETS
►5(.
BURGER KING PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4/7198 (Tuesday)
Land Use: Burger King
Address: 701 North Main Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,130
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 24
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY % 2
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SO.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
8
33.33%
3.76
11:15 AM
8
33.33%
3.76
11:30 AM
10
41.67%
4.69
11:45 AMI
11
45.83%
5.16
12:00 Noon
12
50.00%
5.63
12:15 PM
10
41.67%
4.69
12:30 PM
14
58.33%
6.57
12:45 PM
16
66.67%
7.51
1:00 PM
20
83.33%
9.39
1:15 PM
16
66.67%
7.51
1:30 PM
14
58.33%
6.57
1:45 PM
12
50.00%
5.63
2:00 PM
8
33.33%
3.76
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
7 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
15�
BURGER KING PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4/8198 (Wednesday)
1
Land Use: Burger King
Address: 701 North Main Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2.130
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 24
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY °k
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
18
75.00%
8.45
11:15 AM
19
79.17%
8.92
11:30 AM
15
62.50%
7.04
11:45 AM
18
75.00%
8.45
12:00 Noon
12
50.00%
5.63
12:15 PM
9
37.50%
4.23
12:30 PM
16
66.67%
7.51
12:45 PM
14
58.33%
6.57
1:00 PM
9
37.50%
4.23
1:15 PM
5
20.83%
2.35
1:30 PM
101
41.67%1
4.69
1:45 PM
11
45.83%
5.16
2:00 PM
6
25.00%
2.82
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
Z Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
15�
BURGER KING PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4/9/98 (Thursday)
Land Use: Burger King
Address: 701 North Main Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,130
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 24
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY %)'
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 So.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
5
20.83%
2.35
11:15 AM
9
37.50%
4.23
11:30 AM
11
45.83%
5.16
11:45 AM
12
50.00%
5.63
12:00 Noon
11
45.83%
5.16
12:15 PM
20
83.33%
9.39'
12:30 PM
17
70.83%
7.98
12:45 PM
17
70.83%
7.98
1:00 PM
21
87.50%
9.86
1:15 PM
11
45.83%
5.16
1:30 PM
8
33.33%
3.76
1:45 PM
6
25.00%
2.8
2:00 PM
8
33.33%
3.76
Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
X59
.r
DER WEINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4/7198 (Tuesday)
Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel
Address: 4501 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,295
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 39
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY % s
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SO.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
4
10.26%
1.74
11:15 AM
9
23.08%
3.92
11:30 AM
12
30.77%
5.23
11:45 AM
16
41.03%
6.97
12:00 Noon
28
71.79%
12.20
12:15 PM
34
87.18%
14.81
12:30 PM
24
61.54%
10.46
12:45 PM
28
71.79%
12.20
1:00 PM
19
48.72%
8.28
1:15 PM
24
61.54%
10.46
1:30 PM
15
38.46%
6.54
1:45 PM
12
30.77%
5.23
2:00 PM
8
20.51%
3.49
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
Z Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
i
11
16D
DER WEINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 418/98 (Wednesday)
Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel
Address: 4501 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,295
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 39
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY (%)2
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
2
5.13%
0.87
11:15 AM
4
10.26%
1.74
11:30 AM
8
20.51%
3.4
11:45 AM
23
58.97%
10.02
12:00 Noon
24
61.54%
10.46
12:15 PM
24
61.54%
10.46
12:30 PM
25
64.10%
10.89
12:45 PM
21
53.85%
9.15
1:00 PM
17
43.59%
7.41
1:15 PM
16
41.03%
6.97
1:30 PM
19
48.72%
8.28
1:45 PM
17
43.59%
7.41
2:00 PM
16
41.03%
6.97
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
3
DER WEINERSCHNITZEL PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4/9/98 (Thursday)
Land Use: Der Weinerschnitzel
Address: 4501 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,295
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 39
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY (%
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SO.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
4
10.26%
1.74
11:15 AM
12
30.77%
5.23
11:30 AM
11
28.21%
4.79
11:45 AM
17
43.59%
7.41
12:00 Noon
20
51.28%
8.71
12:15 PM
22
56.41%
9.59
12:30 PM
21
53.85%
9.15
12:45 PM
21
53.85%
9.15
1:00 PM
18
46.15%
7.84
1:15 PM
19
48.72%
8.28
1:30 PM
10
25.64%
4.36
1:45 PM
7
. 17.95%1
3.05
2:00 PM
6
15.38%
2.61
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
A
1�;�
TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4!7/98 (Tuesday)
Land Use: Taco Bell
Address: 4101 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,397
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 66
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY (%)'
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
34
51.52%
14.18
11:15 AM
33
50.00%
13.77
11:30 AM
40
60.61%
16.69
11:45 AM
45
68.18%
18.77
12:00 Noon
51
77.27%
21.28
12:15 PM
56
84.85%
23.36
12:30 PM
54
81.82%
22.53
12:45 PM
46
69.70%
19.19
1:00 PM
45
68.18%
18.77
1:15 PM
43
65.15%
17.94
1:30 PM
501
75.76%
20.86
1:45 PM
38
57.58%
15.85
2:00 PM
38
57.58%
15.85
RK:nam /8010
JN:1030 -98-02
Date: April 7, 1998
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
11 Z'
TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 4/8/98 (Wednesday)
Land Use: Taco Bell
Address: 4101 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,397
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 66
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY (%
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
34
51.52%
14.18
11:15 AM
35
53.03%
14.60
11:30 AM
46
69.70%
19.19
11:45 AM
55
83.33%
22.95
12:00 Noon
58
87.88%
24.20
12:15 PM
51
77.27%
21.28
12:30 PM
46
69.70%
19.19
12:45 PM
48
72.73%
20.03
1:00 PM
42
63.64%
17.52
1:15 PM
44
66.67%
18.36
1:30 PM
481
72.73%
20.03
1:45 PM
44 1
1 66.67%1
18.36
2:00 PM
45
68.18%
18.77
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
2 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
t
ti
TACO BELL PARKING SURVEY
Date of Survey: 419198 (Thursday)
Land Use: Taco Bell
Address: 4101 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Building 2,397
Sq. Ft.:
Number of 66
Parking
Spaces:
TIME
TOTAL VEHICLES'
PERCENT
OCCUPANCY (%)'
TOTAL PARKING
DEMAND PER 1,000 SO.
FT. OF BUILDING
11:00 AM
29
43.94%
12.10
11:15 AM
38
57.58%
15.85
11:30 AM
41
62.12%
17.10
11:45 AM
51
77.27%
21.28
12:00 Noon
61
92.42%
25.45
12:15 PM
61
92.42%
25.45
12:30 PM
62
93.94%
25.87
12:45 PM
52
78.79%
21.69
1:00 PM
45
68.18%
18.77
1:15 PM
56
84.85%
23.36
1:30 PM
49
74.24%
20.44
1:45 PM
38
57.58%
15.85
2:00 PM
38
57.58%
15.85
' Number of vehicles parking in parking spaces.
7 Percentage of the total parking spaces occupied.
r C,
07 u5: 95 NIfU 11:06 FAX 503481061-, 1'104 H µ01)1_1)klDCI.
FAX _
Date Z` / "/'9
Number of pages including cover sheet �c/� Cs)
to 00 1
MR. THOMAS H. WOOLDRIDGE
1735 Corbett Highlands Place
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420,
L
RECEIVED BY
PLAN ING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 0 8 1998 PM
71819110111112111213141816
I
To: From:
/C/� MR. THOMAS H.
C, ✓ �� // WOOLDRIDGE _
/7 1735 Corbett Highlands
�c Place
41 Arroyo Grande, CA
/ 93420
Z6r�isS /rte
Phone —
Fax Phone ��W�32SQ
cc,
Urgent ❑ For your review
Phone (805) 473_0216_
Pax Phone 18051481 -0627
Reoly ASAP ❑ Please comment
C -/
�G�/v5 %/'.aLGf -T /Gill
lt�b
..; 0.4.98 1:07 1 '.1S bus 4b10 61; 1'104 II "HOLDRIMA
Irf 002
80 /o 7:s1 /cn,J
c f -
TZ�L
(�/V' ✓�cn 26 /998,
L'i %!o� /Jc'f�fiC 5ju�y�v. / /lo AWd
3635- mti
�/%f/i% /mod %9c�,7�.•I�.BL� /3S %.�'C�
. O
I (I
o -. ob. ss NGU 1 1:07 1 U 805481 o9_7 rroN a xuuwKluGAi 4L003
��� S172r�T �ii�� ��ir.'ST�ite�'ia�a Cz� �c�LV /,Li �,�•
��� � /L�. %� LL� ��� /T /�iv.�G �c GG .SFill�iC� S/i� (SG•
Xow
C✓'
ge
/s rv,�„
ssG-L
O 4>7-
'7
U. US 9S k1A) 11:09 IAX SU34SIUU'7 1'104 II WUULUHIUGIC
14ou4
D
�L / GAT LSSL /-T
Gf' G��y�Lc -�yJ- yat,L �Gs> �,��oi.� /•rJ
/olllwlA- 7
r
/
i
i
f
f
i
r
07 US 9S 'AED 11. IU 1'AS S0346I0627 1 -101 II NUUI.URIUGL
T
-7 1
,S. l ✓ti:, f:�
Q TELLER AVENUE
I! CFO C10 b1r0r H(w9ngT
eucx ..cx llr /PAULA
j1NMLL1Alt it 116\
L.
I I�
I m
I
I I ti
°i 41
I 1 +! t
S u
x CC
00
Pl,N•N I l �
••
I q. ;I
. el r.l'ry.•... flquPlt i l l 'I IY I
� iel. u. elr•,l ,l �I "I IiIN..::LN1
¢
6••CM. ar�
L�'u
� V
I
�
ILO
.•1 i�• -
I F�.:�.
l
a
i }:
f.,!![rworS Jr NE1PNP!BE <CH
_IIF
+a•
�- 314)•1'
lhO fL'
°•`" " "'
JAMBOREE
BOULEVARD
T; \VA�A
11l 4.1-.b 1-• /
It
C /TY L /Ar/T9 Of /RY /Nf
vG,¢o•r ccrer •W.1
I,•a
>'
u 1 .1 DOw1 +A1
%'P1+.'F U41.1..•T Arrn.)Afu rPOM HIP CH SIRLCr IS A(OMOVEO
1-N I'll N'.ON W 1141 11-1111 111111 MAY OF RCOUTACO.
T..4 Pr AHI M O$ $MOWN 1. rnf 1, +Aq / A S C 0 O N Tait C 1 N It R LIN E 01
0.x G191 n C LT no Nc. N +01;1 ) A' w A S 4 MOW N ON T A Af. 119 l\.M'\C.
MAPS ):O /70.AECOg19 OO ORANGE COUfITrr CALIFORNIA
NorE
0. Z•c' I r. Of EIS I RUN 141 TL
:11-1.111 10 1.,1 4TY OT
MIr1 FytG /GwGN
H
Ir^ 170 L1T"LIwrIT
I"...IVO 1 C1 C IN
.e1W'ffklt 141\
tkLjUUJ
1
.`
ro RIO ]G/ Wefa HON
OLJ AIIM-
IRC t1i
MONUAMNT NOTES
1. iCT VMON RIO /TAOOEO -LS 3109-AT ALL CORNERS SNOW(
THUS I
2 rOUNO -'4014 FIM TAGGTO -L.G 3109-ATLLLC0QW4RS /HC
T14L ° - -+---- PER TRACT 7933.
3 FC f ":RON PTT TAOOCD -L 9 31O1-AT ALLCORNCA$ SHO
RR TR4r.1 71%%
N16
JUL 09 ' °3 �J,: 33Ph1
NEWPORT FEDERAL
July 9, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
Attention: Thomas Ashley, Secretary
SENT VIA FAX ONLY (949)644 -3250
Re: Notice of Public Hearing for 5130 Birch Steet Project
Hearing Date: July 9, 1993
Gentlemen:
P.1
We are the owners of the property located at 4425 Jamboree Road,Newport Beach. We are adjacent to
the property used for a Wienersehnitzel restaurant and which adjoins 5130 Birch Street.
We did not receive a notice of the hearing regarding the property on the corner of Birch and Jamboree
which was previously used as a Carrows restaurant and is apparently the subject of this hearing, until we
were notified by one of our neighbors today.
We understand the report to the Planning Commission for this hearing is many pages in length and
includes detailed traffic studies, parking studies and analysis, both by the City staff and outside firms.
Due to the limited time to respond in this matter, we respectfully request that this (tearing be postponed to
a later date to allow us to review this matter, its impact on our property and to obtain professional help, if
needed.
However, based upon our limited understanding of this project, we believe that it will worsen an already
difficult parking situation, impair the ability of our tenants to access their offices from both Jamboree and
Birch and pose safety hazards from the increased traffic.
We also understand that any development of this property and the other properties in this area is subject to
certain CC &Rs which require property owners consent.
Sincerely,
NEWPOR L
Chad Homing, Vice President
GADUKOplumm dec
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AM JUL 0 9 1998 PM
71819 JO 1111121112131411516
I
4425 JAMBOREE, SUITE 250 • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 • (714) BSI -9391 • FAX (714) 851 -0450
X11
714 - 474 -0529 LAW OFFICES
cc: Garold Adams
Thomas Ashley
Richard Fuller
Anne Gifford
Michael Kranzley
Tod Ridgeway
Edward Selich
x
MARTIN B. WEINBERG
353 P02 JUL 09 '98 15:35
[J
)Ja
.as.rsmi 3Cn=OduLW ;v.:ar3
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA Am a a t,rerre �o c ai Co pe anon
p r n
RlVIeJ7: �e &-cr. 3eacn CA 1.'558 -3302
Rockwell semiconduciorSYstems
Ju:y 27, '958
c'ty of Newport Beach
Members of the City Ccur -d
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Ca 925:5
RE 5180 Birch Street Protect
Dear City Council Members:
As owners of adjacent property, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Inc. would tike to take this opportunity
to express our concerns regarding the proposed development at 5180 Birch Street. Inadequate allocation
of parking spaces at the proposed site could potentially :lead to overflow parking in the adjacent Rockwell
parking lot by patrons leading to liability issues and potential parking issues for our manufacturing facility.
Because the proposed waiver is based on 6 (a) of Chapter 20.50.10, which permits the waiver of the
number of off - street parking spaces required if ;,tie perking demand will ce 'ess than the requirement in
Section 20.55.030, we are very concerned about infomrl provided to the Courcil in the Parking
Demand Study,
:rst, the Parking Demand Study references Taco Bell's Jamboree site, w� :ch was also grarted a waiver
based on the premise that walk -in" patrons would reduce the number of required parking spaces. The
Par:cing Demand Study submitted clearly shows that the demand for parking at Taco Bell actually
exceeds code requirements, ranging from 23.35 to 25.87 scares per thousand square feet. Taco Bell did
not have a "decrease in demand" occur because of "walk-in" patrons. This site most c!cse!y resembles
the proposed plan for Burger Kir.g. We simply ask ir comparing the sites, the Council take in to
consideration that the premise "less parking will be required" has proven to be untrue, We urge that Code
requirements should be a minimum. and variances only granted when there is a clear picture that the
decrease demand is likely to occur.
Secondly.. the Parking Demand Study does not use the "best examples" available in the surrounding area.
While the use of Taco Bei! and Der Weinerschnitzel provide a clear picture of the parking cemarlds of a
fast food provider in this area, the use of "outside refererces" such as the Burger King in Santa Ana does
not There are numerous fast food locations in the vic nity of the proposed sate: Carl JR's at Von Karmen
and Campus, Carl JR's at Bristol and Birch: a Burger K:rg on Bristol between Birch and Jamboree; Mac
Donald's on Bristol. The sites used for the parking demand study should be as site specific as possible..
Because there are fast food providers in the surrounding area, using "outside" references do not provide
the Council with accurate information to base a decision on, especially when the "outside reference"
provides the lowest number from which an average is to be drawn. We urge that more information
should be required before a waiver is granted
With the ctear example provided by the Taco Ben data show :ng a decrease demand is not evident, we
object to the development plan as submitted and we encourage the Crunch to take into account the
negative impacts a waiver could have or the adjacent properties.
Thank you for the aopor:urilry to express our concerns r=egarding this issue
Respectfully,
P,!chard Bluth
Director of =aciliues
wco4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date:
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.:
n >
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person:
\3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
�a-
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658
(949) 644-3200: FAX (949) 644.3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROPOSAL: Breckenridge Group (John Gantes, applicant)
5180 Birch Street
APPLICATIONS: AmendmentNo.876
Use Permit No. 3635
Traffic Study No. 116
Traffic Study Condition No. 2:
July 27, l
19
Marc Myers
(949) 644 -3210
Should the City Council act to approve these applications, staff suggests the following modification
to traffic study condition 2. This change provides more specificity to the applicant on the cost
associated with the condition.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay a fee equal to 1.32% of
the cost to construct the improvement identified for the intersection of Jamboree Road
and MacArthur Boulevard, not to exceed $5,000. If the actual cost of this improvement
has not been identified at that time, $5,000 shall be deposited with the City until such
time as the cost is defined, at which time any overpayment shall be.refunded to the
applicant.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
MARC W. MYERS
Associate Planner