Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS112 - .,,pQ CITY OF NEWKV BEACH Hearing November 10, 1997 0/// R� COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: `\ ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Patricia L. Temple u q�" �r 53oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD 644-3200 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (714)644-3200;FAX(714)644-5150 li REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Rodriquez-Atkatz,applicant) 3100 West Coast Highway PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The project involves the approval of a use permit, a traffic study and a negative declaration, to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive- through restaurant facility with a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking.The applications include the following requests: • waive a portion of the required off-street parking. • allow an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical equipment screen to exceed the maximum area of 25 square feet permitted by the Municipal Code. • a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high-at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. • waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ACTION: Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and deny the applications;or Approve or modify • Use Per»tit No. 3612, • TrafftcStudyNo. 112aud • tlieacceptauceofauenviroutuentaldoctut:et:t LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot F of Tract 919 ZONE: SP-5 (Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial) OWNER: Robins Properties,Costa Mesa Baekiyound v The Planning Commission considered these applications at its meeting on October 9"'. During the course of that hearing several issue areas were identified for which the Planning Commission felt it needed additional information.In order to provide time to develop this information,the Planning Commission expressed an interest in continuing the public hearing.However,the applicant indicated to the Planning Commissionthat a continuance was not acceptable, and requested an action. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the project because some commissioners did not feel there was sufficient information to make the findings required to approve the applications. Some commissioners felt that the location is not appropriate for the proposed use.The areas of concern expressed by the Planning Commissionwere: • the level of detail provided on the plans to understand the design and aesthetics of the structure, • the adequacy of the proposed access, • the adequacy of vehicle stacking space on site, • the appropriateness of separating a consolidated parcel of land,and • the consistency of the proposal with the recommendations of the Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens Advisory Committee. This report will provide to the City Council additional information regarding these issues. A copy of the staff report submitted to the Planning Commission is also attached,which describes the other issues related to the requests. Discussion Plans and Illustrations The submittal package includes a standard set of site plan, floor plans, and elevations for the project. However,due to the unusual nature of the project and its design,these plans are difficult to interpret and, therefore, it is difficult to understand exactly what the project will look like. The appearance of the proposed structure is especially important in this case, because one of the findings required to approve exceeding the height.limit is that the increased height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. As a result of some initial concerns in this regard raised by some of the Planning Commissioners,staff requested that the applicantprepare a more illustrative elevation or rendering which would better show the proposed project.While the applicant did bring a colored rendering to the Planning Commission meeting,it did not provide a significant amount of new information on the aesthetics of the project. Given the complexity of the site layout and unusual architectural features,the Planning Commission felt that a scale model of the project would be necessary to adequately understand the proposal. While the applicant indicated that a model had been constructed, it was not brought to the hearing. Staff has called the applicant's representative,and will ask that the scale model be available for the City Council at its•public hearing, as well as any additional information which could assist the Council's understanding of the project's design. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 2 _�4. 0 Adequacy of Access The project access has been designed with a single access point for patrons.This access will provide right turn access both entering and exiting the project, as well an available left turn entering the project from eastbound Coast Highway. A left turn exiting the project to eastbound Coast Highway is prohibited, as included in the suggested Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the arrangement,specifically: • the safety of the left turn movement entering the property, • the ability to prevent patrons from attempting a left turn exiting the property,and • the potential routes to return to eastbound Coast Highway (either through the Newport Heights neighborhood or via U-turns at the Balboa Coves signal on West Coast Highway). Although the Public Works Department believes that the access arrangement is adequate,staff of both the Public Works and Planning Departments acknowledge that the traffic in the vicinity of the project site is busy,and there are many competing movements as people enter and exit various commercial properties as well as making lane changes to transition to the various ramps associated with the Arches Interchange with 1' Newport Boulevard.This makes access for any use on this site difficult, although the more intense drive- though restaurant use may be more problematic in this location than other permitted uses. Vehicle Stacking The traffic study assumed that customers arriving at the site would review menu boards before making their selections. Information presented at the Planning Commission hearing was that customers would be handed menus by restaurant personnel.Questions were raised regarding the traffic study assumption that it would take eight minutes for a customer to make a selection, place the order and receive the food, and whether there is adequate stacking space to prevent vehicles from extending into the public right-of-way. The issue of adequate vehicle stacking area was analyzed by the City's consulting traffic engineer as part of the traffic study(see handwritten page 81). Based upon the 34 vehicles per hour arriving at the site at peak times and the 8:00 minutes maximum turnover, the traffic engineer calculated that a maximum of 16 customer vehicles would be on-site at any time. Since the site plan showed a total queuing area available for 30 vehicles,vehicle storage was considered adequate. Separation of Consolidated Parcel The proposed project occupies the easterly one-half of the Robins Properties holding, which is a single parcel with a 200 foot frontage on Coast Highway. The property currently has a single access on to Coast Highway. One of the concerns of the Planning Commission was the creation, through the process of approving two separate projects on the site, of a requirement to add an additional curb cut on West Coast Highway.This concern was complicated by a previous review of the curb cut situation by the Public Works Department,where the leasing agent for the property showed an assessor's map indicating two parcels.On the basis of that map, the Public Works Department sent a letter indicating that two curb cuts for the property would be allowed. However,the assessor's map included in the application package showed no separation of the site into two parcels. Use Pertnit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page 3 Given the concerns regarding additional curb cuts on Coast Highway, and the recommendation of the Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens Advisory Committee to consolidate properties in this area whenever possible, staff was asked to validate the presence or absence of two parcels. Since the original determination by the Public Works Department was based upon information provided by the property owner's representative, he was requested to provide any information he may have to substantiate the existence of two parcels or building sites.Additionally,staff in the Subdivision Office of the Public Works Departmentwas directed to research all information the City may have in regards to;this issue. Information provided by the owner's representative(attached),shows a history of the parcel's ownership. In 1949,Theodore Robins,Sr.purchased the easterly 100 feet of the property in question.The westerly 100 feet remained in a separate ownership.During the time of separate ownership,under the Subdivision Map Act in effect both at that time and today, each would be considered a separate parcel or building site. However,in 1955,Mr. Robins acquired the westerly 100 feet and subsequently constructed an automobile dealership on the entire site. It is the contention of the property owner's representative that,because there were separate deeds of transferal,that the parcel separation created by the separate ownership in effect from 1949 to 1955 is still in effect.To further substantiate this claim,older versions of the assessors parcel map and City atlas showing a separation have been submitted.It should be noted;however,that no subdivision map to actually create two parcels was ever filed,approved or recorded. The additional research of Public WorksDepartmentstaff has revealed additional grant deed,records which are contrary to the owner's argument. In 1977, Theodore Robins, Jr., Mae Robins, and Mary Robins executed an Individual Grant Deed(attached)to grant the entire 200 foot wide parcel,describedas a single site,to Robins Properties,a California limited partnership.Additionally,the current assessor's parcel map and City atlas shows the site as a single parcel. On this basis, it is the position-of staff that the 200 foot parcel owned by Robins Properties is a single site. Therefore, the question must then be answered as to whether the property would, if this project were approved as submitted,have a right to more than one access on Coast Highway. In discussing this issue with the City Attorney's office,staff considered the following facts: 1. The project under consideration,which would utilize the easterly 100 feet of the parcel, requires the approval of a Use Permit by the City.This is a discretionary permit which maybe approved or denied. 2. The proposed project, as currently designed, could not allow for shared use of the driveway by the adjoining area. The,provision of adequate access to individual properties has been the subject of a substantial number of legal decisions.As a result,the Attorney's Office has considered the position the City could find itself in if the project were approved as currently designed. Since the project, as well as significant aspects of its design,are within the jurisdiction of the City to modify or deny,the City would be vulnerable to a claim,of taking if it subsequently acted to deny a second access to the remainder portion of the site.Therefore,if the City Council wishes to maintain a single access-point on Coast Highway for the entire 200 foot parcel,the project should either be denied, or required to be redesigned.in such a way as to allow for shared access with the remainder of the site. Use Permit No.3612 and Tmaic Study No.112 Page 4 • , LM�.JS Project Consistency with Mariner's Mile Committee Recommendations At the time the applicant first approached the City to discuss the proposed project, the Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens Advisory Committee had not yet formed its recommendations regarding the design and development issues in the area. As a result, the project has undergone substantial staff review and recommendations for modifications absent the design guidance produced by the Committee.It is,therefore, fair to recognize that the applicant has proceeded with his project design in good faith that the advice he was receiving reflected current City standards. It is, however, important to also note that, while the staff did find the project concept interesting and worthy of consideration,at no time was it conveyed that satisfaction of technical issues raised by the staff would automatically result in favorable consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council.In fact, staff did raise issues regarding the proposed location in terms of access constraints and proximity to the Arches Interchange. The most significant area in which this proposal is not consistent with the Committee's recommendations is lot consolidation,which has been discussed above as a long-standing City goal. The Committee also made recommendations to help future development in the area follow a consistent design and development framework. In keeping with those recommendations,one of the suggested Conditions of Approval is for ,the plans for the project to be reviewed by the City's Mariner's Mile consultant team, and their comments considered by the applicant,before building permits are issued. Conclusion The decision before the City Council is whether to sustain the Planning Commission's action and deny the applications, to approve as submitted with the suggested Conditions of Approval, or to request modifications to the project. Should the City Council wish to approve Use Permit No. 3612, Traffic Study No. 112 and accept the environmental document,the actions,findings and conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit"A" attached to the Planning Commission staff report are suggested. However, should the Council desire to deny this request,the findings set forth in Exhibit"B"are suggested. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARONZ. WOOD PATRICIAL. TEMPLE Assistant City Manager Planning Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report 2. Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes 3. Applicant's Appeal letter 4. Memo from Wesley N.Taylor,owner's representative 5. Current Assessor's map and 1978 Grant Deed 6. Plans and Elevations Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page df'Wp�Rr CITY OF NE RT BEACH HeariMate: Octquer 9;, 997 COMMUNITY A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda IIZM No.: 5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia 33o NEWPORT BOULEVARD 644-3206 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92656 Appeal Period: 14 days (Y4)644-32M FAX(714)644.3250 REPORT TO TI•(E PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Rod riquez-Atkatz,applicant) 310b'West Coast Highway PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The project involves the approval of a use permit, a traffic study and a negative declaration,to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two- story drive-through restaurant facility with a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking.The applications include the following requests: • waive a portion of the required off-street parking. • allow an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical equipment screen to exceed the maximum area of 25 square feet permitted by the Municipal Code. • a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. • waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ACTION: Approve,modify or deny: • Use Perndt No. 3612, • Trafflc&udyNo. 112and • tlteacceptaaceofanenvirotttnetitaldoetuueut LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot F of Tract 919 ZONE: SP-5 (Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial) OWNER: Robins Properties,,Costa Mesa t VICINITY MAP �--- r , c JM h Y 4 �„ �' 7y •e t°. \ • 0 y �ti ti ��M 1A M Y,1I M�•f'I 1�.1 1«11N •�� Use Permit No. 3 612 and Traffic Study No. 1121- 'Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is occupied by several vacant structures formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. The project facility will occupy the easterly 100 feet of the property and only the buildings on the project site of the property will be demolished. To the north across Avon Street,are residential uses. To the east: is the Sterling Motors BMW Automobile Dealership.. To the south: across West Coast Highway,is the Tower residential Condominium Complex,the Villa Nova Restaurant and other commercial uses. To the west: is a commercial office building and restaurant. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. It 2 Page? �.a Points and Authority l . • Envi ronmental Compl i ance(Cal i forni a Environmental Q ual i ty Act) A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City,of Ne%port Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Negative Declaration is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application.The City encourages members of the general.public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are attached to this report and are also available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. • Conformance with the General Plan,Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail Service Commercial" uses. A restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. The Land Use Element and Municipal Code allocate a maximum square footage based .on 0.3 FAR for restaurant uses. The total gross floor area of the restaurant is approximately 1,800 sq.R. with a resultant FAR of 0.08. The project is therefore consistent with the FAIT,Guidelines of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. This facility is located in the Coastal Zone. Since the project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a new structure, Coastal Commission approval will be required prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits and implementationof this use permit. In accordance with Chapters 20.82 and 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code the approvals of a use permit and a traffic study are required for the construction of the proposed drive-throughrestaurantuse. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.65 of the Municipal Code, a use permit is required to permit elevator shafts and mechanical equipment screens to exceed the maximum area allowed of 25 square feet and the approval of a modification permit is required to permit architectural features in excess of the permitted height limit. • Use Permit and Modification procedures are set forth in Chapters 20.91 and 20.93 of the Municipal Code,respectively. Use Permit No.3612 and Tra1Lc Study No.112 Pagel" Project Characteristics PROPOSED PERMITTED/REQUIRED Site Area: 21,823 sq.ft. Height: Building: 26 feet 26 feet midpoint or to the top of a parapet wall;31 feet to the peak of a sloped roof. ElevatorShaft(Parapet Wall): 28 feet inches 31 feet Mechanical Equipment Screen: 29 feet inches 31 feet- Hours: Applicant's Proposal and Staffs Recommendation: 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.,daily Gross Bldg Area(FAR) Restaurant: 1,500 sq.ft. Storage Bldg: 300sq.ft. TOTAL: 1,800 sq.ft. (.08 FAR) 6,547 sq.ft. (0.30 FAR) i Setbacks: Front(Coast I lighway): 35 feet to building 50%at 5 feet and 50%at 5 feet and 50%at 10 feet is maintained by 50%at 10 feet;plus an additional the drive-through lanes in addition to the 12feet 12 feet for future dedication is for future dedication also required Easterly Side Property Line: 28 ft.to the building; zero 2 feet to the steel truss element Westerly Side of Project Site: 5 ft.3 in.to the building; zero 26 ft.to the steel frame element Rear(Avon Street): zero to parking spaces; zero 1 foot to trash screen and storage building; 40 feet to steel truss element; 108 ft.to building. Number of Employees: 7 employees Parkin @ One space for each 50 sq.ft.of gross floorarea: 0 spaces 36 spaces plus one per employee based on peak employment: 7 spaces 7 spaces Extra Space: 1 space 0 spaces Credit for vehicle stacking in the drive-through lanes: 20 spaces not addressed TOTAL: 28 spaces 43 spaces Staff Recommendation: 8 on-site parking spaces, waiver of 15 spaces and allow for the credit of 20 parking spaces in the vehicle stacking lanes to satisfy a portion of the parking requirement. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Pagex • � 'Is a. �J Analysis The subject property is occupied by several buildings which are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. The proposed project will occupy the easterly 100 feet of the subject property which will be established by a long term lease agreement between the owner and the restaurant developer. The existing structures on the project site will be demolished and the balance of the buildings on the property will remain. The proposed structure will be two-story, with drive-through lanes which will,pass under the structure. The ground floor of the main structure will be occupied by an exterior stairway, an elevator and storage room. The cooking facilities and related storage will be located on the second floor. Patron ordering will be accomplished by direct contact with employees who will be located at the ground level under a fabric sunscreen. The patrons will then proceed to the pick-up window under the main building. The project also incorporates the following operational characteristics: • no walk-up or on-site dining • no alcoholic beverage sales (on-sale or off-sale) or consumption is proposed • high turn-over drive-through service only, resulting in no patron parking demand In the review of this application staff has analyzed issues related to parking, site access, hours of operation, noise and menu boards. The area of increased height of the elevator shaft .and the mechanical equipment screen, the increased height of an. architectural feature and restaurant development standards were also analyzed. Off-Street Parking Requirement Off-street parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments are governed by the provisions of Section 20.66.070 of the Zoning Code. That section establishes the off-street parking for take-out and drive-in restaurants based on a requirement of one space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each employee based on peak employment. If this parking standard is adopted by the Planning Commission, the restaurant parking requirement will be 43 spaces. The subject facility differs from the traditional take-out restaurant facility by its unique concept which does not provide any patron walk-up window or counter and does not provide any patron seating or dining areas. Therefore, there is no need for on-site patron parking. It is the applicant's intent to utilize the on-site spaces for employee parking, to request credit for vehicle stacking in the drive-through lanes(20 spaces)to satisfy a portion of the parking'requirement, and to request a waiver of the balance of the Code required parking (15 spaces) which cannot be provided on- site. Staff is of the opinion that the provision of employee parking will adequately serve the proposed use since there is no patron parking demand generated by the use because there is no patron dining on-site. Therefore, the waiver of 15 of the 43 Code required parking spaces is justifiable in this case. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Pa9W l Access and Site Circulation The project provides one access driveway from Coast Highway as the only means of ingress and egress of the property. Since there is only one access, the Public Works Department has recommended that the facility be limited to right-out only egress to prevent the conflict between the exiting vehicles and the left turning traffic entering the subject property from eastbound West Coast Highway. Conflicting moves at the egress could adversely impact site circulation by causing back-ups in the drive-through lanes on-site and out onto Coast Highway. The Public Works Department in its initial review of the project recommended that a vehicular access connection between West Coast Highway and Avon Street be provided to accommodate exiting vehicles that wish to travel to the east of the subject property, since a left-turn movement onto West Coast Highway has been prohibited.The Public Works Department is still of the opinion that such a requirement would be in the best interest of the project and the City. However, the operational logistics of utilizing such an access would require the patron to make a complete loop around the building and traverse the drive-through lanes to reach the Avon Street access. The applicant has argued and staff has agreed that utilization of such an access would create an on-site circulation problem.However,the Public Works Department also wishes to make clear its position to continue to oppose the introduction of any future left-turn movement exiting onto West Coast Highway. The Public Works Department has indicated that the proposed on-site stacking in the drive- through lanes is adequate to accommodate the proposed operation. Staff believes that the number of drive-through lanes as proposed(two ordering lanes and three pick-up lanes) will minimize the incidence of back-ups onto Coast Highway. However, it is anticipated that during peak demand periods (lunch and possibly dinner time) there is the potential that the vehicle stacking could extend into the right-of-way and adversely affect traffic circulation on Coast Highway and the subject property. Therefore, the Public Works Department has recommended a condition of approval which requires that the applicant's representatives on-site to monitor the stacking of vehicles in the drive-through lanes to prevent back-ups into the Coast Highway right-of-way. Further, should back-ups occur, the conditions of approval require that the stop point of the drive-through lanes shall be relocated toward the pick-up lanes or the-applicant's representatives on-site shall direct incoming customers to bypass the drive-up facility(or a combination of both). Hours of Operation and Noise from the Restaurant Facility The restaurant facility will provide breakfast, lunch and dinner service with proposed hours of operation of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily. Given these hours, noise associated with the order taking process could disturb residential uses located across Avon Street which overlook the site. Therefore,staff has included conditions of approval requiring compliance with the provisions of the Community Noise Ordinance.Additionally,consistent with operational procedures as proposed by the applicant, staff has recommended a condition of approval that the use of speaker boxes be prohibited.This should prevent any additional potential noise problems which could arise from the installation of a speaker system. Should the applicant wish to add such ordering speaker boxes in the future, an amendment to the use permit will be required. With these conditions, staff has no objection to the proposed hours of operation. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page `' • � yr ` s w Signs -Menu Boards The site plan included in the traffic study shows menu boards abutting the drive-through lanes. However, the plans submitted with the use permit application do not show any menu boards. The applicant has indicated that menu boards will not be utilized in conjunction with the proposed project, but that the patrons will be handed a menu by the employee taking orders. The applicant has also indicated that project identification signs will conform to the provisions of the Municipal Code. It should be noted that the site is allowed one freestanding sign and that if any menu boards are requested as freestanding structures in the future, a modification to the Zoning Code will be required. Additionally, 'the applicant foresees the use of small on-site directional signs to aid in traffic circulation which the Municipal Code allows by right. Use Permit Request for increased Height Height Comparison PROPOSED PERMITTEDIREQUIRED Building: 26 feet to the top of the building. 26 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof or to the top of a parapet wall; 31 feet to the peak of a sloped roof hcieht area hcieht area Elevator Shaft(Parapet Wall) 28 ft 6 in. 105 sq.ft. 26 feet in height. Mechanical Equipment Screen: 29 ft.0 in. 260 sq.ft? 26 feet in height. Total: 365 sq.ft. 25 square feet (area exceeds amount pennitted by exception) Architectural Features: 32 ft. at the high point,the structure.is a 31 feet maximum height (26 feet plus sloping structure with a midpoint of 26 an allowance for an additional5 feet) feet. The provisions of 20.65.070 B allow elevator shafts and screened mechanical equipment up to 5 feet in excess of the permittedheight and limited.to a maximum area totaling no more than 25 sq.ft. As shown in the above chart, the elevator shaft (parapet wall) and mechanical equipment screen exceed the area to qualify for this exception.Therefore,the approval of a use permit is required.In accordance with the provisions of Section 20,42.050 I-2 (RSC area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area District),the Planning Commission,in granting any S The plans show a dimension of 28 feet long and the applicant has indicated in his letter of justification that the dimension has been reduced to 20 feet which results in a reduction in the area to 260 sq.ft.. Use Permit No.3612 and Trullic Study No.112 Pageer �a usd permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit,shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than would result from compliance with the basic height limit. Particular attention shall be,given to the location and orientation of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground coverage, and on the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area, within a general theme of the marine environment. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The increased height shall in no case result in a floor area exceeding the floor area permitted by Chapter 20.63 and this chapter. The applicant has provided the attached letter which provides his rationale and justification for the increased elevator shaft (parapet wall) and mechanical equipment screen area. In summary, he indicates that the proposed heights are a result of the required site grading to achieve positive drainage and the height necessary to achieve minimum vertical clearance for vehicles to pass under the second floor in the drive through lanes;and that the heights have been minimized to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, in order to adequately screen the mechanical equipment from the public street and the neighboring residential properties the height of the screening must be 29 feet and the area must exceed the allowable 25 sq.ft. The Code allows for a maximum area totaling no more than 25 square feet for elevator shaft, enclosed stairwells and screened mechanical equipment. This limitation cannot accomplish the screening of more than one such element on a building or the equipment on the proposed building. In this particular case for example, two chilling units and the elevator shaft are proposed on the roof and in order to efficiently and effectively screen them from sight would require separate screen enclosures or a large screen enclosure which exceeds the 25 square feet limitation (as proposed). The mechanical equipment has been placed as close together as possible and minimum adequate screening has been provided (at 3 feet high, where the Code allows 5 foot high). Staff is of the opinion that the above required findings can be made for the additional area of increased height in this case for the following reasons: 1. The Code allows the construction and placement of a building 26 feet high at the front setback line (50% at 5 feet and 50% at 10 feet from the ultimate right-of- way line of the future dedication) which would be more obtrusive than the proposed building which is setback 35 feet. The additional area of increased height will not result in a reduction of public visual open space and views than the Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 1112 Pap (� I basic height limit since the proposed building provides greater front, side and rear yard setbacks than required by the Municipal Code. The proposed structure is oriented at an angle; is located in the middle of the property; and has a smaller footprint which result in reduced mass and bulk as viewed from Coast Highway. This also adds to the potential public visual open space 4of the area by affording public views of the bluff as viewed from Coast Highway. Finally, the percentage of building footprint (0.08 FAR) and the enhanced treatment of all setback and open areas with extensive landscaping also enhance and soften the aesthetics of the public visual open space opportunities available in•the area-and provided by the site. 2. The additional area of increased height when,considered in conjunction with the orientation, location, footprint and mass and bulk of the structure (discussed in No. I above) will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area, within a general theme of the marine environment. That is, the physical attributes of the project further the intent and purpose of the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan to "...preserve and enhance the character of scenic highways and drives..." by the greater project setback at Coast Highway, which provides enhanced aesthetic character and public visual open- space views of the bluff. Additionally, the mechanical equipment screen meets the intent of the Code to screen equipment from the view from public streets and neighboring properties which may have a detrimental affect on existing views of residential properties overlooking the project. 3. The additional area of increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces since the Sterling Motors building to the east of the project is currently taller (35 feet) than the proposed, screen structures (28.5-29 feet). Additionally, the total bulk of the proposed structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions has been taken into consideration since the proposed building has a limited footprint and significant open,area on the first level. 4. • The structure is allowed to be 6,547 square feet (0.30 FAR)and the proposed is 1,800 square feet (0.08 FAR). Therefore, the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. a Modification Request Section 20.65.070 of the Municipal Code provides that architectural features in excess of the permitted height shall be subject to the approval of a modification permit. Included in the application is a requestto allow an architectural feature(steel frame facade element,32 feet high at its peak)to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation.In order to grant relief through a modification permit,_ the Modifications Committee, or, 'in this case, the Planning Commission, shall find: Use Permit No.3612 and Tratrc SmdyNo.112 Pagw �`\ Y �9 "that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the properly or building will not, tinder the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, 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, and jitrlher that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code." The applicant has provided a statement in support of the modification request for the architectural feature in the attached letter. In summary, he indicates that the proposed height is a result of the required site grading to achieve positive drainage and the height necessary to achieve minimum vertical clearance for vehicles to pass under the architectural feature (steel truss) in the drive through lanes;and that the height has been minimized to the greatest extent possible. That portion of the architectural element (steel truss) which exceeds the permitted height is minor in nature (one foot higher than allowed) and the mid-span height of the architectural element otherwise conforms to the 26 foot Height Limitation Zone requirement. The element in question is a long narrow architectural feature which will be utilized to reduce the visual bulk of the building face and to provide enhancement and relief to the elevation. Staff is of the opinion that the above mentioned finding can be made in this particular case, since the element is long, narrow and will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties. Additionally, the architectural element will not adversely impact or obstruct views from adjoining residential properties since the residential uses located to the rear of the subject property are located on a bluff overlooking the project. Staff also believes that the height of the proposed architectural feature is within the legislative intent of the Municipal Code since the mid-span of the element generally meets the code requirement for the height of buildings. Project Desi¢n The Mariner's Mile Specific Plan requires site plan review for new construction in the area. This project is not subject to the requirement because the proposed building is less than 2500 square feet. Nonetheless,staff believes that the project,as a new addition to the important Mariner's Mile area, should be designed in a manner that will complement and improve the area. The Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens Advisory Committee report recently presented to the City Council includes a discussion of the importance of improving the aesthetics of the area with new development of private property. The Committee recommended that the City make design assistance available to project proponents,at no cost to them and with no requirements regarding design, to help insure that new development is well designed. The City has retained a design consulting team to prepare a development framework for Mariner's Mile, and to provide design assistance on new projects. Staff believes that this project should be reviewed by the design consulting team because it is an important new project in the area that can set the tone for future development. Additionally, because the proposal includes a use permit and modification to exceed height limits, the City should be assured that the project will have a desirable architectural treatment and result in positive contribution to the visual character of the area.A condition requiring this review and consultation is included in Exhibit"A." Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page i lb • tYv'�^ S 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. Development Standards REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Site: Site shall be sufficient size and Waiver. The facility is easily accommodated by the subject configuration to satisfy all property and provides adequate area and setbacks for the requirements for off-street proposed building,landscaping and refuse storage.The number parking, setbacks, curb cuts, of required off-street{larking cannot be accommodated on the walls, landscaping and refuse project site. However, staff believes that the intent of the storage as ,provided by Section requirement is met by the provision of adequate vehicle 20.82.040of the-Municipal Code. stacking in the drive-through lanes and adequate employee parking.Therefore,the waiver of this development standard is justified. Setbacks: 50%, 5 foot front yard setback Complies. and 50%, 10 foot front setback, zero setbacks sides and zero rear setback rear per SP-5 District Development Standards; to protect the public health, safety and welfare or to insure compatibility with uses on contiguous properties (Section 20.82.040 A-2,NBMC). Off-Street Off-street parking in accordance Waiver. The facility provides 8 on-site parking spaces. A Parking: with the provisions of Section portion of the remaining requirement (20 spaces) will be 20.66 of the Municipal Code, satisfied by the stacking of vehicles in the drive-through lanes and a waiverof the balance of the required parking(15 spaces). Staff believes.that the proposed parking-is adequate,given the unique operational characteristics of the project(no dining or walk-up window service).Therefore,a waiver of a portion of the required parking is justified. Circulation: Parking areas and driveways to Complies. The on-site circulation has been reviewed by the facilitate traffic and circulation of City Traffic Engineer and based on the information submitted, vehicles on and around the the on-site circulation and sight distance clearances are facility and to provide adequate adequateso long as all conditions of approval are implemented. sight clearances. IVa Its,(adja cc)t A solid masonry wall 6 foot high Waiver. The applicant proposes a waiver of the 6 foot high to the interior shal l t be erected on all interior 'masonry wall along the side property Ylines. Proposed is th e proper0+lines): property lines of the subject erection of a combination of retaining walls and landscape property. Walls 3 feet in, height mesh fencing in order to meet the intent of this requirement. shall be erected between the on- Since a wall 3 feet in height cannot be erected between the site parking areas and the public drive-through lanes and the Coast Highway right-of-way rights-of--way. without adverse) affecting the access to the property, the Y g P P Y+ Uso PcrmitNo.3612 and?refac Study No.112 Pag%,K b I� REQUIREMENT PROPOSED applicant has requested a waiver of the wall requirement.The applicant also wishes to waive the requirement of a wall 3 feet in height between the on-site parking areas and the public rights-of-way since it cannot be provided at the rear of the property without adversely affecting the access to the:proposed parking spaces which take access from Avon Street and the drive-through lanes which take access from Coast Highway. Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the Code. Landscaping: 10% of entire site, 3 foot wide Waiver.The 5 foot to 10 foot front setback areas at the front of landscape area shall be provided the property,with the exception of the driveway access,provide to screen the parking area from more than the 3 foot wide landscape area required and the the public rights-of-way (Coast easterly property line is provided with adequate landscaping. Highway and Avon Street). A 3 Landscaping between the parking and Avon Street cannot be foot wide landscape area adjacent implemented since the proposed parking takes direct access to the interior property lines shall from Avon Street. Additionally, the required westerly side be provided. property line landscape area does not strictly comply with the Code requirement because the landscape area is provided along an interior lease line (project westerly lease line boundary). 1 Staff believes the landscaping provided on the westerly project boundary and between the on-site parking and the project satisfies the intent of the requirement. Lighting: Parking lot and site illumination Complies.Lighting on the building will be of low wattage and height and intensity;to minimize will be designed in accordance with the Code provisions. A the reflection of lights to the condition of approval is also included which requires that the streets and neighboring exterior lighting be shielded or wattage reduced in order to properties. comply with this requirement. utilities All utilities required to be Complies. undergrounded. SupplyStorage Supply storage to be contained Complies. within.a building. Refuse Storage Refuse storage outside of a Complies. building shall be hidden from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height with self-locking gates. Staff is of the opinion that the on-site development standards as they apply to site requirements,off- street parking,walls and landscaping should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application,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 Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy L-18. The Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modified;or 'primary' street, based on the characteristics of the proposed development. Therefore, the project Use Pcmtit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Pag( AT complies with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing, Ordinance. A detailed discussion o'f the traffic study can.be found in the appendix of this report. Recommendation Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit,the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment,maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not,under the circumstances of the particularcase,.be detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare ofpersons 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. In this particular case,based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff is of the opinion that the findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed drive-through restaurant facility since the parking requirement of the site, which cannot be accommodated on-site,has been adequately addressed by sufficient area for the stacking of vehicles in the drive-through lanes, adequate employee parking and the lack of patron parking demand stemming from the fact that no walk-up patron service or on-site dining is provided.Additionally,issues related to access and site circulation have been addressed by limiting the project to right-out egress only. Finally, the potential problems associated with hours of operation and noise generated by the proposed restaurant operation have been adequately addressed by the conditions of approval recommended by staff and the restriction on the use of outdoor paging or loudspeaker systems (including menu boards)which may disturb neighboring properties or residential uses in the vicinity. Staff is also of the opinion that the required findings for the approval of the use permit for the additional area of increased height of the elevator shaft (parapet wall) and mechanical equipment screen can be made in this case since the proposed building provides greater setbacks than required by the Municipal Code; the height of the screen is lower than permitted by Ordinance; the mechanical equipment is adequately screened from view; the height has been minimized to the greatest extent possible; the limited area allowed screen areas cannot adequately accommodate screening of the equipment of the proposed project; and the structure contains less floor area than permittedby the Municipal Code. Additionally,staff believes that the required findings for the approval of the mddification to the Zoning Code to allow the architectural feature (steel truss) to exceed the permitted height can be made in this case since the mid-span of the element generally meets the code requirement for the height of buildings and the portion which exceeds the height limit is minor and does not significantly impact any views in the area. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and found the Traffic Study to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Further, that based upon the analysis contained'in the Traffic Study, staff has determined that the addition of the project-generated trips will not make worse the level of service of any intersection and that the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the traffic circulation improvements in the area. Use Pamtit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 .Page,g Finally, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned (mitigation measures and conditions of approval),could have a significant effect on the environment;therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project,and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3612,Traffic Study No. 112 and accept the environmental document,the actions,findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested.However, should the Commission desire to deny this request, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit`B" are suggested. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE JAVIER S. GARCIA,AICP Planning Director Senior Planner Rt' Attachments: Exhibit"A" Exhibit"B" Appendix Letter from the Applicant Describing the Project Operation Letter from the Applicant with Statement of Support for the Elements in Excess of the Height Limit Letter of Concern from a Neighbor Negative Declaration Traffic Study No. 112 Phase I Environmental Assessment Plot Plan,Floor Plans and Elevations F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOMU997\1009PC\UP3612.DOC Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 4' ti� EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No..3612,Traffic Study No. 112 and the acceptance of the Environmental Document A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study,comments received,and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned, could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative ,Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered.prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends.On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d)of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14,CCR, Mitigation Measures: 1. That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section'15.04.140 or applicable sections). 2. Prior to the issuance of a buildingperntit,the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County Health Department, acceptable to the City's Building Department, signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 3. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system-has been designed in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be ,prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City,with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirementhas been met.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. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.'112 Page B. USE PERMITNO. 3612 Findings: I. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses and a drive-through restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. 2. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact, based on information presented and incorporated into the negative declaration. 3. That the proposal includes no physical improvements which will conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That the purpose or intent of the restaurant development standards related to site requirements,off-street parking, walls and landscaping will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements for the following reasons: • The required number of off-street parking cannot be accommodated on-site and the request to utilize credit for vehicle stacking in the drive-through lanes (20 spaces) to satisfy a portion of the parking requirement is reasonable based on the operational characteristics of the proposed facility, i.e., drive-through only with no walk-up or on-site dining. • Adequate employee parking will be provided on-site. • Walls in full compliance with the standards would adversely impact traffic circulation and access to the on-site parking spaces from Avon Street at the rear. • The increased landscape area will achieve conformance with the development standard as it relates to the percentage of landscaping required on-site; and the addition of landscaping at the front and rear of the property behind the building will not enhance the streetscape views. • The provision of the required landscaping at the rear between the parking and the right-of-way would adversely affect the access to the proposed on-site parking 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 to allow the establishment of the drive-through restaurant facility 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 restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been incorporated which will minimize lighting and noise impacts. • The provision of employee parking will adequately serve the proposed use since there is no patron parking demand generated by the use because there is no walk- up use or patron dining on-site. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Pag �1 The issues related to access and site circulation have been adequately addressed by limiting the project to right-out egress only and conditions of approval to prevent vehicle back-ups onto Coast Highway. • That the limited hours of operation and prohibition of menu board speakers should limit potential noise impact on the neighboring residential uses. • No significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated from the proposed project as determined by the project analysis in Traffic Study No. 112. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 to allow the additional area of increased height of the elevator shaft and the mechanical equipment screen will not,under the circumstancesof the case be detrimental'to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injuriousto property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons and complies with the findings specified by Section 20.42.0501-2 of the NBMC: • The additional area of increased height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit zone since the proposed building provides greater front, side and rear yard setbacks .than required by the Municipal Code .and the height of the screen is 2 feet lower than permitted by Ordinance. • Particular attention has been given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover(0.08 PAR), and the treatment of all setback and open areas. • The additional area of increased height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing Visual character of the area than is required by the 26/32 Height Limitation District since the mechanical equipment will be adequately screened from view and the height has been minimized to the greatest extent possible. • The additional area of increased height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces since the Sterling Motors Building to, the east of the project is currently taller than the proposed structure (35 feet). Additionally, the total bulk of the proposed structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions has been taken into consideration (since the proposed structure provides greater front, side and rear yard setbacks than required by the Municipal Code). • The structure shall have no more floor area than.could have been achieved without the use permit. • The limited area allowed for such elevator shafts and mechanical equipment screen areas cannot adequately accommodate screening of then mechanical equipment of the proposed project. 7. The approval of the modification to the Zoning Code to allow the architectural facade element (steel truss) in excess of the permitted height will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, ,and made the following findings: Use Permit No.3612 and Traaic Study No.112 Page y7" • The additional ne foot in height is minor in nature and the mid-span height of the truss element generally conforms to the 26 foot Height Limitation Zone requirement. • The proposed architectural element will not affect the flow of air or light to or views from adjoining residential properties since the residential uses located to the rear of the subject property are located on a bluff overlooking the project. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations,except as noted below. 2. That,prior to the submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit the site plan, elevations,landscaping and sign plans, and proposed colors and materials to the Planning Department for review by the City's Mariner's Mile design consulting team. The applicant shall consider the comments and recommendations of the team in preparing final plans. 3. That the hours of operation of the drive-through restaurant facility shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit: 4. That deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this use permit. 5. That no on-sale or off-sale alcoholic beverage service shall be permitted on the premises. 6. That the operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m. I O;OQ p.m.and 7:00 a.m. Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: 60 dBA 50 dBA 7. That the use of outside paging system or loudspeaker system(including in conjunction with menu boards or patron ordering) shall be prohibited in conjunction with this food service establishment,unless an amendment to the use permit is first approved. 8. That the approval is for the establishment of a drive-through restaurant facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page,41 ��J and beverages for off-site consumption. The approval prohibits walk-up or on-site consumption facilities,unless an amendment to the use permit is first approved. 9. That all,signs shall conform to the provisions of the Municipal Code. 10. That 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. 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. 11. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code,including State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 12. That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County Health Department,, acceptable to the City's .Building Department, signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 14. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 15. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided or other arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements,if it is desired to obtain grading or building permits prior to completion of the public improvements. 1,6. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer in conjunction with the review of plans issued for building permits. That the exiting from the property on West Coast Highway shall be limited to right out only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That all employees shall park on-site. . 18. That the intersection of the private drives and West Coast Highway shall be designed to provide sight,distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape,walls and other obstruction shall be considered,in the sight distance requirements.Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in'height. 19. That the drive-through facility shall bq operated in such a manner that vehicles will not be allowed to block access driveways.The drive-through lanes operation shall be:monitored at Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page all times by the applicants' representatives at the site. If backs occur, stop point of the drive-through lanes cueing shall be relocated toward the pick-up lanes or the incoming customers shall be directed to bypass the drive-up facility(or combination of both actions). If a traffic congestion problem occurs on West Coast Highway related to the drive-up facility that is not immediately corrected,the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of this Use Permit. 20. That Avon Street be improved to a minimum 20 foot street width along the project frontage with curb,gutter,sidewalk and retaining walls as required. 21. That a loading area be provided adjacent to Avon Street to accommodate deliveries to the storage area. The design of this area or operation shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer, 22. That the building setback shall be a minimum of seventeen(17) feet for 50% of the front setback and twenty-two (22) feet for the remaining 50% of the front setback area (this includes a 12 foot width for planned future widening of West Coast Highway plus 5 foot ; and 10 foot setbacks for landscape purposes) from the existing West Coast Highway property line. That all lease documents shall include a clause that there is a planned future widening of West Coast Highway. 23. 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. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials with the Coast Highway right-of-way. 24. That street drainage and utility, improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 25. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 26. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergroundingis unreasonable or impractical. 27. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this use permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 28. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be submitted to the Building Department in conjunction with plans for construction of the project and shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments.That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Use Pcrrnit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Pag�20 Code Enforcement Division to confirm installation of the landscaping specified by this , condition of approval. 29. The landscape planter areas shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in healthy condition at all times. 30. That 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. That the area outside of the food establishment,including the public sidewalks, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner and may be subject to periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. 31. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,the applicant shalt demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met.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. 32. That storage outside of the buildings in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. 33. That the project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal. 34. That a covered wash-out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and the area drains directly into the sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan. 35. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 36. That all trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored'in the trash enclosure,or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties.except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies.That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and roofed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 37. That the applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which 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. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Pagexl �tO 38. That 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. 39. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits. 40. That 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. 41. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 112 Findines: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 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 in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,'primary-modified,'or'primary' street,based on the characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour morning or afternoon peak periods on six of the seven study intersections. 5. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour morning and afternoon peak periods for the intersection of West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue. Further ICU analysis of the a.m. and p.m.peaks for the intersection of West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue,which currently operates at a LOS E (ICU of 0.92), indicates that the level of service will not be made worse by the addition of the project-generated trips. Use Pemtit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page,Z a� T1 EXHIBIT"B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Use Permit No.3612,Traffic Study No. 112 and the Environmental Document A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: -No action is necessary for projects which are denied. B. USE PERMITNO. 3612 FINDING: 1. The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 will, 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 project, without the provision of a, legal left-turn movement exiting the site, provides the opportunity for illegal left-turn movement onto West Coast Highway which will.create a traffic hazard to vehicles traveling on West Coast Highway. C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 112: -No action is necessary for projects which are denied. Usc Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page,23 , I APPENDIX 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 A, located on Page 5 of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 2 and 6 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the seven intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are listed in Figure 1, located on Page 3 of the traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis,taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where,on any approach leg,project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 2'/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis is required. + Based on an analysis of each of the seven intersections,the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-% hour morning peak traffic on one of the intersections(West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue) and was less than 1% on the remaining six intersections,as indicated on Table B, located on Page 10 of the traffic study. Therefore,an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for the West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue intersection.As indicated in Table B, located on Page 10, the ICU value during the A:M. peak for this intersection currently exceeds 0.90 (0.92),but will not be made worse by the proposed project- generated trips. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersection and that the project is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Pagex C .r B O O R A i A R C H I T E C T S TLA RESTAURANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TEAM Architect: BOORA Architects,Inc.-Portland,Oregon Architectural Consultant: Richard Hobbs,FAIR-Washington,.DC Landscape Architect: Walker&Macy-Portland,Oregon Traffic Consultant: Kitteison Associates-Portland,Oregon Specialty Lighting: Candela--Seattle,Washington Kitchen Design: Edward Don &Co.-Atlanta,Georgia Project Management: Domoto Company-Seattle,Washington THE PROJECT To build and operate a new,kind of quick service restaurant based orrthe principles of exceedingly high quality food,high quality service and an enhanced customer experience. The restaurant building and site has been designed to serve.as public art and to convey a refined aesthetic sensibility to the customer and the surrounding community. The,faclllty Is engineered to operate with optimal efficiency while creating a refreshing environment. The menu consists of food and beverages of quality,taste and sophistication not yet encountered in a drive-up format. The Restaurant hours of operation will be 6:00 a,m.to 11:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION 3100 West Coast Highway,Newport Beach,California THE BUILDING The Restaurant consists of an elevated building of 1 A36 gross square feet,that will allow the customer to drive underneath It. Prepared.food Is conveyed by an Industry proven mechanical system from the upper level to ground level. The elevated building allows three lanes to be available for ordering and delivery. This building has been engineered with the site to permit an optimal amount of queuing as discussed below. There is not - customer seating on-site nor is there any walk-up service provided. The building's lower level consists solely of a 114 g.s.f. elevator and'machine/mechanical room. The upper level program consists of: Kitchen 676 square feet Mechanical Room 65 square feet Restrooms 115 square feet Dry and Cold Storage 350 square feet TLA Project Doptlon August 6, 1997 Page 2 The main body of the building Is 26 feet high with the elevator overrun at 28 feet high and the ornament steel truss at 32 feet high.A 256 square foot Dry Storage Building Is at the rear of the site on Avon Street. Adjacent to the dry storage Is an area for screened service functions such as dumpster,transformer,etc. Employee parking Is located west of the Dry Storage Building. There are seven employees per shift and the site plan provides for seven standard employee parking spaces,plus one handicapped space. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING The site plan Is the product of an Integrated approach to engineering,taking Into consideration the customer order,the product preparation and delivery times with the use of the most current queuing models. The site has been designed to provide the maximum efficiency and to minimize the amount of time a customer will have to spend on site. The site traffic circulation has been designed to accommodate the turning movements of the largest of non-commercial vehicles to specifically make moving through the site easier for the customer. The point of sale and food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. Maximum duration on site is projected at eight minutes. This enables the facility to service 120 cars per hour at peak periods with less than 20 cars queuing on site at peak periods(the site has queuing capacity for 30 cars). The turning radll have been engineered by Kittelson Associates for minimum Impact at curb cuts. All employee parking and deliveries will access the site off of Avon Street. DESIGN APPROACH The design objective is to develop a lasting architectural Image based on: • a building and site that together embody an Intended functionality; • a refreshing,uplifting environment that stands In contrast to the typical road experience; • a contextual approach to design Intended to fit into a community's aesthetic, cultural,and environmental values(e.g. Mariner's Mile Comprehensive Plan); • a commercial building that will serve as public art This project will reflect the maritime character of the Mariner's Mile District. The projects contextual Integration Into the Mariner's Mile will be further enhanced by landscaping and will utilize Indigenous plants such as palms and bougainvillea. Modern and tastefully executed signage,lighting and construction will reinforce the design objectives, 96003/descrlpt,doc MVN:ogb r . :ly`P1Tt�f.,tvK4YJQtt W IJ gl4fiQ�'. 14•+11c4he tYt-v Cr-te n��.;w` uwv I rr•tM.r •J4 o . `. �� �, _�• .�'"!1r� -may.s•,•4'wr:- .�� -t.•��:.•�.v� r�"�•�o.'.` .5•ter. !u<- y •�,��i7'a•`��;• Ems- �'�' ' ::.: �Tt.� •� �x � .t I f i ti - �•i '!y `r';i�' M1It ` �F _6 ;� fr� i wi. rrrl��:nir' 1,:�. z , 't4:r` � r'S�+}.ir6'�Cr �yl� ..'"ta"R 13' r:it�— tea,:• �. -:�- . s ai .�,... .,�Y'" 5 Jr .>a. t � �tr��k� �.1j�4� ?�I 7+Wrff' I T`A%t �-. � RyyTT�r ; rlr"bT c��.a�}�� a �i_"i��' �,1 t..(` � ✓. ._= CFjnyt.'.h...l-SZt + t .t (.i ' of � , L �iT � � � } t `. .^ 'i Li_.t`•y.! �tyrhwr`a�� � iiiiii -+�. If R 'I IVii. �+ ` ..� i_ `.: ��w:y �•• •enY I � i "cS "S �rT•r� �tmT r i i.: p� i .� ,11 "�t ¢C _rr'� �,;. ,�.: to -t � ,.t/' 1/ �R}gaf F f�-:� .a 1 T •4 . a.Qetatefl +Tt .i J'.'.>j"��J '"�YT7'l�'sy°`e`��' I4..�'s `.4, �tT"1•: is '��o. •i?s t a a:l r i..rk �y r i, lwya i�..x1 4r:.�iC:• ""``*ta"'-?Lya x;e+`�°- a?. rr4 11Q t(Fe 1{t w ? \ fR '•�.'<�►�: ¢`C1t'�Jv - •Sr\ ✓f �,#+ :. �• r.�t`tyt '�fy �" ♦tt ! :��r. . r?`���7♦�.�.7-'n,� •t`iv kr 3,�." "�p P .1(R ��„ ♦, v `fit �� }?�`7�2 � t r r t4 , aS. �r�7}r.. y i`'.S••t t?�e.�-¢ iYtk~-.<(�� ,7't ( �'.: �.1Y w�+t �+i�7 i• �.itST• �r � k '[ y'+.�'}` s 'T.^0yv-.�3:1 i�. ,Yr (rti '. a�•\ at T s .•�,. 7.Ji lr. t •w,--v -'• ��{ r 4 t.� ... /' a 1 ���Y ♦ Tv t r fay J.s K. yfAf'[� d��„�♦ 'j f• t{viY v� C r ` i l 1. .�•a». '�k` 4Yi J�+s ac1-r ,i..^ ♦l^Yh. ^.3X'.TL'. ?.'a•F. ma`s• E v.`..��}.;r ! T r� r�S r`• �Y �vF ttf n�� �Y•j.:�4I" '4� e1.'tY}.y (� y! . yl��..r �lA`(/� - �• � � t �� \: iS' ilCiL( tW♦) ^>7.o v:� 3Y y w..Iw..r �'� .i �fi i � " � ',�l / . - t v�y�ur\.Y. .1- t/i J �a r•S.p � t �l r.Y:.'1 •Yr•itt4f Xi yyA' 1`/ t� •" a. ~fit .#�'-.'~ "i•!; L'rf vi ` F 3' { ••F 4 t u' S'trr1' +1 fi1 ' vtl� F AIL ' Y-rMX�R 3- t, 1'�!'[S i?G'tYt}� • Y t �tr v / - yf -41L :( '1 y"{� •+ySCq�, Y. . s l' � � .v gd o' 1 �j3 r liJlt i •: r{, �v�.7ri \ tY r; j "� '�r'�l' �£ y�f n � h ".'} •Vtii-'''�r���` !`� '"Yt ( 5 / F,• w _ ,f•. )`•' .+l d' 1•c t �. j°Sk _I y " _ t s'v+..,; ih/` ! t Y°t ♦ ' t ' ,}. v r�r a. it (i V V !.� �1} •'a t ',4, r _ �' � t ,rfr`♦ `� ~� � { c� (f �vr~�'�;\\1��r/ .,yr�Fa4ry\4,r �' .i }L" 1� r s VS�' r Y ! i$TF� ••5��� ��'�a-• '�,,-y�tYA ' _ V .. t i. tt' tti F •L y \V a �T'b •f �`. v+ �f• tt . ' - a' kr. : �f ) 'f Se.t-. •r ' '' r••di 1St.L - .>.. ♦ °J�Yrt t i-'M1"s p .l4y .\:rt ..y •vt.:,, ) cat• ) � u - !/l.[ Y a�Fy i fE.�v I t 11 t� \ •iti 7� Mul, t'l l•Fl3sy vim; om i fMYI � "f r .� � � i7 ��•.4 + °fit�P S�- ; .? r} t; i I a+'�s Qt. L' iz ' ?'r �`i � _ rt ` f F ri- •r I ` ti.1, s.-'. Y. �� :. -• J �J +t ` r.l!-I(y t 1 r r l53 . y - .-+S. j~t�-r �1"ti �- •• � '�y+ tom. r. ,��.tt ,.- -� �e�v + tT�ao a��'-�-` - +s'•, }��-Y �_ - `,fi�'� "";^ntC �•z"�, r�`I -,,t"{�;� - y i �' ' Pre.�`'S� �,• `�a'� '.mom X`• x�+cYS. � 'wA �?f y 'S,� �.. .� -t tvf jj)� L n4� � ' r.J �li�-.: ' r�y�" i �,�'ai.� 5Q? �K7]fi-� 1 '' .T. _ • _.. r� �'J a�r ! .^_r a L Trt� -i, �r� �i.•�� �' �. 'f�J•': f i�. "'f"�r ,``= ' �j +aRr�.>•,i f a ii 4tV• ty f' - I x5 y I I ' ISf` � £ I {Ir ••� J -r' BOORA �, • ' A R C H I RECEIVED d1 T E C T S September 9, 1997 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Javier'Jay'Garcia,AICP AV .SEP 151997QM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7�>3�9i1fliU�12�T�2�$�4�gig 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 RE: TLA-UP'S DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT Use Permit Height Clarification Dear Jay: t , As per our phone conversation on September 4, 1997,1 have summarized below our response to your concerns regarding the building height at the elevator shaft/enclosure, mechanical screen area and that portion of the steel truss which extends above the code allowed maximum height of 26-feet, The first Item regarding the extension of the elevation shaft(I.)to 28'-6' (2'-6' above adjacent parapet)and the second Item regarding the mechanical screen area (II.)fall under Zoning Code Article 20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Umits,Paragraph'B'. The third Item regarding the steel truss extension(III.)falls under Paragraph 'A' for Architectural Features. The establishment of'the building height and the associated parapet height and r , i „ it ,r mechanical screen is directly related to the function of the building and site. As you know the building Is elevated above the In-and-out drive-through lanes, It Is this critical function of allowing the vehlcles to pass under the building which has determined the � minimum clearance under the structure, From this established second floor elevation,we provided a minimum overrun height for the,elevator shaft,the minimum roof'structure depth and the smallest parapet height possible. In response to the four questions stated In the zoning code(section 20.65.050)for review by the planning commission,I offer the following response: I. Elevator Shoff%Me .ho onlna1 Ovprrn in 1. As mentioned above,the elevator overrun was a direct result of the required drive-through clearance and the subsequent floor to floor height. With the i °r building raised In the air,we have 2-percent building coverage,40-percent planting/landscape and 58-percent hardscope on the site, The,portion of the .,41 a -, -, ., _ ., roof used for the overrun Is 8-percent of the total roof area and Is located to the back.of the structure. The structure Is set back 35'-0'from the front property line at Pacific Coast Highway and is set at a 45-degree angle. 3 40 3 .24 1 . : 420 . 8' O O' R A Javier'Jay�rcia,AICP • Septembe 997 Page 2 A R C H I T E C T $ 2. In addition to the pragmatic necessities noted above,the elevator core and mechanical rooms provide a visual and aesthetic function as a solid mass to anchor the building on the site, It Is visually Important that the shaft/core be expressed In a way that compliments the scale and components of the building. 3. The dimensional change between the main portion of the building and the elevator core is 2'-60. We do not feel that this small amount of Increase will have any affect on the adjacent structures or public spaces. In fact,the west elevation of the car dealership structure Immediately to the east Is a+/-35'-0' tall blank masonry wall which runs along 80-percent of the property line. Additionally,beginning Immediately from the north edge of Avon Street is a steeply sloping hillside which looks over the site and adjacent properties. 4. The proposed structure Is well below allowed floor area. We have 370 gsf. on the ground level and 1 A36 on the upper level. The proposed height Increases are not affected by the floor area. II. Mechanical scmPd) ALea (Please note that we will shorten the length of the screen area from 28'-0' to 20'-0'). 1. The proposed semi-transparent mechanical screen does not affect any public views either Into or from the site. The location of the building on the site and set backs are as stated In item No. 1 above, The intent of the screen wall Is only to hide the mechanical equipment which would be a visual detraction to the building and site if left unprotected. 2. The Intent of the screen wall is to provide a visual enclosure around the roof top mechanical units so that the equipment does not detract from the overall appearance of the building, The proposed height of'the screen wall to adequately hide the units is 29'-0* above grade,or 3'-0' above the adjacent parapet. The screen wall will be constructed of steel slats spaced apart to allow some transparency. 3. The proposed screen wall will not have any visual affect on existing developments or public spaces. The screen Is only to enhance the view of the structure and views Into the site. The screen wall Is set back 2'-0' from the main parapet line and extends 20'-0' horizontally along the roof to screen the mechanical units. The seml-transparent material Is meant to act only as a screen and not part of the building mass. 4. Exceptions to the zoning code allows 25 square feet of area and up to 5 feet In height for mechanical equipment on a roof. Our proposal Is to allow a 20'-0'long X 12'-0'wide X 3'-0' high area. We are 2-feet less than allowed, however,we exceed the total allowed area. The determination of the screen wall height was generated by the visual sight lines Into the site from the street. � 6 B O O R A Javler'Joy'iftircia,AICP September 1IFF997 Page 3 A R C H I T E C T S III, Stnpl TrussFxtenMan 1. The.steel truss top cord extends up to 32'-0' above finish grade 6'-0'above the parapet on the back side of the building (opposite the street elevation). The truss Is open In nature,It can be seen through and it does not obstruct any views In or out of the site. 2. The exposed truss is a primary architectural feature of the building design and adds aesthetic appeal.to tl,e building elevation from the Interior of the site. 3. As a primary structural and aesthetic feature,the truss also serves as a scale element to tie the building together as a whole. There 1s not-adverse effect on the adjacent developments. 4., Not applicable. Hopefully the above response comments will address your concerns regarding the proposed building,heighttlmitotions. If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BOORA ARCHITECTS,INC, Brian C.Jackson,A.I.A. Associate Principal BCJ;agb 96003/garcia.ltr cc Jonathan Rodrlguez-Atkotz-TLA,Inc. Joe Goveia-Goveia &Associate Enclosure "C� . ! Page 20.65.4 Height Limits community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, and OS Districts. B. 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone the maximum height limit shall be 28 feet; provided, however, that structures may exceed 28 feet up to a maximum of 32 feet in an adopted planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all WR Districts. 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts, other than R-1, R-1.5, R-2 and NTR, within the area known as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established f by Ordinance 92-3 and shown on the Height Limitation Zones map. D. 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet through the adoption of a planned . community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts other than R-1, R-1.5, R-2 and NIFR which have boundaries not falling within the area above described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High-Rise Height Limitation Zone. E. High Rise Height Limitation Zone. In the High Rise Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet. 20.65.050 Planned Community Districts A. In each planned community district established subsequent to the adoption this chapter, the height limits shall be established as part of the planned community development plan;provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040 and as designated below: 24/28 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. 1. Upper Newport Bay Planned Community as established by Ordinance No. 1537 adopted December 17, 1973 (Amendment No. 409). q1 Page 20.6j•s . Height Limits . B. Planning Commission or City Council Review. The Planning Commission or City' Council in approving any planned community district, any specific plan, or in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit in any zone shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open'areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure.and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 20.65.060 Existing Structures and Permits A. Structures which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter(October 11, 1972), and which do not conform to these regulations may be continued or altered; provided, that the changes do not result in a greater nonconformity than was existing. B. Structures for which building permits have been issued or for which use permits have been issued, on the effective date of this chapter(October 11, 1972), and which do not conform to these regulations, may be constructed according to the approved plans. C. Proposed structures within a planned community district adopted prior to the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972).may be constructed in accordance with-the height limits contained within the planned community text; provided, however, that a use permit shall be required for any structure which exceeds the height limits established by this chapter. D. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R 1 District which is replacing a structure which was in existence on the effective date of this chapter(October 11, 1972). I • Page 20.55.6 • Height Limits E. Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, r' . 1972) may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb and,provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed,on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. 20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Limits �A Architectural Features and Solar Equipment. Architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other f decorative roof-top features of an open nature, and solar equipment, but excluding parapet walls, may be permitted in excess of permitted height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. �B Mechanical Equipment and Stairwells. Elevator shafts, enclosed stairwells and' screened mechanical equipment, totaling no more than 25 square feet, shall be permitted to up to- feet in excess of the height limits. i C. Chimneys and Vents. Chimneys and vents shall be permitted in excess of height limits to the minimum extent required by the Uniform Building Code plus an additional 12 inches for the provision of spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature. Any such structures or features exceeding the Uniform Building Code requirements shall be subject to the following criteria: 1. That the overall dimensions of the chimney shall be limited to a maximum width of 2 feet by a maximum length of 4 feet for any portion of the structure which exceeds the Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. That the allowance for the additional 12 inches shall be solely for the incorporation of a spark arrestor as required by the manufacturer or for the incorporation of an architectural screening or treatment. All chimneys and vents exceeding the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, with the exception of an additional 12 inches for spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature, shall be subject to the approval of a modification permit. D. Skylights and Roof Windows. The terms skylights and roof windows shall be interchangeable and shall be permitted in excess of the average height permitted in the �•3 r r Eames E.Clarkson Grubb&Ellis Senior Virr t'medeni Property Solutions Worldwide October 2, 1997 RECNVEO Sy PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr.Jay Garcia D�T 21991 Senior'Planner AV CITY OR NEIVPORT BEACH Q 9 11911,f>!p RM P.O.Box 1768 _... .. .......... . _ . yl !4 if`• t71��16 --- Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 RE: Use Permit No.3612 3100 NV.Coast Highway Dear Planning Commission Members: It has come to my attention about an application submitted to the City of Newport for a drive-thru restaurant next to Sterling BMW. I cannot attend the October 9th hearing as I will be out of town on business,so I am writing you-this letter of concern. My family and I live directly above this proposed development,at 237 Santa Ana Avenue. The conccros I have are listed below. I am asking each member to please take into consideration what I and other homeowners will be forced to live with for an indefinite period of time. • I have seen the elevations of this building and 1 do not think it is in keeping with the"Mariner's Mile"architecture theme that has been established by the City. This restaurant is not a chain and this concept does not-have a proven track record of success. Be careful not to end up with a"white clepltant"on your hands,if the business falls and the City has a vacant building here. • Screening the rear property line from the residents with "thick" foliagc. This will help block car headlights that may shine into the resident's homes as customers drive through the"double"drive thru. It will also-buffer the noise and visual appearance of the building.The plans show eleven(11) palm trees, but do not specify the size. I request that'you ask for"mature"palm trees at a minimum of 25' tall and study the plan to see if additional foliagc can be added in other places. • Screening the roof equipment on four sides helps but does no good for the residents who look down on top of the building. Please request that the roof equipment be entirely enclosed with a"top"on it. • The lighting plan must have"down lights"that do not shine onto the residents. As an example,the parking lot lights of"Bistro 201"desperately needs reflectors on them to shine down and not up. • Try to impose,as a condition of approval, that the Landlord (property owner)must also demolish the adjoining car lot buildings that have'been aderrible eye sure for the City of Newport. This will probably help dispose of the remaining parcel'since no buyer wants it in its,presegt condition. • My widerstanding is that there is no reader board menu or speakers to take the orders This is obviously very noisy,especially when the business is 100%drive-thru. Be aware that the applicant Grubb&Ellis Company 4695 plac.Arthur Coun Suile 600 Newport Eeneh,CA 92h60 714,833.2wU 714:933.8037,fax q q Mr.Jay Garcia October Z 1997 Page 2 may come back at a future date once the restaurant has been open for a while. The questions to ask the applicant is,"Where does the person stand who is taking the order when it rains?". • The AQMD has new standards for exhaust fans that will contain the smoke and grease so as not to emit it into the air. Believe me, if they vent their cooking directly outside,every homeowner will constantly smell what they arc cooking. • I ask that this drive-through have limited hours to 10:00 p.m. and nnQl a 24-hour operation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I know your position is to do the best thing for the City. I do not oppose the use,but there are certain things that can be done to protect the City and adjacent homeowners. I have been in the commercial development business for 19 years. I have had every one of these concerns and solutions I have mentioned imposed on me or my client when I have processed applications through cites in Orange County. l Your biggest concern should be, what do we do with this building if this new business concept fails. We all may be confronted with a similar problem sooner than you think when the"Speedway"goes out of business down the street. Thank you again for listening to my concerns. Sincerely,'9 C✓� � Jim Clarkson Senior Vice President 1C.jma gercis.doc Chubb 6 Ellis Comp:ury 4695 MacAnhur Court Suite 61N1 Ne%cpun Beach.CA 92660 714.833.2900 714.833.8w iax 1F16l91l81gaq�In thqllqllqvllidqllllqq�qfqp� �Q � ornis ryg0QranlaCorkiRQcbda��Y OF NEWPOR' o 39.06 3300 Newport Boulevard-P., 19978000787 12:03pm 09/091 Newport Beach,CA 926! 056 5113432 05 09 (714) 644-3200 t01 1 38.08 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City ofNcwporuoeach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Ne rt Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 i � xx 1400 Tenth Street Room 121 S T ` D O Newport Beach,CA 92658 8915 Sacramento,CA 95814 Oran eCountY) ( 8 SE 0 9 19 7 County Clerk,County of Orange Public Services Division GARY NVILLE,•CI P.O.Box 238 e received for filing ng atOPR/Counn•Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period. September 8, 1997 to October 9, 1997 r Name e oj'Project: TLA Drive-Lltrouglt Restaurant(Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz, applicant) Project Location: 3100 West Coast Iliglrway, located on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. Project Description: The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit-and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square 'foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit includes des a request to allow portions of the proposed building to exceed the permitted height and a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature to exceed the height limit(a portion of which is 32 feet'high).The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by-an automobile sales facility. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 perWning to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0'attached'❑ on filrat the Planning Department The Initial'Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached, ill Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits rclatingto the proposed project may be available for public review. If you P P P J Y P would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. Iryou hhave y esttons or would like further information.please contact the undersigned at(714)644.3200. GG'^0" I Date Semtember8, 1997 Javier S'Garcia,AICP Senior Planner F:IUSERSWLNISHAREDII PLANCOh1WL•NDINGULA•RLST NEGDEC.DOC CITY OF NEWPORT BE ENVIRONMENTAL CliECKLI FORM 1. Project Title: TLA Drive-Through Restaurant Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department (714) 644-3200 4. Project Location: 3100 West Coast Highway located on the northerly side of West Coast highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. 1 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: TLA, Inc. (Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz) 4464 Fremont Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 6. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial 7. Zoning: SP-5 (Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial) 8. Description of Project: The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with a rooftop elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28-29 feet high), where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included with the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. TLA Restaurant NDCI:LIST Pagee 1 �1 9. Surrounding Lases and Setting: • }, Current The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and "ere formerly Development: occupied by an automobile sales facility. To the north is a commercial office building and restaurant. To the east: across Avon•Street,are residential uses. To the south: is the Sterling Motors BMW Automobile Dealership. To the west: across West Coast Highway, is the Tower residential Condominium Complex,the Villa Nova Restaurant and other commercial uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Coastal Commission , the California Department of Transportation and the Orange County Health Department. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning (Q Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑' Population& Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ❑ *Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral [.� Aesthetics Resources -. ❑, Water 0 Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality. ❑ Noise ❑ Recreatibn ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Pages qS 'DETERMINATION e completed by the Lead Agency.) is On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ c� September 8. 1997 Sig ture % Date Javier S. Garcia Printed Name Form,F:\USERSIPLN\SHARED\IFOR.MS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DDC Document:F.\USERS\PLNII PLANCOII\PENDMG\TLA•RESTDCKLIST DOC TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page,Y 44 r Potentially Pol y Less than No Significant Sgn nt Sgnifant Impact Impact Unless Impact Maga!*n Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan ❑ ❑ ❑ [� designation or zoning?(1,2) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or ❑ ❑ ❑ p operations(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 arrangement of an established community(including a,low-income or minority community)? It. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official ❑ ❑ ❑ p regional or local population projections?(1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ ❑ p either directly or indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area-or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, ❑ p ❑ H especially affordable housing? TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST PaggAA' ' • Potentially Potent Less than No Significant SignSignificantSignificant Impact Impact Unles Impact Mitigation Incorporated III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking ( ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 hazard?( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (3) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ features?( ) 1V. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water in any water body? ( ) TLA Rcslaurant NDCKLIST PageX CA Potentially Poten ly Less than No Sgndicant sgnl Significant Impact Impact LI Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or direction of water movements? t) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ ❑ ❑ waters, either through direct additions.orwithdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ordhrough substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q I) Substantial reduction in the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ p of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ [� contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ p pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture,or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 temperature, or cause any change in climate?( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑. [JJ ❑ congestion? (4) TLAltestaurant NDCKLIST Page,e Potentially Polenh Less than No • significant Sgm Significant Impact Impact Unle Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ ❑ El ❑ features(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (4) c) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 access to nearby uses? (4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site ❑ ❑ a ❑ or off-site? (4) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ a impacts?( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 species or their habitats(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 communities(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ [� and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration Q ❑ ❑ U corridors? ( ) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 3 5; . Potentially Pot e Ily Less than lwo Significant Sig I Sigmricanl impact Impact Un Impact Mitigation Incorporated VIII. ENERGY& MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 wasteful and inefficient manner? C) Result in the loss of.availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the slate? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ '❑ ❑ 0 release of hazardous substances (including,but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (5) b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure,of people to existing 0 ❑ ❑ 0 sources of potential health hazards? (5) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flammable brush,grass,or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (6) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page,8- I Polenhally Potent Less than No • Significant signdl Significant Impact Impact Unles Impact Md'gation Incorporated b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 levels? (6) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 d) Maintenance of public facilities, Q ❑ ❑ including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XII. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Communications systems? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? Q ❑ ❑ TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page A'� • Potentially Poly Less than �No SignificantSg t sgnfkant Impact Impact Un Impact Mngalron Incorporated XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a'scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ❑ (p ❑ ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the-proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ Cl ❑ 0 c) Affect historical resources? ( ) ❑ ❑ 0 0 d) Have the,potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑' 0 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 uses within the potential impact area?( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 neighborhood or regional parks or other recreationabfacilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational, ❑ ❑ p 0 opportunities? ( ) TLA Raslaurant MCKLIST Page-4 5 Potentially Potent less than No significant Sigmf SgmGcant Impact • Impact Unleo Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population-to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ Q ❑ 0 to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have Q O ❑ C�1 environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? I XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. There has been no previous analysis performed on the subject property or in the general vicinity which would be applicable to the proposed project. Form:F:\USERS\PLN\SHAREDII FORMS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC Document:FAUSE•RS\PLMI PLANCOM\PENDMG\TLA-RESTDCRLIST.DOC • TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Paged-1" • SOURCE LIST . 1. Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan 2. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 3. City Excavation and Grading Code,Section 15.04.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 4. Traffic Study No. 112 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, EnviroPro Inc., dated July 10, 1997 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach'Municipal Code I TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Pagel-2' ENVIROWNTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST E#ANATIONS TLA Drive-through Restaurant 3100 West Coast Highivay Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Project Description The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive- through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with a rooftop elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28-29 feet high), where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included with the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is SP-5 (Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial). The proposed drive-through restaurant facility is a permitted use within this designation.This project is located within the Coastal Zone Boundary,therefore a Coastal Development Permit and Coastal Commission approval will be required. II. Population and Housing Population The proposed project is non-residential and therefore will not cause or induce,either directly or indirectly,any growth or reduction in the area's population. I 69 L Housin No additlWal housing demand would result fron0c project since only a minor employment increase is anticipated and no displacement of existing affordable housing is anticipated. III. Geologic Problems(Earth) According to the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the project is located in an area of historic occurrence of liquefaction and seismic activity which may be subject to ground shaking, ground failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, landslides/mud flows,subsidence or expansive soils or erosion and unstable soils conditions.The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections) and the Uniform Building Code should adequately address the potential impacts of seismic activity. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards(item no. IX). Compliance with,the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure No. 1 That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. Water The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed and no appreciable change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and flow of surface runoff is anticipated. The discharge of storm water runoff during the construction phase will be adequately addressed by erosion control measures specified by the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections), therefore no drainage impacts would be anticipated.The project is located outside the flood hazard area and is not located in an area which will affect the quality, rate and flow of existing ground water. V. Air Quality Construction Phase During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by The CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page,2' City anduality Management District regulatiq&Odor effects lii h shall be eated upon the completion of the proje��, 'o additional stationary equipment is proposed that could generate additional emission as pan of the project. Operational Phase Odors associated with the preparation of food items during the regular operation of the restaurant facility are anticipated to be generated and will be noticeable to the surrounding area. Odors and their sources are not specifically regulated by the Air Quality Management District Regulations. However, should problems arise with regard to the generation of odors in the vicinity,conditions of approval have been included in the use permit which will require the installation of adequate hood equipment to alleviate such occurrences. VI. Transportation/Circulation/parking Traffic Impact The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development.The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources, trip generation rate for the proposed expanded facility would generate an increase of approximately 850 trips per day. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic study was required since the traffic increase of the proposed development exceeds trip generation requirement(300 or more trips per day) of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Although the increase in the vehicular trips may be potentially significant, the traffic study did not identify any significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures have been recommended nor required in conjunctionwith the traffic study for the project. Site Access The existing single access driveway which will be relocated to the easterly side of the property. The study's analysis of the project access, identified no significant problems associated with the proposed facility and adequate emergency access to neighboring properties is maintained and not affected by the proposed facility. Hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists are adequately addressed by the compliance with City Standards related to sight distance requirements. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page.3- Parkin " The applic proposes to provide 8 employee parkIpspaces for the facility and the project application includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces.No adverse parking impact is anticipated since the proposal is for a"drive-through only" facility with no walk-up service. Additionally, inclusion of the automobile stacking within the drive-through lanes toward the parking requirement will further accommodate any increased' parking demand of the facility. Transportation Impacts The project will not result in any conflict with adopted policies related to alternative transportation.The project is not located in an area which provides any rail,waterborne or air traffic transportation. VII. Biological Resources(Plant and Animal Life) Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area,of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. VIII. Energy and Mineral Natural Resources Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Natural Resources The useof natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. IX. Hazards Construction Phase The proposal may include the removal of underground gasoline storage tanks or removal of contaminated soils which may expose construction employees to potential health risk, however, general construction practices will provided adequate protection to the employees and the remediation will reduce any future hazard to a level of insignificance. Remediation will be in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Health Department. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 4" �a Health DiW�ntent, acceptable to the City's Buil Department, yF signed blicensed Engineer that the area has ergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. Operational Phase The proposed project does not store or utilize hazardous materials on-site therefore no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. The property is not located in an area of increased fire hazard. X. Noise Construction Phase Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations(NBMC Chapter 10.28). gyrational Phase Noise generated by the regular operation of the restaurant facility will be adequately addressed by conditions of approval of the use permit which will require compliance with provisions set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance. Xi. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. X1I. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility system and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system related to power,natural gas,communications,water treatment,storm water drainage, solid waste disposal or local or regional water supply is anticipated. X111. Aesthetics The site is located in a commercial zone, and the proposed drive- through restaurant facility would not result in any significant CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 5' �3 r s aesthetic ir&cts on any existing scenic vista or seer iighway than the otherex'Wing adjacent commercial uses. Negative Aesthetic Effect The increase height of portions of the proposed project has the potential to pose a. demonstrable negative aesthetic, effect on the neighboring commercial and residential 'properties. However, the overall height of the project is not abrupt in scale with the commercial automobile sales facility located to the east of the subject property since it will be lower in height.The nearby residential uses will not be visually impacted to any significant degree by the proposed use,since the proposed use is located below the line of sight of the residential uses on the bluff overlooking the project. Light and Glare Exterior lighting of the project could produce light and glare that would adversely affect the adjacent residential properties. Although the project is tucked into the base of the existing slope and will not readily visible to the neighboring residential properties located above and overlook the subject property, it is anticipated that some of the exterior lighting will be visible to the neighboring residential properties.Therefore the use permit will include standard conditions of approval to ensure that any exterior lightingis designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the greatest extent feasible. Mitigation MeasureNo. 3 That prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system is designed,directed,and will be maintained in such a manner as to-conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the neighboring residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 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 do determine substantial conformance with the intent of this condition of approval, the control of light and,glare. XIV. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site, There is no impact on the cultural,resources or historic structures. CHECK LIST EXPLANATIONS Page 6" XV. Recreat� • Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis,the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Form:F.\USERS\PL\lSIIARED\I FORI.ISW EG-DEC01 EXPLAN DOC Document.FAUSERS\PL\.1 PLANCONUENDING\TLA-RESTEXPLAN.DOC CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 7 �e✓ MITIGAJON MONITORING AND REPORTIN PROGRAM TLA Drive-through Restauran 3100 West Coast Highway Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6(AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions,and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented throughprojectd6ign. Upon project approval,a copy of the approved project design-will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies,standards,or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances,policies,standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements,and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal,the City will approve the report,request additional information,or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION TLA Drive-through Restaurant - 3I00 West Coast Highway Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 September5, 1997 Implementation Method of Timingof Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date Ill. GEOLOGICPROBLEMS 1. The Applicantwill comply with the erosion and siltation Conditionof Plan Check Prior to the issuanceof Planning Department • control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable approval anybuildingperinit and Building Dept local and State buildingcodes and seismic design guidelines. ' Xl. HAZARDS. 2. Priurtothe issuance ofa building permit,the applicant Conditionof Plan Check Priortutheissumceof Public Works shall provide written certification acceptable to the Chy's Building approval any gradingor Dcpanmcnt, and Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has buildingpennit Building Department undergone soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contaminationhas been cleared. X11I. AFSTIIETICS Light and Glare Conddionof Building Permits Prior to the issuanceor Planning Department 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the approval Plan Check, Field any building permit and Building Dept applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the Inspection as Iighlingsystem is designed,directed•and will be maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light necessary spillageand glare to the neighboringresidential uses.The plans shall be prepared and signed by it licensed FIcetrical linginccr,with a • letter from the crigmccrstating that.in his opinion,this requirement has been met.That prior to Issuance of the eenifiatc of occupancy or final of building permits,the applicantshall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to determine substantial conformance with the intent of this condition of approval,the control of light and glare. F:\USFRS\PI.NISI TARED\I PLANCOMIPFNDING%TLA-RESTXMIT-MSR.D(W Pagc 1 *1OTICEOFPUBLICHEARING • , Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will,hold a public hearing on the application of:TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Rod riguez-Atkatz,applicant)for Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 on property located at 3100 West Coast Highway. The project involves the approval of a negative declaration,use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed-structure to exceed the permitted height with an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence(28-29 feet high),where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and development standards specified-by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included in the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is requested to allow an architectural feature (steel- frame facade element„32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation.The on-site buildings to be,demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documentsare available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department,City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,California,92659-1768(714)644-3200. Notice•is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 9th day of October 1997 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California,at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. For inforniation call(714)644-3200. Thomas J.Ashley,Secretary,Planning.Commission,City of Newport,Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. tICINITY MAPS y1 q eurf— ays �° '' S'�-`♦ d i •1 I/NR is �� ( ii e� ♦ 6 N �• 4 RT• M.7 FA I,d M•f 0 ow♦.c 0 c \ n W.I.4W.-I Iw irw /� u �1�.�.w .. tiw IM I •� ♦�snTcrT• \ O �� aw a•.c iee..a alTc.n: rw.a�c1 n J • \ \ RK .K . IL�•.� }_ 1/M•.g01 �..I.f.'� C.Wi R.RTM NC4bRT fllt0 \ �S .cam \ 04 7t•11 4'taE n�APWS twici PAQKKIT F" Ryt•N To Grip i•7•�1f .rwA .w. � \ \ �u.vwi .0 • Use Permit No. 3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 �q • • LSA A-.wAfrs.Inc ~ Entw+wentalA�ulrw Trjn LSD Motors 4 fat,ivtnnt Bfatot�a+!RifLnJs RAW pauofewt Rrw.rrr M��utrmrnt Comm.my and Land Plannmt 4ndugrAnbaeaxrt A rchatetorr a.d h 1rowdoo August 15, 1997 P•tncipals Rea Balc* Janet Divan DRAFT sand.Bray Associate Civil Engineer Lei Card City of Newport Beach Dj-.d Clore 3300 Newport Boulevard s=r Granhclm Newport Beach, CA 92658 R.rkard Ha.Lcher Roue Hamr Subject: Traffic Study for TIA Restaurant at 3100 West Coast Highway, A�Homnjaa.rrn Newport Beach Ln2 Xtnnrntt G.ouyn token Dear Ms. Divan: eW' .Ifayrr Raa.HrGnn Roo srhonaoh: LSA Associates, Inc. (ISA) Is pleased to provide the following traffic analysis for }fakotml.spro.t the proposed TIA restaurant located along West Coast Highway In the City of 4 t,o et a t r s Newport Beach. The analysis has been prepared at the request.of City staff to identify off-sIte project Impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)analy. tkko.a a.er sis, to examine on-site circulation conditions to ensure that the proposed ac. I.mH Ba.m tosses provide adequate Ingress/egress to the local street system, and that on. Cannk C.XU site storage,areas arc adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project stcw W.Conktint Roll"keneea Gn7 Dme SIIMMARYOFFINAINGS Rxhard Erick"" Kr.m pW JW 1. The site was a car dealership, but Is currently vacant. One full move. L„LRM ,rp mcnt driveway provides access from the project parcel to West Cost f� Ban,,,,Let Highway. The project does not propose any new access driveways. I.Ab M.M'"Ut stkrbw Nkbol. 2. West Coast Highway adjacent to the project site Is a five lane arterial, M.W.-SdB*O'Connell three westbound'and two eastbound. There arc no committed,funded AnrbceyPam projects to provide additional arterial capacity. Improvements to the rywerte hanrhina - (Newport Boul Ir aaan SR55(N evald)/SR-1 (West Cost Highway) interchange will Lk e.zoo enhance the operation of this intersection. 3. At the project driveway, approximately 850 vehicle trips per day am forecast to enter and exit the site,with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the a.m.peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m.peak hour. &1074c1:YtiB733\78AFF1QLT&* One Park PLra,S.ur$00 Trkptonc?14J)J-0$" other offins toured in Berkeky Irvine,CabfomiA'92614 faaimik?I4$)J•1026 Pr.Richmond,Riornidr ondSacrm :o Email ha-frv4�ix.nrtrom.rom • f o •\1J:1'••/III Extensive studies have shown that much of drive through restaurant traffic generated at the project driveway is already on the street for DRAFT another purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips, and account for approximately 47 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveway. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 460 new project trips,37 new am. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation net- work. 4. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (IPO) analysis, no significant Impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new pro. ject trips to the circulation network. S. Due to the current provision of a continuous left turn lane along West Co2st Highway adjacent to the project (previously used by the car deal- ership)and the low volume of peak hour traffic forecast to turn left into and out of the project site, full movement access (i.e., left and right turns in and outbound) is considered acceptable for the project. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1,on-site storage area is available for approximately five vehicles at the menu board and approxi- matcly seven vehicles at the ordering location. It Is recommended that the first menu boards be moved north approximately 35 feet to provide greater vehicular storage during the most time-consuming(menu selec- tion) phase of the operation. With this modification, no adverse im- pacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles. PROPOSED PROD Cr The project site at 3100 West Coast Highway was it car dealership, but Is cur. rentlyvacant. The project location is illustrated in Figure 1. The proposed site plan Is illustrated in Figure 2. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 1,200 square foot elevated, drive through restaurant. The proposed site plan retains a single access driveway along West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be reconstructed and moved cast to the easterly edge of the project site. The project does not propose any additional access drive- ways. Project Ykip Generation Table A presents the total trip generation resulting from application of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (I M industry standard trip rates to the proposed 1,200 square foot drive through restaurant- The source of the trip rates is the Febrturry 1995 Update to the Fiftb Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual (Land Use Code 834: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window). The project Is forecast to generate approximately 850 average daily trips (ADT),with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the am.peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occur- ring during the p.m. peak hour. 84107«0=733MAMC.ttir 5 k HOSPITAL PCH RDSrTB �4r PROJECT � o y � �O k PC O rt ` y0 �O y �c B LEGEND: PC- r '�YSIDL,O r k O smdyImmnoctions 0 0 E7,97(CNB733) 4�1- Figure I N DRAFT AFT _ C Location Map and = ��1,7�� Noses. Study Intersections , s7�`00, ` _•� 1 • N 15510597 4/ 4 h / J00py I• t� / 10tdGE lI1CffJf[ I : MKA . 2 .b 4 1 I KAP 1 r A. lal'f aw / 1 1 wx ~d 1 / tAdSCM'CACA R = �f ( 100d1 ;• a r uc a► �eoE1 }uar AICA 00.Wsu t ` ticxc¢ sale Y UC"AM I k v ATAAM MGM C . I • 4 • 7 /L 1147:815 Sauce:?AlcLitectt tr f ��� /, r•�r� •�` L am 7(CNB7ss) Figure 2 I<? N ©RAFT LSD xes"1e Site Plan , t � • • LE4 Assordates.IrK° Table A-Trip Generation DRAFT Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour lAnd Use size Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total Drive-Through Restaurant 1.20 TSF Trip Rate t 710.08 28.49 27.38 55.81 19.01 17.55 36.56 Trip Generation 852 34 33 67 23 21 44 Pass-by Trips G114,-392•- 15 15 30 11 10 21 rotal New Trips 0 VI- '4t;0- 19 18 37 12 11 23 Notes: ' Institute of TnnsporUGon Engineers,Update to the F#Tb Edition ofTrlp Generation,February 1995. T" 7howand Square Feet 8114197 p.jCNB7MUR1rY.FN.XtS) n b . a • • LS4AseKut co.Inc For purposes of this project analysis, the average trip generation identified in Table A is used to determine traffic conditions on site and at the project drive. ways. Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the restaurant traffic generated at the site driveway is already on the street•for another purpose. Based on logarithmic equations contained in the ME Trip Generation manual, DRAFT approximately 47 percent of the daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destina- tion. This factor is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways In Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approxi- mately 46Q new project trips, 37 new am. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. These 'new project trips' are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. Pr gect Trip Distribution Figure 3 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project. The distribution plan is based on the trip distribution patterns identified for other recently approved fast food restaurants along West Coast Highway, and shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The proposed project trips are distributed equally east and west of the project site. Once on the arterial street system,the project traffic will disperse onto the Balboa Penin- sula and to other local destinations. The project trip assignment is based on the application of the project trip distribution to the trip generation. The total trip generation is identified at the project access. Based on the assignment plan, "new project trips'identified in Table A are assigned at the TPO study area intersections. Figure 4 presents the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area intersections. n FFIC PHASING ORDINANCE•(IPO)ANALYSIS Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Administrative Procedures for imply menting the TPO analysis, trips are generated, distributed and assigned to the seven study area Intersections presented in Figure 1. These Intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be Influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of intersections was reviewed and approved by the City Engineering staff; E)asting traffic conditions for the Intersections are based on winter/spring 1996 and 1997 counts. The Intersection at Newport BoulevardA is Lido Is based on a winter/spring 1994 traffic count. F,` lath Sr 4� Q�0v ID �O 4 rD HDSMAL RD pcy PROJECT eye SITE a rQD © a5' J � r0 5 it PCII 10 Pei=tote tolfmm project O $AYSIpFoq b13W(CNB733) - - N Figure 3, Y - -z LSA .Sate DRAFT �s' Project Trip Distribution r 19th Sr 5 �tJ yP�e. � • \ �O R HOSMfAL )( PCy RD } a� IPBSOJECT' a 0 Cq c ' � B,tyy, rClt LEGEND: 0L'OP AIVPM Peak Hour O VI Project Traffic Volumes *Subuwd"reheats Pw&by td?re I , ' from duoejA no anq t end&"San to tem mtN.wrw w7mm ptepat dr. - v13M(CNa733) Figure 4 4? N DRAFT �LSA. Nose. Project Trip Assignment ♦ f LSA l•..co-.,/w Committed project traffic volumes at the study area intersections are taken from the City's cumulative projects list prepared on August S, 1997. Cumuli• tive growth volumes, also included'in this analysis, are based on City of New. port Beach Regional TrafficAnnuai Growth Rates�for street segments within the City of Newport.Beach boundary. ®RAFT One Per eiaTrafflcVotumeAnalysls The'One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" tests,as defined in the Traffic Phu. ing Ordinance No. 86.20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed projects peak period trip assignment for the,four study area Intersections in the City of'Nedport Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1999,one year after occupancy of the proposed project. The 'One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" worksheets arc presented as an attachment. The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis' are summarized in Table B. This table Identifies the seven study area Intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each approach leg of an Intersection,the 1999 am. and p.m. peak period one percent test volumes, the proposed pioJeces peak period trip assignment, and a comparison of the peak period volumes are presented. Under the "Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes; those approach legs to an Intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes are identified As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implemcnting.the TPO,critical Intersections are defined as those locations in which project generated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour period traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections In the committed plus project condition. As indleated In Table B, the intersection of West Coast Hlghway/rustln Avenue will exceed one percent of the Intersection approach volume during the am. peak hour. It should be noted that the 1999 one percent volume is one vehicle In the am. peak period The project will add two vehicles In the am. peak period. As a result,intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis is required at West Coast Highway/I1Lstin Avenue during the am.peak hour. .rhkrsedton CVacity Mlrlxadon (XV)Atudysla The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volume/capacity(v/c)ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and,their We ratios arc then examined to determine the overall entity utflint on for each Intersection In the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU Is the percentage of an intersection's capacity needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles traveling through the Inter- section. Hence, the higher the ICU,,the higher the percentage of capacity utilization,where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the Intersections capacity. With.lower capacity utilization, residual capacity-will tV14/97�I:K:NB733�7TAt�K.L'[Is 19 LLlAwx4w4 lwe. Table B-Traffic Ph--tas Ordinance(M)Intersection Analysts Summary • i%TRQ'VOLtDIR 1%1181 VOt2111R PROJECT PIMPMODTAUP6 DCCUD 1%Tr0 RRCIID Ix TPO r W/P ICU vfYxRrlf.7iOK AY PtAi PRRIOD PIt PLALPECOD Ald TOTAL PH TOTAL AH n"HOUR PM PLAY HOUR ICU ICU CYbye Na II I Its Iva Nn II I Its Iva N- A II 'aR Its as II 1►a to I so I II IV3 PM1 II II wa ASI Plf AY I PM AN I PM NvwPort B-dvvWd 044Mi'PkvRO'd QM 46 40 12 a 44 77 30 9 4 4 0 0 2 2 O O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Newport 5-4u, d QWY&Ldo QM 31 27 0 9 33 $0 0 a 6 6 0 0 4 4 O O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO °1i��"P"'�0f� )tO"1H 7(�t�) 32 12 106 26 33 23 40 04 4 2 4 10 2 2 2 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DrIlo MICort H&WIT WW) 0 7 39 33 1 13 60 79 O 2 is Is 0 2 12 10 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Tunds Awsw(KS)C AHyiwq(r/17) 0 1 36 42 O 2 32 66 0 2 16 16 0 2 10 10 NO Y63 NO NO NO NO NO NO Q92 492 q00 � ?* ice Dt.Q�)R'.o-S HyTs�QYA) 4 29 41 " 2 30 34 104 0 4 14 12 0 2 8 8 NO NO HO NO NO NO NO NO Dew 'OK H1(RI�1 9 3 73 47 13 4 73 76 2 0 12 10 2 0 8 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DRAFT • --� N,Li97 R:A17va7,1j17POfALGXL;1 � a prevail. The ICU calculations presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO Implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines,critical intersections,where project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an-Intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an DRAFT t Intersection after already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis,workshcet for Coast HighwayMustin Avenue b included as an attachment to this report. The ICU worksheet Indicates that West Coast Highway/rustin Avenue operates• below the 0.90 threshold today, but Is forecast to operate with an ICU of 0.92 (LOS E) in the future cumulative condition. the addition of the project traffic does not affect this ICU value. The Intersection Is forecast to remain at LOS B OCU of 0.92)with the addition of project traffic. Therefore,per the TPO an sis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area Intersections with he addition of new project trips to the circulation network. PROJECTSIMACCESS As identified In the site plan presented in Figure 2, one driveway is proposed to provide access to West Coast Highway. Tbc existing driveway will be relocated further east to the easterly boundary of the projeci,site, Currently, a continu- ous left turn lane is provided along West Coast Highway to allow left turns in and out of the project site as well as full movements to adjacent properties. Full access was provided via the continuous left turn lane to the previous car dealership on the site. Tax purpose of this on•stte analysis Is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the relocated exhdng access driveways,and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic How on the adjacent arterials. Based'on the trip assignment,presented In Figure 4,-approximately 17left turn movements are forecast in and out of the projecrsite during the peak morning commute period. This is approximately one vcbk a every three minutes on a random basis. Signalized intersections e3dst along West Coast Highway at Riverside Drive and southbound Newport Boulevard ramps to potentially platoon vehicles,providing some gaps in east and westbound through traffic. No obstructions to sight distance are evident In the vicinity of the project access location. As,the continuous left turn.lane currently exists and bas provided full move- ment access to the previous land use and adjamnt.restaurant land uses, and as the left turn volume of traffic Into and out of the site is relatively nominal, maintenance of full movement access Is considered appropriate for the project site. MU974�,TtnA3�ixAtFrGL7». ,11 VEHICLE STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS According to the project description provided by the applicant, the site has been designed to minimize the of time a consumer will have to spend on site. The point of sale and the food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. One variable that cannot be quantified for this analysis is the time spent by the patron In reading the menu boards and making an order selection. But the applicant is projecting a maximum duration of 8:00 minutes per vehicle. According to the project trip assignment, approximately 34 vehicles per hour will arrive at the site during the am. peak hour, or almost one vehicle every two minutes based on random arrivals. Using the 8:00 minutes maximum duration estimate, four vehicles would arrive prior to the departure of the initial preceding vehicle. In this system, a total of 16 vehicles would be on site at a given time with a trip generation of approximately 34 vehicles per hour. The project description and site plan Indicate a total queuing area available for 30 vehicles. Therefore, the site incorporates adequate vehicle storage for as much as twice the reported trip generation. Based on this analysis, adequate t storage Is provided on site. The location of the first menu boards, however, may create limited queuing area during menu selection. Approximately five vehicles may queue up to the first menu boards. Given the trip generation estimates, the maximum duration and the uncertainty in time of patron menu selection, it is recommended that the first menu boards be moved approximately 35 feet north to provide an queuing area for five additional vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful In your planning needs. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 553.OW Sincerely, LSAASSOCIATBS, INC. DRAFT Anthony Petros Associate Attachments: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets cc: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner &g07.1:)r-NB733%DL&FFrGt7r6 112' GI . �I UU040-01 1 % Traffic Volume �lysis Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 ex ) Approach Usung Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1 j % of Projected Pro Olfaction Peak oume G 1/2 Hour C Ro Volnal Projacts Peak 2 112 Hour Pas 2112How Peak 2 112 Hour rowth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4363 87 100 4550 46 4 Southbound 3599' 72 367 4038 40 4 I Eastbound 1140 0 50 1190 12 0 Wesltwund 759 0 20 779 8 0 Q Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. a Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. intersection Capacity UtirwUon (I.C.U.) Analysts Is required. DATE: PROJECT: t7 RkNf] U� * 1 % Traffic Volume I1112fSPCGOA NEWPORT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD . ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PH Approach Existing Peak 2 1f2 Hour APp�ed Projected 1ct— T12Pa,,Vk ProjectedProject Erection Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Projecb Peak 2 112 Hour P112 Hour Volume Growth PEAR 2 172 Fier Volume e Volume Volume Northbound 4078 82 200 4360 Southbound 7371 147 203 7721 Eastbound 2874 0 144 3018 Westbound 898 0 0 898 Project Traffic Is estimated to be last than 1% or Projected }( Peak 21t2 Hour Tratfic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Il JI Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Votums. lnt»nectton CapacIty 11tilizatlon (I.C.U.) Analysts Is requtr" �3 DATE: PROJECT: 9 ruwtcl 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ m Pat n Hour Approved llpproach Extstin9 Reptonal Projects projected 1s of Projected Project 01rection Pak 2y Hour Growth Peak Ztf Hour Peak 2y Hour Peck 2y Hour Peek He Yolu■t Yotust Yolms YOU" Yolu l Yollune Northbound 3075 0 10 3085 31 6 Southbound 2707 0 1 0 1 2707 1 2? 6 Eastbound 45 0 0 45 0 0 Hestbound 907 0 0 907 9 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% oUProjected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring pM ----------------- Pak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects �rojecteC 1% of Projected Pnojec Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 2y Kour peak Voluar volume Volume Yoiume Y01006 Yoiic Korthbound 3270 0 4 3274 33 4 southbound 4975 0 6 4981 50, 4 i EasMund 25 0 0 25 0 0 uestkund 823 0 0 823 8 0 . ElProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El -Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FOM I 1 % Traffic Volume Agysis _ COAST HICHHAT/tiA MA DLVD—SUPERIOR AVE ( ExisUng Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1996 - AM Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Pro sebd Pro Direction Ptak 2 1f1,'Hour Rsgionsl Projects Peak 2 M Hour Peak 2. Hour Peak 2ev Volume ct CrovM Pf� K 1 1f2 Hour Volume Volume Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3182 0 18 3200 32 4 Southbound 1151 0 18 1169 12 2 Eastbound 9699 194 670 10563 106 4 Westbound 2276 46 239 2561 26 10 Project Traffic Is asGmatad to be lass than 1% of Projected x Peak 2112 Hour Trafrc Volums, i ❑ Project Tnfrw Is sstimated to be greater than 1% cif ProJeelsd Peak 2112 Hour Tratrio Vokxns. Intsrsection Capacity UUrwUon (I.CM.) Analysis Is requtred. DATE: PROJECT: a awry Ui 1 % Traffic Volume Wsis � M c�`•`O""' IIlI2fSt?CI1011 COAST UMAT/BALBOA BLVD. -SUPERIOR AVE. • ( ExisUng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 - PH ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1/2 Now Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Projeota Growth PEAK 2 112 Ftotr Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1f2 Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volums Northbound 3234 0 32 3266 33 2 Southbound 2499 0 10 2509 25 2 Eastbound 5544 111 350 6005 60 2 1 Westbound 5589 112 733 6434 64 6 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Voluma. ❑ Project Traffic is setimated to be greater than 1% or Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Voluma. Intarsectlon Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysts is required _ DATE: PROJECT: e ntwa • 1 % Traffic Volume Galysis COAST HIC9NA2. / RIVERSIDE APEKM InlersPc6a� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM Approach Extst.1% Peak 2 112 Now APProved Directlon Peak 2 112 tkw Regional Profje°!s Projecld 1% of Projected "act Volume Growth PEAK 3 12 Flour 'Peak 2 1h Hour peak 212 Hour Peak 2 1f2 Ho Vdume Volume Volume Vdume Volume Northbwnd 7 0 12 19 0 0 Souftund 703 0 41 744 7 2 Eastbound 5069 101 762 5932 59 18 westbound 2935 59 544 3538 35 18 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. ElProject Traffic to estimated to be greater than 1% of Projectd lit Peak 212 Hour Tratfic Volume. lnlerseclfon Capacity Vl/iixsUon I.C.U.) Ares is is Muired. is DATE: PROJECT: e 1wu�r 1 % Traffic Volume 14 ysis u �`•'O"sJ 1(I(e(S2C11011 COAST HIMAY I RIVERSIDE AVEM ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1g 97 rx Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hex Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Dlrection Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Proje°ts Peak 2 1t2 Hour Peak 2 M Hour Peak 2 tr2 Not Volume Growth PEAK 2 1r! Hour Vdume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 77 0 0 77 1 p Sorthbound 1302 0 16 1318 13 2 Eastbound 5223, 104 680 6007 60 12 Westbound 6896 138 904 7938 79 10 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2V2 Hour Traffic Volume. D Project Trafr+c Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hex Trafric Volume. intersection Capacity UtinUt;on (I.C.U.) Analysts Is required D DATE: PROJECT: 13 1 % Traffic Volume *Jysis c`�°errr COAST HICHNAY/TUSTIN AVE lnll'fSECiJ00 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996- AM ). Approach Wiling Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Direction Peak 2 112 Hour . Regional ProJecb Projected 1% of Projected Project Growth PEAK 2 1R Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 Southbound 117 0 24 141 1 2 Eastbound 4620 92' 852 5564 56 16 Westbound 3590 72 538 4200 42 16 ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be loss than 1% of Projected Peak 2-112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑X Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. tntaraection Capacity Utnizatton (I.C.U.) Analysts Is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1 % Traffic Volume lffilysis Intersection COAST HIGIUAT/TIISTIN AVE • ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 - Fx ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of "acted "act Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projecla Peak 2 In Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hou Volume Growth PEAK 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 Soutjlbound 208 0 8 216 2 2 Eastbound 1163 89 689 1141 52 10 Westbound 5654 113 986 6753 68 10 Project Tratfic Is estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21f2 Hour Traffic Volume, tntersactlon Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysls Is required. -- - -- -- DATE: _ �•. PROJECT: 0 MLW x +� 1 % Traffic Volume Asis COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE — BAISHORE DRIVE �.,.o... If112rS2CI)011 .. . ( Existing. Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 97 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project t%recllon Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Puk 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 1f2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 352 0 0 352 4 0 Soullibound 2609 0 266 2875 29 4 Eastbound 5077 102 952 6131 61 14 Westbound 4825 97 616 5538 55 12 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Ptak 21f2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. lntarsaction Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. i DATE: PROJECT: . 1 % Traffic Volume Aysis �tirownJ COAST HIGHHAY I DOPER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE ' Inlersec�on ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 its ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Pr:;.ct Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 1t2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 U2 dour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 234 0 0 234 2 SouUftund 2813 0 166 2979 30 2 Eastbound 4638 93 704 5435 54 8 Westbound 9100 182 1148 I 10430 104 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Fxl Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Tralfc Volume. Intersection Capacity Utinzation (I.C.U.) Anatysls Is required. I i DATE: PROJECT: �^ a�W°ppr °e' 1 % Traffic Volume lblysis ; IslerSecl�N COAST HICHSIATIRATSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 - AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1f2 Now Approved Projected TI12140tr Fi2112 Direction Peak 2 112'Now Regional ProJecti Peak 2 1/2 HourVolume Growth PEAR2 e Hour Volume Volume Yotume Mbound 873 0 29 902 Southbound 133 0 153 286 3 0 Eastbound 6440 129 722 7291 73 12 Westbound 4275 86 361 4722 47 10 Project Traffic li estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ElProject Traffic Is estimated to be grater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Now Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity UUnzauon (I.C.U.•) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: E ruwa ` �ewcpgr 1 % Traffic Volume Aysis ge`per r �11EfSPCb0fl COAST HICWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 - PH ) Approach Fisting Peak 2 112 Hour APP"ed "acted 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 tf2 Hour Regional Project Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak l 1/2 Flour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1Q Flour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1258 0 15 1273 13 2 Southbound 137 0 249 386 4 0 Eastbound 6651 133 496 7280 73 8 r Westbound 6732 135 751 7618 76 6 Project Traffic It estimated to be Was than 1 % of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Flour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity tl MULlon ('I.C.U.) Analysts is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1 Y 0 C8263SAN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UFILI2ATIC4 ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST NiCHUAY A TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLMS USED OR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VINIER/SPRING 1996 AN ........................................................................... / I EXISTINGiPROPOSFD EXISTINCIEXISTiNCIREGIONAL CMITTED HOJECTED••PROJ(CT PROJECT' IMoveoent lance Lanes } PK MR -1 V/C GROWN PROJECT Y/C Ratio Yotwa, Y c I Capacity Capaeityl Voltrn I Ratio ! Voltru Voluse Wa Project Ratio I . .) ................ �.............•......�:��.........10:00. NT 1600 1........1..... '0.) 0.00 1..0.....1..0.....1..0:00...1...0...10.00� .) ) . ..`............1.............................0........°........0:00...........lo:oo. j. ..... .) .................., i....................°:00...........lo:oo. I ST 16M 1 1 2 0.04 a 0 1 0 1 0.04 1 0 10.04 1 I........) ......4......... .) ........................................ . ........................1.....16.....................4....... 0:00...� .1...1.0�00' i EL 1 16001 1 42 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 1 �0.03 I� 1 l0.03 : :Ei.--.........1........1..,�0 ........i 47....1,426...�..�.88...�...�..F0:88.� 5200 . .•) 0.73 �. ER i I 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 10 10.00• 1. ....................................................................................... I k I I 1 D 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 I. ....................................................................................... I W 1 ON I I 1555 1 0.32 131 1 267 1 0.39 1 8 10.39 I. .........................•-•--............................._........................... '. .wK...!...16001........!.....36 ...0:°0.!..1....!..2.....!..0.00...!...0..! 0:00. (EXISTING I 0•?7 I............................................................................ (EXIST • REG CROWN • COa:ITTED V/PROPOSED 1NPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.92 1 I........................................................................................... (EXISTING • COMMITTED • REGIONAL CROWN ♦ PROJECT I.C.U. 12 ..............................................::.............••--........................0.9. 1_1 Projected # project traffic OIL be less than or equal to 0.90 IX1 Projected♦ project traffic I.C.U. uill be Greater than 0.90 I_I Projected • project traffic I.C.U. w/system taprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected • project traffic I.C.U. with project tsprovements will be IM than t.C.U. without project ................................................ . ..................................... Description of system taproVement: PROJECT FORM Ii CH2635AM ' 1 L INC.ENVIROPRO, Comprtb=3iv FavvovncnW savxvs a 7Dchmtop PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Conducted at 3100 West Paoific Coast Hwy Easterly Portion Newport Beach, CA July 10,1997 Enviropro, Inc. Project No. E083MI Prepared for TLA Incorpomted cto Mr.Joe Govels Govela a Aaaociat" 11 Blue Jay Drive Arlso Viejo, CA 92656 9765 Eloa Avemue • ChIllwarrh , CA 91311 • 616•1191-7197 • FAX 616. 998• 7256 1 A ENVIROPRO, INC. Coogcbemivc Envuoanawl SoMctt R'RcGnobp July 10, 1997 TLA Incorporated do Mr.Joe Goveia Goveis &Associates 11 Blue Jay Drive Allso Viejo, CA 0260 Projoct No. EOS38001 Subject: PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AT. 319Q lybat Pacific Coast FHvvv - tich,CA Dear Mr. Goveia: Enclosed you WN find Erwin", Ines Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report conducted for the above-referenced property. If you have questions or need further information, please call us at 818-998.7197. Sincerely, ENVIROPRO, INC. Avilal Oliveau, R.EA.#C6663 AHERA Asbestos Building Inspector # 1El1309281C Michael M. Uziel, Ph.D. Vice President/Principal Engineer AOUe �� $765 tlaa Avowwe • Citwte �eotth, CA 92J11 111.090-7197 ! FA5 i11•991•7231 TA_gLF Of CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................ 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................. 1 3.0 SITE OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Location................................................................................................................... 2 32 Site Descriplion....................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Adjacent Properties................................................................................................. 4.0 SITE HISTORY AND OPERATIONS...................................................................... 5 t 4.1 Results of Sanbom Map Review...............................................................................5 4.2 Results of the Aerial Photograph Review .................................................................6 4.3 Results of the Munger Oil Map Review.....................................................................7 5.0 SITE SETTING........................................................................................................ 7 5.1 Topographic Setting................................................................................................ 7 5.2 Regional Geology......................................................................................................7 5.3 Hydrogeological.Setting............................................................................................7 6.0 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 8 6.1 Site Visual Inspection Observations........................................................................ 8 6.2 Resuts of Regulatory Agency Contacts ............................................................... 10 6.2.1 Results of Regulatory Agency Direct Contacts..................................................... 10 6.2.2 Results of Computerized Records Review ........................................................... 11 6.3 Results of the Radon Investigation.........................................................................12 6.4 Results of the Suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials Survey..............................12 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................13 8.0 DISCLAIMER........................................................................................................ 14 9.0 LIMITS OF LIABILITY........................................................................................... 14 -L ` 1.0 EXECUTA/H SUMMARY A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the property located at the easterly portion of 3100 West Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this work was to assess if potential environmental interests that might impact the property may exist at the site or surrounding sites. 2,0 $&OPE OF WORK • Conduct a visual inspection of the site,to identify readily apparent potential souroeslor signs of contamination. This site inspection includes a thorough inspection of the property with attention to potential or present sources of environmental concern at the site. The visual inspection also includes interviews with management, employees, and other readily available.persons regarding site history, waste handling practices, current environmental concerns, and any other pertinent environmental ooncems. Photographs documenting the site visit are presented in Appendix A. • Review historical aerial photographs, Sanbom Maps, and'Munger Oil Maps, if readily available, to docrxnent the previous uses of the site. These materials help assess past site activities that may have an impact on the property today. • Commission a records search and report from an environmental regulatory database vendor for information pertaining to soil and/or groundwater contamination at the subs ed site and surrounding properties within a one- mile radius. Contact the following agencies, if possible, to inquire as to whether they maintain any files on the subject property. The following is the minimum list of local agencies to be contacted: The Fire Department The Department of Public Works The Regional Water QuarKy Control Board The Depa riment of Heaflh Services The Department of Toxic Substances Control(EPA) 1 {(V i • Interview current and previous site owners (if possible) for information on any chemicals that may have been used, and knowledge of 'any spills and/or chemical leaks that may have occurred at the subject site or knowledge of potential or known environmental concerns. • Prepare an overview of the topographic, geological, and hydrogeoiogical settings and information for the subject site and surrounding area from readily aval" geologic documentation, as related to environmental issues. • Review research literature on radon investigations performed for the State of Caiifomia. Analyzed pertinent data pertaining to the subject site and the possibility of a radon concern in the subject site area. • Perform a visual inspection and sampling of suspect asbestos containing materials. Bulk samples were transferred to a state-certified laboratory, using the appropriate chain-of-custody, for analysis. Suspect asbestos samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy. Prepare a report documenting the results of the investigation. 3.0 3%YLE MRVIEW 3.1 LOCA110N The subject site Is located on the easterly portion of 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy (PCH) in Newport Reach. The site is situated on the north side of PCH, east of Newport Avenue. Please see Drawing 1 for the Site location Map. 3.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is currently occupied by a vacant auto repair shop and showroom offices. The subject site is a portion of what used to be a larger automobile sales and repair facility, Newport Imports. The subject site contains a large, two-story showroom building, which also contains offices. This building fronts along PCH. The rear of the property contains an automobile repair stop with several repair bays and parking area. Please see Drawing 2 for the Site Plot Plan. 2 I ����,.t fig • �1 ,,,,��% � 1.� � � -®r UPS ,73 wl Pill firJ - •,'1\`�\ 1itI Source:Map •••• • • Series, Newport .r • • .. ENVIROPRO9 LOCATION �. IMS • Chatsworth, C' IN 1� .. 1 1 ••:' ' . r • u k N 55 gallon Wheel Alignment drums Machines Generators North Repair torag Bay � ( . 1 ( (� (� oom Paint Booth Y O Y Y u U O East Repair O Bay ,,, West Repair 0 Hydraulic Oil —0" Bay Reservoirs OW OMW • Fuel Pump EZMW Underground O MW Tanks w Showroom & Offices Qtw p MW MW O Pacific Coast Highway Leoend Drawing Not To Scale MW Monitoring Well --0— Hydraulic Lift Abandoned Hydraulic Lift � Aboveground Lift {] Aboveground New OR Tank O 55-gallon drum of waste Lnviropro, Inc. Site Plot Plan Drawtn 2 9765 Eton Avenue C97 aroe: Chatsworth, CA 91311 Govels & AssociatesM A Inc. Date: Proiecto. pro Site Address: July 1997 E0838t)01 A.O. 3100 W. PCH, Newport Beach, CA 1 , 0 3.3 ADJACENT PROPERTIES The subject site is situated in a mixed-use commercial/residential area. The adjacent sites am described below: north-a steep cliff is prosent at the northern border of the site. Atop this cliff are single family residential homes. south-a=n PCH from the sut�ect site is a large hotel. There are also several restaurants and an offroe building south of the site. Further south Is the Newport say and Pacific Ocean. oast-adjacent to the east, along PCH is a BMW automoble dealership and repair shop. west-adjacent to the site is the westom portion of the,former Newport imports auto mobile dealership and repair shop. Further west Is a Chilis restaurant, and the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce. 4.0 SlIE HISTORY AND OPERATIONS 4.1 RESULTS OF SANBORN MAP REVIEW The Sanbom Map Company provided'map coveraga for this site. The following.is a summary of the avaitable maps provided to Enviropro. 19�1 The subject site appears to be vacant in this photograph. The front auto repair shop for the westerly portion of the former Newport Imports facility Is present to the west The Sanborn map indicates that this building is used for automobile repairs and painting. There is also a car wash facility associated with this westerly portion of 3100 PCH. Piles of lumber are stored In the rear of the,repair bay building. East of the site Is a motel. South of the site, across-PCH is a used boat sales shop and storage area, a furniture retail store and associated manufacturing and painting. Southwest of the site Is the-Orange County Harbour Engineers. �&1 The subject site appears similar to today with the showroom building and automobile repair shops. The westerly portion of 3100 PCH has also been further developed with another repair bay behind the original building. The surrounding sites appears the same as in the previous map. 5 �b 4.2 RESULTS OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW Six historical aerial photographs, the oldest of which dates back to 1922, were reviewed by an Enviropro, Inc. representative for the subject property at the UCLA Spence and Fairchild collections. These photographs were reviewed with attention to possible sources of environmental concern due to past activities on and around the property. Copies of the aerial photographs could not be obtained, and are therefore not included in this report. The following is a description of each aerial photograph reviewed: 2817-0.4 1922 The subject site and surrounding sites are vacant and undeveloped. The marina is also not developed and PCH is not present. E_1Q79 4/12n8 r The subject site and sites to the north, south, and east are vacant PCH has been constnroted. South of the site, across PCH is a cornmercial building. The twildkV's use can not be determined from this photograph. E-0148 &27/38 The subject site is still vacant and appears undeveloped. There is an advertising sign located on the subject site along PCH, but the ad could not be read in this photograph. North of the site, atop the citi, is what appears to be one single family residential home. South of the site is the commercial building. West of the site is an industrial property, and east of the site Is vacant 04::F--13035 4127147 The southem 314 of the subject site is being used for mobile home parking in this photograph. The northem 1/3 of the site appears to be used for materials storage for the Industrial site to the west. These materials appear to be stacks of wood, possibly for boat construction. A motel is present to the east, and additional residential tomes are present to the north, atop the M. South of the site is a bait shop (a sign can be read on the budding) and what appears to be a bus and boat maintenance facility. p-14n 12= The subject site appears similar to today. The properties adjacent to the north, east and west appear similar to the previous photograph. South of the she, across PCH, is a commercial property which appears to be associated with the marina, its use can not be determined from the photograph. 6 �b5 0-44 - 213M The subject site and surrounding adjacent sites appear similar to the 1955 photograph. However, south of the site, across PCH is what appears to be a hotel and parking lot 4.3 RESULTS OF THE MUNGER OIL MAP REVIEW There are no former or present oil yells noted in, the maps on or immediately adjacent to the subject site. Therefore there Is little likelihood for conc6m due to former or present oil wells on.the subject site. There is an, area of oil exploration south and southwest of the subject site, approximatety 1000 feet from the subject site. These wells are a significant distance from, the subject site, so that they most likely do not pose an environmental concern to thezubjed site. 5.0 arrE GETTING 5.1 TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING The subject site is situated at an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level and is located approximately 400 feet from the Newport Say which connects to the Pacific Ocean. The elevation Increases dramatically at the northern border of the subject site, where a cliff rises to 75 feet above mean sea level. 5.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject site is located along the shore of the Pacific Ocean and at the base of a 75-foot tall cliff. The soils at the subject site and immediate area can be expected to be sandy. 5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTINO Because this site is so close to the Pacific Ocean, groundwater can be expected'to be quite shallow. In addition, groundwater quality can be expected to be poor due to salt water intrusion. The groundwater elevation can also be expected to be greatty'influenced by the local tides. Some groundwater elevation Information has been provided by a groundwater monitoring report prepared by WA Consulting, inc. who installed and has performed quarterly monitoring for eight groundwater monitoring wells on site. According to their information, groundwater is present at approximately 7 to 7.5 feet below ground surface. 7 lad 6.0 BEI a A E THE INYES'rK3A71ON Outlined below are the results from the Visual inspection, regulatory agency search, computerized records search, radon review, and suspect asbestos inspections. 6.1 SITE VISUAL INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS A visual inspection of the site was conducted on June 26, 1997. it involved a walk- through of the subject property and the immediate vicinity by, AvItai 011veau, an Enviropro, Inc. representative, to identify possible sources of environmental concern. The site inspection was led by Mr. Joe Govaia, a representative for the buyer. There were a number of environmental concerns noted at the subject site and in the western portion of 3100 PCH, which is not a portion of the property being f purchased by Enviropro's client, but was part of the former automobile sales and repair shop knowm as Newport imports. The first item of environmental concern Is the groundwater contamination which is apparently present as described in the MJA Consulting, Ine.'s "Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling and Gradient Assessment, Second Quarter 199T report. Apparently, one or more underground tanks on site (which were replaced) Peaked. This report describes the latest round of groundwater sampling (from the date of this Phase 1) conducted for the eight monitoring waifs on she. Of these eight wells, only one is located on the subject site. The remaining seven welts are located on the western portion of 3100 PCH. he groundwater underlying the subject site appears to be contaminated with gasoline and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylybenzene, and total xylenes). Throughout the years of sampling (2W-W7) concentrations of gasoline have ranged from nondetected to 61.000 ppm. The most recent round of groundwater sampling, collected on June 20, 1997 shows the following results: 8 1 pn I TABLE 1 Groundwater Analytical Resutts •June 1997 3100.West PCH-Newport Beach, CA Well NO. W B T E X fIAiBE M 1 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0:5 21 MW2 200 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 53 MW-3 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8.2 MW+4 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.6 MVV-5 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 25 MW-6 15.000 20 <4.3 4.3 2,820 11 MW-7 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 tVI W-8 <50 <O.S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.5 The historical analytical groundwater analyses show that the concentrations of gasoline and BTEX are steadily decreasing through time. Please note that the underground tanks present today are located on the western portion of 3100 PCH (not a part of the subject site). however, the fuel pump is located on the subject SRO. The second item of environmental concern noted onsits are the four double and sic abandoned single hydraulic Iltta. Please see the Site Plot Plan for their locations. Each of these hydraulic figs contains a small underground tank of hydraulic oils. For the abandoned Ift, it Is unknown d these lifts were decommissioned because of a leak which stopped the operation of the lift, or simply because R wasn't used. Please note, two of the double lifts apparently have aboveground tanks which contain their hydraulic of. A third Rem of environmental concern noted on site are the 21 55-gallon drums located at the northeast comer of the SRO. The drums were unlabeled and fun. For safety reasons, the drums were not opened to assess their contents. The asphalt underlying this drum storage area was also etched with circular drum markings,which could Indicate historical leaks. A fourth item of environmental concern noted on site are the numerous aboveground tanks and drums of new and used oil and filters. These tanks and drums are Located throughout the subject site. Please we the She Plot Plan for their locations as noted during the site Inspection. A fifth item of environmental concern noted on site is the oil staining underlying a small generator near the northeast comer of the she, within a covered shed. It is apparent 'from the staining that oil has leaked from this generator onto the underlying asphalt. 9 �b� Another item of environmental concem to the subject site which is located on the westerly portion of 3100 PCH is the paint booth. The paint booth Is located near the western end of the site; please see the Site Plot Plan. Paint spills were noted near the paint booth and painting operation within a paint booth are known to pose a potential risk for solvents and other regulated compounds to have affected the underlying sod. There were two pole-mounted transformers observed near the northeast corner of the site, behind the property fine. These transfomws are owned by Southern Califomia Edison, who has indicated in a written notification to Enviropro, Inc. that they no longer have PCB-containing transformers, and that their agency has never specified PCB-containing transformers in the past. Therefore, there is little concern due to PCBs from these transformers. 6.2 RESULTS OF REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS 6.2.1 ResultsoLRagulat=ALA" Y Direct Contacts A regulatory agency search was conducted for information pertaining to sol and/or groundwater contamination at the property located at 3100 West Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The following Is a list of the agencies contacted and responses received: A. Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB): Records were found for the subject property according to Ms. Margie Quiroz B. Orange County Health Care Agency: Records were found for the subject property according to the M clerk. C. Newport Beach Fire Department Records were found for the subject property according to Ms. Nadine Meschusky. E. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Tonic Substances Control (DISC): No records were found for the subject property according to Ms. Julie Johnson of DTSC. 10 16� 6.2.2 Results of Com d4ed R=rds Review A record search was conducted by Enviropro, Inc. through Vista Errvironmentars (Vista) database service for the subject site and surrounding sites within a one- mile radius. Please note that the statements made below are based on this database search. Enviropro, Inc. has no control over how current these listings are. Therefore, there Is a likelihood that they may not represent the entire sum of known or potential hazardous waste or contaminated sites. The exuracy of the Vista report is constrained by the limits of taro and pro%sslonai skill exercised by the subcontractor. The database report can be found In Appendbc B. Newport imports is listed several times in the database report as having a leaking underground tank and as being under county oversight for groundwater Caen-up. According to the database report, groundwater Is contaminated by gasoline on site and .further remedial Investigation is required. The site is also listed as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste. Thee are five other atlas within a 114 mllo radius from the sits which are also lisWd as having a leaking underground tank. According to the database report, these No sties have received closure or have completed remedlation, and are therefore not considered to be an environmental cwcem,to the subject site. The Harbor Club Marina, located at 3333 Pacific Coast Hwy, and Newport Cleaners, located at 106 Tustin, are listed in the database report as conducting a groundwater remedial investigation due to gasoline or other contamination. According the address, these sites are located downgradient from the subject site and most likely does not pose an environmental concern. The upgradlent sites fisted in the database report are the Newport Beach City Landfill, the Newport City Corporate Yard, the A and G Garage, and Hughes Aircraft. The landfill is currently closed and was a solid waste disposal facility. The corporate yard is listed as requiring no further action by DTSC. It also had contamination related to a leaking underground tank but the case has been dosed. These two sites are not considered to pose an envhorxnental concern to the subject site. The garage and Hughes Aircraft are a significant distance from the site as not to pose an environmental concern to the subject-site. The database report fists three unmapped sites. No locating information is available in the database report to quantify the s'tes' locations. These three sites are landfill sites. The aerial photograph review did not reveal a landfill within the immediate area of the subject site, Therefore. it is not expected that these sites will pose an environmental ooncem to the subject site. 11 6:3 RESULTS OF THE RADON REVIEW Radon Is a colorless, odorless, tasteless radioacihre gas that is produced as a natural decay product of uranium. Because uranium and radon occur in varying amounts in rock and soils, radon is present in all the air we breathe. Furthemwre, due to its radioactivity, numerous studies have shown that at elevated Weis, there is a link between radon and lung cancer. Concentrations of radon gas are expressed as prco Curies per liter of air (pCiA). There were no readings for the subject zip code 92663. Reading for the zip code 92627, approximately 3/4 mite north of the site are <1.0. Readings above 4 pCiA can be a source of concern according to the most recent report by the Department of Health Services "California Statewide Radon Survey Interim Results" published in 1992. 6.4 REVIEW OF SUSPECT ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS Due to the age of the building(s) on the subject site, suspected asbestos- containing materials were sampled. The following Table describes the samples collected and analytical results. TABLE 2 Analytical Results for Asbestos Sampling 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy - Newport Beach Sample material Sample Asbestos No. Description Location Content ete 1 lar its room wall 0 2 joint compound showroom wall 0 3 h ceiling tale showroom office, 2nd Floor 0 4 stucco outside paft office 0 5 brown vi floor the 2nd floor office 0 6 10x10 oer file main show room ceili 0 As noted In the table, none of the suspected materials sampled4ested positive for asbestos. Therefore,there appears to be no concern due to asbestos containing materials on site. The anatyticat laboratory report from the state-cent fled laboratory, and chain-of- custody are presented in Appendix C. 12 �1i1 0 7.0 C N? CLUSIONS AND RECOMirltENDAMNS Envlropro, Inc. has .performed a Phase, I 'Environmental Site Assessment in minimum conformanos with the scope and imitations of ASTM Standards E 1527 for 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy, in Newport.Beach, CA. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are dbscn'bed in Section 9.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property except for the following: Conclusion:There were a number of grorurdwater monhoring welts located on the westerly pot8on of 3100 West PCH and one well on the subject she. A report provided by WA Consuntng, inc. indicates that groundwater contamination does exist on site and on the westerly portion of 3100 W PCH: In addition, the environmenta[database report Indicates ttrrdt-the groundwater on site is affected by gasoline and addition remedial investigation is necessary. = I Recommendation: Envlropro, Inc. recommends that the Orange County Health ' Care Agency files,Water Board files, and Flre Department files be reviewed to fully assess the environmental investigatory work conducted on site. A summary of the proposed additional remedial investigation and clean-up measures should be provided to the dent. Conclusion: There are two underground tanks registered on the wes" portion of 3100 Vinci PCH. Time tanks will most liketynot be used in the future and,they do not meet current underground tank regulation requirements. In addition, the fuel pump for these tanks Is located on the subject site. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that these tanks and the associated fuel pump be removed according to regulatory agency guidelines. Conclusion: According to the t on provided by Mr. Joseph Govefe, representative for the-bWoo, all the structures on site wilt ,be removed and the buildings win be demolished. This will require'removing the underground hydraulic lifts. Racommandation: Envkopro, Inc. recommends that the underground hydraulic Ms be removed property with proper disposal of the hydraulic oil and property testing at the base of each hydraulic ift Conclusion: There were several aboveground tanks and 55-gallon drums of new and waste on and filters. in addition, there were 21 55-ga5on drums of what is most likely waste materials at the northeast corner of the subject site. In addition, staining and etching were noted under the drums. 13 1`\ ll • Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that these materials be properly removed and disposed from the site prior to demolition. Also a minhum of two sod samples should be collected In this area to assess the underlying soil for volatile organic compounds and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Conclusion: One paint booth and evidence of paint spills was located near the west end of the westerly portion of 3100 West PCH. Paint booths are commonly associated with solvent affected W. The evidence of paint spills in the adjacent room' indicates poor housekeeping and adds to the question of subsurface affected soli. Recorntnendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that a minimum of two son gas borings be drilled on two sales adjacent to the paint booth to assess the underlying soil for volatile organic compounds. Conclusion: OR staining was observed under a generator near the northeast comer of the site. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that one son sample be collected in the stained area. Soil samples should be collected at 2.5 and 5 feet bgs and analyzed for TRPH by EPA Method 418.1. 8.0 QtSDIANIM This report is dmited to the observations possible based on visual inspection and on a records search at government agencies. Only the specific government records listed in Appendix B were searched. 'Additional government record sources may not have been included in this report, and no representations are made of the record's adequacy. Enviropro, Inc. is not responsible for any incomplete government records. In addition, government agencies do not list all sites of environmental contamination. 0.0 LIMITS QF LIABILITY The information provided in this report is solely for the use of Mr. Joseph Goveia and TLA Incorporated. The information is valid only for the reason for which this report was produced, and for the time this report was produced. since environmental conditions may change with time. Any reliance on this information by third parties shad be at such parties'solo risk. Enviropro, Inc. liability is{'muted to the fee received for preparation of this report or S20K, whichever is less. 14 113 , n City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX SUBJECT: TLA Restaurant (Jonathan Rodriquez-Atkatz, Item No.5 applicant) Use Permit No.3612 A 3100 West Coast Highway TS No. 112 • Use Permit No.3612 and • Traffic Study No.112 The project involves a use permit, a traffic study and a negative declaration, to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story Denied drive-through restaurant facility with a 300 sq. ft. storage building and related off-street parking.The applications include the following requests: • waive a portion of the required off-street parking. • allow an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical equipment screen to exceed the maximum area of 25 square feet permitted by the Municipal Code. • a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element,32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. • waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Staff presentedihe report stating that this project involves demolition of certain buildings on Coast Highway which are currently vacant and, formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. The proposed project would occupy 50% of the site. This proposed project is unique in that it has no walk-up or on-site dining, no alcoholic beverage sales and high iurn-over drive-through service only, resulting in no patron parking demand. The stacking lanes will be the patron parking, with consideration given to the capacity and ability to sustain demand for the facility. Parking will be provided for the employees. A key issue is the access and on-site circulation. Concern has,been raised regarding a sole access driveway for patron usage for both ingress and egress. Due to anticipated conflicts of a dual left turn lane serving the site,access into the property from a left turn on east bound Coast Highway could be accommodated,but if so, an exiting movement left turn to east bound Coast Highway would be conflicting and create a safely hazard. Public Works has therefore strongly recommended that left turn movement be precluded. This proposed project will conduct order processing through menus distributed by on-site empioyeeswith no speaker boxes. To ensure new development be designed to maintain the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee recommendations,a condition has been included to have this project reviewed by a design consulting team retained by the City for the Mariners Mile area. 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX In response to Commission inquiry, Mrs. Wood commented that the city has no design review authority. The Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee felt that if the city could provide some advice, keeping in mind the overall goals of the Mariners'Mile area,that there might be compliance. Commissioner Ridgeway asked about the twelve(12) foot right of way for the widening of Coast Highway. What would be the impact of stacking on this proposed site? Staff answered that the project has been designed with those setbacks provided,but the actual dedication is not being required except through a lease hold commitment. At Commission inquiry,discussion continued on restrictions,placements of t exits and entrances. The conditions of the project make it clear if at some point later on that patrons complain about the inability to make a left turn, Public Works will not change that condition due to the safety factors. A U-turn can be done at the intersection that services Hoag Hospital and Balboa Coves. One of the concerns of the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee is the number of driveways in the area. CommissionerSelich asked for clarification of the number of parcels. Staff answered that the proposed project is on a single parcel and the driveway that is there currently provides access to three parcels. Ms.Temple stated that in checking assessor records and parcel maps it is actually two parcels that look like three in terms of the way the buildings are situated on them. It was determined that the site plan in the packet depictsjust the part of the parcel this project is on. To get access to the remaining portion of the auto facility's parcel and the small parcel next door, there will have to be two (2) additional driveways. Discussions had been held with the realtor who was marketing these parcels and discussion with potential buyers of the other two parcels. The other areas are being marketed as separate parcels. Public Works had been asked and provided a letter to the realtor indicating that the"other half' of this large parcel would be granted an additional driveway because that was a major concern of the property owner. But no access to the third smaller parcel was discussed. If this is truly a single parcel, then a single driveway with multiple use by three entities may be desirable, but given the layout of the site as proposed, may not work. Discussion continued about the possible placement of one driveway in relation to the proposed project and/or the addition of multiple driveways on the large parcel. Public Comment was opened. 11 I ♦ T City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes INDEX October 9, 1997 Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz,3100 West Coast Highway- spoke in favor of this application. He thanked staff for their direction received on this project for the past few months. It,is his objective to have a novel and ,unique drive-through facility and he has spent two (2) ,years in development. The retail design is akin to public art having aesthetic value and sensibility that 'transcends which would be typically encountered in this area of commerce.The appearance of the building With the lighting and landscaping will be aesthetically pleasing. Systems for handling flow and traffic management have been reviewed by hired top traffic engineers in the country to analyze how this site functions. The queuing system has been specifically designed to address one of the basic flaws of fast food. We have the ability to que on site in excess of 32 vehicles. The building has been set back to address the requirements that might happen in the future and created landscape buffers in between that point. The operation dovetails the delivery of the product and service orientation that is expected of this type of approach. There are no speaker boxes nor menu boards. There are people on site who will greet patrons face to face. Newport Beach represents the demographic and density sought to make this business a realty. He concluded'asking Commission to approve this application. CommissionerAdams stated that there has been an apparent change in the operational characteristics. The traffic study indicated that there would be menu boards and now there are not. Where are the menus going to be given to the patrons? The queuing now relies on sixty (60) seconds service time for the initial que. Referencing the exhibit on the wdll,Mr. Rodriguez-Atkatzanswered that it Will happen approximately 100 feet in to the site where the one lone splits to two. It will take approximately, from decision to order time, two to three minutes. Commissioner Adams continued saying that the difference between 60 seconds and 2 and ''/z minutes is huge. If the whole project is based on the 60 second service time for the initial stop how will that huge difference be resolved and can you demonstrate that the queuing at•the first service is adequate? The traffic engineer hired was under the assumption that there was going to be an order board. Now the operation has passing out a menu, looking at the menu and then ordering. Those are two completely different things. 'If,this project was designed based on order boards and the design has not been changed, 1 am concerned with the queuing capacity in the first part of the driveway. When.a patron has ordered,how do they know which pick up lane to go to? He was answered that people on site will direct them to the appropriate lane. Commissioner Adams asked if there was a three dimensional model 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX showing the project and site and was answered that there was not one here tonight at the meeting. He stated that the exhibits on the wall were very confusing. Commissioner Fuller asked if this was the first project and was answered that this is the first one. Commissioner Fuller asked if on the project rendering it was a surf board and was answered that it is a fabric sculpture meant to reflect the maritime and nautical aspect. Discussion continued on the possible placement of a drive through to Avon Street, demographics, efficiency, stacking concerns, number of patrons,concern of number of parcels involved and safety. Commissioner Adams asked staff about the traffic report recommending left turn access out of the project. Were the U-turns at Superior taken into account? Staff answered that the study is based on the assumption that left turns could be done,the conclusions are the same. Mark Vanderzan,Boora Architects,of Portland Oregon- talked about the height of the building as a functional efficiency of the layout of the site. It allows the flow and function to be efficient with direction by professional traffic consultants with a 30% contingency for queuing built into the projections for the needs based on order times. The building has been put up thirteen (13) feet high so that any vehicle could travel underneath it with no conflict of the functional use which necessitated the slightly higher than normal two (2) story building. The mechanical systems and elevator parapet are included. The building has been designed to fit into the Mariners' Mile district. The character is derived from the marine imagery with canopies for shade to customers. They are elaborate works of art and depict boat sails. The main objective is to create something pleasing to the eye with the landscaping. A cost of one million, five hundred thousand dollars is being spent on this project. Commissioner Adams expressed concern regarding the issue of two parcels or one parcel of property. The City may have been misled with regards to what is being proposed here. A separate parcel is not being created or sold or designated for this project? Mr. Vanderzan stated that this issue is with the staff and had been brought up at the pre-application meetings when the process was reviewed as to what might be necessary with that situation,whether the parcels would have to be created or re-delineated. This is a single parcel now and we are leasing the easterly half of this parcel of land. Commissioner Fuller stated his understanding is that there are two parcels, a small parcel and a larger parcel. This is the easterly half of the larger parcel that the proposed project would be built on. 13 1�� ♦ T i 1 • • T � f City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Ms. Temple stated that the Theodore Robins holdings is a lot that is approximately 200 feet of frontage on Coast Highway. This project involves the easterly plus or minus 100 feet of the Theodore Robins holdings. The remaining 100 feet then beyond to the west of these holdings is a separate smaller parcel which does not go through to the dedicated area of Avon Street. All land had been utilized in the past functionallyas a single parcel. Commissioner Ridgeway slated that the westerly parcel,if not a separate parcel but part.of this 200 feet of frontage,how wiltit be-accessed in the future? Mr. Edmonston reiterated that at the meeting with .the Public Works Director and the realior representing the Theodore Robins people,it was understood that there were two parcels. As a result of that, Public Works sent a letter to the realtor indicating that there would be, based on the discussion that day,a second driveway allowed on what was thought to be the westerly parcel. Now,it appears to be the westerly half of the one big parcel. Mr. Rodriguez-Aikaizpresented a copy of this letter (with map) that the reaitorhad given him prior to theirsigning the lease. The letterstates that two drivewayswould be permitted for the property. Commissioner Ridgeway stated the Commission concern of accessing the future parcel. It appears, in looking at the map, that the city engineer has been somewhat misled. This map shows a new twenty-four (24) foot driveway location to be determined. The problem is not the project but this additional driveway which the Commission is trying to prevent. The Commission is concerned with access to the other 100 linear feet on this parcel. Commission needs to resolve this before a determination can be made on the proposed project. CommissionerAdams stated that city staff has told the applicant that the city is okay with two driveways on this parcel back in July. Mr. Edmonston stated that is correct and it was subsequent to that time, after the letterwas sent,he became aware of the Mariners'Mile Advisory Committee and their guidelines to try to reduce the number of driveways. Discussion ensued with design contingencies of the project on site with a center driveway in,the larger parcel. Taken into consideration during the discussion was time and money spent,ingress and egress. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Rodriguez-Aikatz stated he has read and agrees to the findings and conditions of Use Permit No. 3612. He stated' 14 1�� A � City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX that he had read the recommendations of the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee. Public Comment closed. Commissioner Ashley stated that he and Commissioner Fuller were members of the business and citizens planning advisory committee for the Mariners' Mile group. The committee recommended and the city council accepted the following: • reduce number of curb cuts for driveways along Mariners'Mile • consolidate parcels • off-site parking For the applicant to come in now,with the request that Commission deal with only the easterly half of a unified parcel and not know what would be developed on the westerly half would be contrary to what the Mariners'Mile Citizen's Advisory Committee was trying toachieve. Maybe this is a good use, but until such time as to what would happen on the west side,Commission would not know if this was a good or bad use. The group wanted to restrict left turning movements on Coast Highway except at locations where there were signals. This is a very stressful location for this type of use due to the left turning that would be required going over the median strip to enter the facility. Staff has proposed that there be only a right turn out so there would not be a left turn movement going into the opposite direction. The committee was also hoping to promote some form of design without expressing any particular architectural idiom that would be somewhat emblematic of a nautical community. We were hoping to avoid a catch 22 character as there is presently. This design does not appear to be of that intent due to the fact the project represents more curb cuts and left turning movements across a very busy highway at a very stressful location and does not provide any solution for release to Avon Street. The proposed use is very good and should be in Newport Beach, as this is a very innovative idea, but this is the wrong location for that use. Phis just doesn't seem to fit at all with what the committee has recommended to City Council. Mrs. Wood stated that a consultant has recently been retained by the City to address design issues and the contract is to prepare the development framework to establish guidelines for architecture,signage, and public spaces along Mariners'Mile. There is an option in the contract that the city can give them proposed plans for development on private property to review and'make comment on. That is what staff is trying to do with one of the proposed conditions. The timing did not allow staff to give this to them earlier, additionally, these consultants have not been retained.to provide any advice with regards to land use,purely design. 15 l•1� � m City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Discussion ensued on the location of the project on the parcel, unified circulation,serious access issues,extension of Avon Street to the property line, cul-de-sac, basic recommendations of Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee, letter written indicating a second driveway could be allowed, design criteria, time constraints, lease, 'height modification, accommodation of other uses, perpetuating the problems on the highway,concept of a drive through at that location on Coast Highway; minor walk-up service, curb cuts and vested rights. Following the discussion of possible Avon Street extensions and resulting problems, a straw vote of the Commission for support of a premise of a drive-through of this type at this location concluded with 4 Ayes and 3 Noes. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson stated that a continuance would allow concern about drive approach, letter from city engineer and the Mariners'Mile Advisory Committee to be addressed. Just because that letter went out does not mean that the Commission has to approve this project when there are other reasons for denying it. If a continuance is in order it is more specifically in order for an evaluation of the effect,of the drive approach. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to November 61h to allow applicant time to explore possible answers of concerns raised. All Ayes. Public Comment was re-opened. 'Mr. Rodriguez-Atkatz,applicant stated he would not be here today if at the outset of this process he knew he could not gain access to this property or in fact if he knew this use was not appropriate for this location.He concluded stating he does not want a continuance of the application. Chairperson Kronzley stated that the Commission will consider a drive- through on that property, which leaves other questions. The other questions need to be answered. You can say you are not in favor of a., continuance and we will respect that. The only time that there is a ruling on whetherihis is appropriateis at the Planning Commission meeting and their decision can be appealed to the City Council. There has been no indication from the city if this is an appropriate use for that lot. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to deny the application based on the drivewaylocatton. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to deny on the basis that drive-through at this location is an inappropriate land use. 5 16 ��a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Ayes,2 Noes. Motion was made to reconsider the Substitute Motion,All Ayes Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to deny Use Permit No. 3612 based on the revised finding in Exhibit B.-5 Ayes,2 Noes. FINDING: The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 will, 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: • that drive through land use is inappropriateat this site �I.arM.A.1w�ew'u.,Y.rYJr..•.w....ur r,u'uw.'r�-W.w...,n..mwr.rr.nn—r�-v.w... .,-..��vnr.• UBJECT: Activities Incorporated(Kathy Miller,applicant) Item No. 6 501 30th Street Use Permit No. 3614 • Use Permit No.3614 Request t establish a private banquet/conference facility in a space Removed from formerly occ ied by a full service restaurant.The operation will function calendar as a banquet Rldcility,evenings and weekends,for events such as private parties and weddi SW activities which include: • on-site sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages: • a request to wdi e a portion of the required parking: • the use of live en ainment and dancing. Staff has determined that the as lication as submitted is incomplete' since information including but not liKed the hours of operation and specific operational characteristics ave not been adequately presented. Therefore, staff has recom e�nded that this matter be removed from calendar. Once the additionNinformation is submitted, the matter will be rescheduled for public heann and re-noticing of the public hearing will be issued. SUBJECT: Hard Rock Cafe(Ryan MacAfee,applicant) Item No. 7 451 Newport Center Drive Use Permit No. 3615 • Use Permit No.3615 ` Request a change in the operational characteristics of an existing`fy.11 Continued to service restaurant to allow: 11/06/97 17 �a� r *ITY OF NEWPORT BEA* APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Variance No. 6. Satellite Dish 2. Use Permit No. 3612 7. Site Plan Review 3. Zone Amendment/PCA No. 8. Coastal Residential Development 4. Modification No. 9. Specialty Food 5. Amateur Radio Antenna 10. Condominium Conversion Name of Appellant or person filing: TLA Incorporated Phone: (206) 545-9055 Address: 4404 Fremont Avenue N. , Suite 310, Seattle, WA 9,8103 __-- Date of Planning Commission decision: October 9 , 1g 97 Regarding application of: TLA Incorporated for Commission) Use permit, traffic study and application filed with Planning Comml n (Description of ppI g ) p y negative declaration for construction of a drive through sal an . facility - Reasons for Appeal :Denial by the Planning Cnmmission of our appliraf-inn was arbitrary and capricious unsupported by the evidence and otherwise contrary to law. Also Manning staff and applicant had reached agreement on the permit ondi ions FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and.Administrative Fee received: 9'1. Pubr(chearing setfor7:00 p.m., EMI" 19 . Tt-A •.rwt<taf* a ; — ge G Date igtureofAppeil It ✓1��IC�LM� `l(J2�FtkE7y =o €3 C) CITY CLERK 0M m C3 Cl) rn < cc Appellant o tT! Planning(Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) w� A File Dr art APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.040E Appeal Fee: $399 pursuant to Resolution No. 97-17 adopted on 2-10-97 9100 (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account;119W000) 1�a` .4 •�.r w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH ItECE1PTY' 0 = NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 C��ICOP�' '• RECEIPT NUMBER: 02000137846 'RECEIVED BY: * PERRY2 PAYOR: RODRIGUEZ—ATKATZ TODAY 'S DATE: 10/16/97 REGISTER DATE: 10/17/97 TIME: 16: 38:27 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIV APPEAL USE PERMIT #3612 ---------$399_00 TOTAL DUE: $399 .00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANGE $ .00 $399 .00 3806 $399 .00 $ .00 I JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ-ATKATz 1e-2J125a NANCY TARTE ATKATZ 3806 9666 42ND AVE.SW 9 / ArrLE.WA 96136 Y Fay to the order of s 1 $ 3,99 00 SEAFIRSTTn&WA BANK Dollars[]. ; C SEATTIE,WA NiN Valued Client Since 19e3 for R 1: 1250 00 399 i35 �3806 M ' ' MIUM aSCaN.,a»a41tn.MLCUUF� I� F WESLEYNo -TA YLOR CO. "SINC1946" • COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL BROKERAGE • One Civic Plaza Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 714/644-4910 October 22, 1997 FAX 714/640-1539 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.- My name is Wesley N. Taylor. I am a commercial real estate broker in my 52nd consecutive year of active commercial real estate brokerage, development, and property management in Southern California, the past 29 year's in Newport Beach. During this past 52 years I have been engaged in hundreds of complex property transactions which have given me knowledge and expertise which is valuable to the community which I serve. One of my valued clients, Robins Properties, Theodore Robins, Jr., General Partner, owns the two properties located at 3100 and 3150 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach. Theodore Robins, Sr., now deceased, was a Ford dealer on.the Peninsula starting in 1921. In January 1949 Mr. Robins, Sr. purchased the property located at 3150 West Coast Hghway from Crawford and Essig, a copy of that Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The subject property was the westerly portion of what was originally shown on a 1938 map as one parcel. The legal description in,the,Deed describes the entire parcel "Excepting therefrom the southeasterly 100 feet,"which means that Robins purchased only one half. This sale of the westerly one half thus created two separate parcels, then owned by two separate owners--Robins on the west 100 feet and Crawford and Essig on the east 100 feet. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the map clearly showing the land divided into two lots,Parcel 82 and Parce185. For many years Mr. Robins owned and occupied his westerly 100 foot Parcel-85 as an automobile sales and service facility. Sometime around 1955 Mr. Robins, Sr. purchased the easterly Parcel 82 which, added to his Parcel 85, gave him a frontage of 200 feet on West Coast Idighway. He then constructed a new,showroom, offices, and shops on the newly acquired Parcel 82 wherein he operated Theodore Robins Ford sales and service. Theodore-Robins, Jr., now President of Theodore Robins Ford, was a student at that time and has no knowledge as to exact dates. The business records of 40-50 years ago are no longerin existence. Theodore Robins Ford grew and prospered.inthat location, producing a good living for the family and generating very substantial sales tax revenue for the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Robins became a very prominent Newport,Beach citizen, active in public affairs and a generous contributor to local charities. lad n • -2- • October 22, 1997 The business outgrew the facility of 1+acre. In the mid-1960s, in order to meet the requirements of Ford Motor Co., Mr. Robins found it necessary to build a new facility on a 9.6 acre site on Harbor Boulevard, there not being such land available on Coast Highway in the area designated by Ford Motor Co. who requires that its dealers be centrally located in the area they serve under the Ford franchise. The two lots on West Coast Highway were subsequently leased to other automobile dealers who also generated substantial sales tax revenue for the City. Unfortunately over expansion and the recession forced Newport Imports,Mr.Robins'last tenant, to file bankruptcy. This action and the lack of availability of any automotive product that could support the facility has caused the property to be vacant for the past three years, costing Robins Properties over$1,200,000 in lost rent, taxes, insurance, etc. During the past two years I have personally conducted an extensive and expensive marketing program in an effort to find one suitable tenant for both lots. We have proven that there is not a market for 44,300 square feet of land on Pacific Coast Highway at this time. This condition dictated that Robins Properties must now lease each lot separately or leave the land and old deteriorating buildings vacant, which neither Robins or the City wants to see. In November 1996 we entered into negotiations with TLA, Inc. for a restaurant facility on the easterly Parcel 82. The developer, TLA, Inc., has worked with all involved departments of the City and has complied with 41 requirements relative to the new facility. I am advised that each department has approved the project and Planning has recommended same. I was told that at the Planning Commission hearing on the project the Commission was going to turn the project down because it would create two driveways on Robins two lots. When TLA, Inc. produced a letter issued by the City granting the approval for a 35 foot driveway on Parcel 82 and a 24 foot driveway on Parcel 85. 1 am told they said, "We will have to find another way to disapprove." Needless to say this was most upsetting to TLA,Inc. who had complied with all requirements of all City departments. TLA, Inc. was told that the Robins property is one lot. The City map attached hereto as Exhibit C shows it as two parcels. There may be a map that shows it as one parcel. Mr. Robins has no knowledge as to who attempted to show it as one lot when since his ownership it has been two lots, each purchased separately several years apart. Based on these facts Robins Properties, the owner of both lots, respectfully requests that the City approve the TLA, Inc. project in its present form. Respectfully submitted, Wesley N. Taylor WNT:yd Encl. lay x,Ll vlall OR-9733882 L.epwpe Cntm+unllcw TITLE OFFICER JAMBS ' First American Title Insurance Company J 14 Hast bifth Street. (P.O. Bux 267) Santa Ann. Califurnia 92702 (714) 558.3211 T71e Tull:Imurance Cumnuuucut lu a legal codtmct between you anti the evinpany. It I%I uctl to-%hllw the ham"ur whuh we mill muc a *title Imuramr Pulley to you The Policy will inure)un agamo cermm rl%k% u+ the I.nJ clue. Subject to lite limitations shown clt tilt PIIIIL'y. Tile Company will plce you a almple ill the Pulley form. if)ou a.-sA Thu Commitment I.ItnrJ au lite Mild tide as of the('olnullmtcnt Date An) changes In the land title or the tmnsamton may affect the Cuucludwenl alul the PAN). Iltc Ct+mmumcnt I.whiny ill m Rcyuirclucllu•L•"crplwuc and CuaddimIN THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT TAPLF.,OFCONTENTS Pa4r AGREVIAHNT MANNCh POLICY I CONDITIONS SCHRM.I.F.A I Collinumtetn Date 3 !. PulmcN It,be rweJ.Amauuu nnJ Pruposcd In.urcJ4 3 t Interco in the land.nd Owner 3 4. Desrnpclnn of the 1 ind J SCHEDULE B-I --Regdtrculenls SCHEDULE B-2—L'a.epuuns YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITKENT VERY CAREFULLY, If you hmr alp tiaotlium about the CJlllllllhnclll,please"olllatl tilt Issuing Office. offXHIBIr q 1908 12-31-4948 (0060 219109) 1-11-1949 1785/127429 Reliable Lumber Andrew W. Crawford, a Incorporated, a Calif and man, an undiv $ Corp -int, and Norman J. Essig, a and man, an undiv j int City of Newport Beach X That pta of Lot 'IF' of "Tract No. 9199, I•iap in 29/31 to 34 incl of MM, records of 000, Calif, daf: Beg at a pt in the NEly In of the California State {� Highway as shown on ad Map which is the SEly oor of 6U that otn parcel of Id coned to Gordon B. Findlay and ,t others by dd roe 3-30-37 in 873/395 of OR; th SEly 1 0 alg ad NEly In of ad California State Highway, a distance of 200 ft; th N 130 451 E alg a In which is paral to the SEly In of ad 1d Convd to Gordon B. Findlay and others, 237.50 ft-to the NEly In of ad Lot wF ; th NWly aig ad NEly in of ad Lot uFN, 199.96 t ft to the NEly cor of ad 1d convd to Gordon B: 'Findlay, and others; th S 130 451 W 235.27 ft to the pot �C��'K Exeg therefm the SEly 100 ft. — •� „ y (Cont. 1) 1009 12-28-194-9 (OCOTC0 218109) DEED 1-11--1949 1785/132-133 r. Andrew W. Crawford and Theodore Robins and Hazel E. CCrrawford, h/w, Mae Robins, h/w, as and jt tons , r>>• Norman J. Essig and El Marie Essig, h/w City of Newport Beach Dose same as X to X in dd dtd 12-311-4S, exec by i Reliable Lumber Incorporated to .Andrew W. Crawford and Norman J. Essig. File No. 3 QQO Subj to 2nd half taxes for f/y 194-9-49. P 9ubJ also to Corr and rta/w ojr. recoi'd: The SEly 100 ft of ad 1d is also subj to a D/T of record, sec one note in favor of Reliable Lumber Incorporated, having an uppaid krkm prin balance of f10.00 Sig.• - ok in - pLW 447.30 ck. '- ok 8 . Lo7-5 6, G opM TiPAc7' N .�'/� M.M. R9�-1.92 39x.04c I @ OCRAM OR/ La -� -- - SP N-fA AN .• ...� 1 l � � • .ram....... � ':t d p•/�1 .�, • I C•i' by �. ti I • NV-`� �t'�1 .�.-� '"r. ��- - • ' l - V w� 2--_ 1�/ _ .. SEE SHEET . sr•e. - inn .n•r .n eA , 1 1 orx9� e � r�•<r•,wrNrtr U ifs';r!9 1 E5 8' O I -max ,mn y ews 1�1 cl B 1� rac11 1 1 i las gam.} 1 NIGHWA ,y 1."°" ,ao' e`la;a1: 1�1• ;' ; ; 1 M•-� �"'✓°' 1 1- ':�TnP• I:z a: V`�1 1 1' 1 IT' 1 1 ' y\ '� ?� - re 1.m„• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4� = •1 �4 N^� .nn�ra,/• ; '.m' l;e 1•ry 1 i 1 I i l , 9I91 1 1 1C O-\ �r Q$ '�C 'ste��4V -vra:' ar voro 11� 1'n'a• 1 1 ; 1 l 1 Ili; 1 1 ' !.R �RBeL•'y'T' 1, , 177 Nrtc 1 h' 1�5� I srn• 1 1 1 1 1 .: roo' , 915 1 t`o , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p•.W �RE 1 '� 2 C iv /JfI) `vrti 1 I Iry r 1� -�a 1 Ifwea 1 LINE � ORAD "CL I m` ;;II;`K�rU07 uL d' .3 TRP� � Ss3g `I,P.M./99I3j; _ , L--� ,. LINE qa t°*1 I91010 ° •. 9. NEWPOPT e hK ra4eT C.R 04TE REC R4MM 4NT 4 USE ///7G GRUFF/J4 C/TY EMT RU. (J� j , onl O /373 T<3 /-/9-QG Y4C A 70 LEY.EMr \ 907 CH6Th/d -/9-dG /TY /FF/TN 6MT. PU 1 07 90 3 -//-d6 R/FF/TN C/TY EMT. RU. ///% 17191110A 1 07 d G 9- _ L: 4L. 54K F'EC ST 907 n 9-/0- G acv 907 3Gd//3 9-/2-ea R/FF/JR 907 Gd/ Tp 9-/T- 6 T. g"M, 907 d561 • 907 •b6//TT/ /0-0-50 6A/FF/JN •• GMT 5.0. O T06/ TTd /0-2-60 - T 6 ��� T � S 1 N 3G/ //O 2•'X•-30 T./. EMT •yT.d•R U. • ^ r = M E T R O S C A N PROPERTY P R O F I L E = - Orange (CA) * <<< OWNERSHIP INFORMATION >>> * Parcel Number :049 110 05 * Owner :Robins Properties * CoOwner * Site Address :3100 W Coast Hwy Newport Beach 92663 * Mail Address :2060 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa Ca 92627 * Phone :Owner:714-642-4521 Tenant:714=644-1413 --------------- * <<< SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION >>> * Transferred :02/14/78 Loan Amount * Document # :12564-1791 Lender * Sale Price Loan Type * Deed Type Interest Rate * Owned Vesting Type * * * S« ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION >>> * * I * Land :$422,136 Exempt Type * Structure :$94,452 Exempt Amount * Other Tax Rate Area :07001 i * Total :$516,588 Taxes :$5,341.82 * 1; Imprd :18 * <<< PROPERTY DESCRIPTION >>> * Map Grid :888 H6 * Census :Tract:634.00 Block:4 * Land Use :19 Com,Auto Sales * Legal :TR 919 LOT F ELY 100 FT WLY 520 FT * :-EX HWY- AND ELY 100 FT WLY 420 FT * :-EX HWY- * * * <<< PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS >>> * Bedrooms Stories :1 Lot Acres :1.00 * Bathrooms Units Lot SgFt :43,560 * Total Rooms Pool :No Bldg SgFt :1,630 * Air Cond :No Garage Type : YearBuilt :1954 * Heating GarageSpace : B1dgStyle * Fireplace Spa Wall Matl * Dining Room : Family Room AtticType * 3a * Living Room : Den * V * The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliahle Ant TS Not r1laranrPPd. - ne.a re• 1 Iq IT � L_---� AVON,67 j 10 '�• I 31 ��� I F® e a J I I I I /2O A`P M12)-9 h w pVON IB54AC/r/ Lor r f Nd 91.91 i R P. PAN 1 O 1 1 y y ♦ A 1 1 ---o-� rr O � , °°/ •Ooz HIGHWAY P 0 y� # _ 3 S PR O � � m BL�plt� , 55E.y6/�gOpB 13 PpP•�O m z ' TR. NO. 919 M.M. 29-32 NOTE -ASSESSOR'S BLOCK B ASSESSOR'S MAP /. /RV/NE SUB. M.M. /-88 PARCEL NUMBERS MARCH 1949 PARCEL MAP P.M. 60-23,227-9 BOOK 49 PAGE SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE 9 ��- 4:,yY'•,,,•1's. (.+'!.^, 'r;;"AA,,i__`i�°•in',•:�A C:•y '�(. " :.i 1 "Yi'::.�,;.:•:+i•.:„,y;ls',, . . .. t•'y1" ;.r,i�',,'.1," ,'t•„• , ' ';a[a0}101Nu',p�OUt[ikd .; •r•. •.i, „ y,ir:• t`;•'�;;' . . .. :%: .' •.:Y r •'l^ PdtCaT'.No\?,0 Yi)r,.Y,��. _ , ,\•: • IS' • '• ...,';,:'. ' ..Noa+�p�i•9e�jA�Csh�i CA1'iL y'/Ad,,Ntr'�,•iw'171N,'Z`:;TikR6R ;J.�r<'� ., f�' �'��9U"rii..i.'"i .�,•\'r.'I': ��Ii:Jc74f,[! (J 4•'t'4:}�, r AVY l.M1Y,Arcbbblb Mnll lY , • �,,, ' i.:`' '.. �: \ , '♦, •• N4C{SPULD IN'OrFICIAL ACCORDS RtiTAH,I'.TUCNen. . 51,00• D.VRMIOCCOVNTY,CALIFORNIA . 402.Givir Qenter�Driv 'HDa•t ,��"Cl,::: ,•• •i 4 ` ; • i:'x:' •9 iPiAFE: '1M1 197b ; SirJnKa 1\na; Falifors+Sn•92702 I ;°„„; •' ,.•� . '�1;WYLIr;!„il:.,[ira:y,6ur7der,� � 1 , «: Robins :Properties. • "'"" '•2060 flarbor Hou e4ard' '• .. •' + 'I+«; Costa:Mepa;:'Cal 'fornla: .. •• �Y..L. S"ACC ADOVL' TNIa LINE rOn nCCORDCn'� UOL , .e Individual;Grant Doed , '[++'+.•,u rur••,r, u iIYO rOF«I(IF{+grrlUtlV\ICUrI(IILe rM\UPAMb .,F« ••+' .T)le unden)ghed•gnutuAah dedpreL•): � � � •• .�� ' • " 'Dhcumehtnq••irehnfer Jai In S,:n." "_�0-.: '•�!F^" �' ('•:_ .( ) enmpolnl on IRIIsolRr.df,F:}q«rly evnreyedt :.',w:' ';�' •• `•�.� t +• I• I tomple't 04-full V0111e Ia.vulot of Iie1V rind VIII'linlhtm«es,renlnil1111F 111 thnr;&$air. _ ' • •^ ��:• '••(•) ,llidnrorporated arch•'( •! Ciy.YI,:.. ;..,_..__ �... _ .__.___...».._�,and ; i,;•'.-,, "-61 A VALUXdI.F CONSi DtHATION, reeeipi u( whirh A I«relry acknowledged. ;�"•�=�� � +•Thepdorc•Robins,•:Jri, Mac Rtlbins 'and Mary Robins h'rrchv.GIlKKrISI to ' . 8OD.fiS- PROP ERTI139, a-dal(forpia limited••partnerbitip, • ,'• .:;(� .;Ilie I411pwing drirrihed reAl,prnp,efty in the • .., • • ' •i rvt:: :Coy of '""Oren " -.',t• ' ,St[Ir.of California:nt ra.MY ge:: -i ' i ss!,., 717at,pgrtioli�of TnC "F.d.of Tract �No. 919, in;the.City, 'of•Newport beach;Clxilfty of Oranges+, .; State of Cyyllfornia;.aa per'tn3p recorded in•Doo1c pgg31,•to'•34, inclusive; of • —== ,::•,:% MieliellnneWi,Maps in the,office'of the county recorder of"said county,described asp',,':' Deginniricj'at-4 poiht'in the 'northeauterly line of; tho'California'$tate HigtiWay, as i shown on said.map, which'is,;thrsoukheasterlV,cornc7:,'of'the-land conveyed to Gordan D.. Fildley,and'tithers ty deed ratccdad,Hardn'•30,'1937yI fiot '873,,Page 395, of Official- `�.> 'Records'r.•rhtnl:e'sobtheastarly:2t10:09%f6et aloogosaid twrthcasterlygrr eS—J' t*hai mrrtH"•-' ,, ,� '13°d5'00•,`Fbsf:23Z:•SO-fL'"et parallel••.with th/i'cbpttieasterly,lfn@ of.said land of>Fdndlap •. ... ;. aod'others;;to, norttwasterlyline;cf•Raid•1'otJ_thencOnoCtht`'asterly199.96feet ;,, , `, along Said'noithi 'terly;litle•t, ,the northoasterly;;cornbr:of'said land of PindlQy_and,i;-, •tx bthe--. thence th'13e4�'00"• st.'135.27 feet to,the potht of-*inning.'Said lan0•ia ',;��. • ; s'ho bn'a Ilap.-filed-ln'Uock:9; page.14, of"ttecbtd-bf'Surveys,• in tho off f,said. Ccunty,Ttemrf7oe, (310Q;p7eeC Coast tflghway;'NL++port Oea allf ia. •,' "; : P61r'd: .,xs :%�,.;,,r i•-i-"/..•'_�•, 'i:w.. sod R na�,'J�, •.• •+Ts 79;al'li\L1Fi:IINIA"" • " ,.t,�• _ 1'I GQ i ^h . :•/' .•COI:N'fipbp' .OBE: `L: j •. .r, ..a•_• •'. t• IL(u�r nvaLr wider r:. e O Ra' •' ,�.r�.��''•. ;d.i ..i„J[m�lsb Ndlir/YOhllr"In P�m1.lri rl�lLieit:Pl.•n+Ili.•pprurN • {`` ;:. 'G•,..�:::v 1 i l .u. , :r_.T)ieodo' bins,.•J:r •. -t.'_:: _ _n'�___.: .a}' .::. ••` ,i: ` ,rAAQ. pblti9_dnd' - -";dr"' '� :r:a•:••^••r_.: •t . ii •�:;;In In lhr,IrJ ns.-.•rhp.n um ihaylnr;rllr;d.(n lLr,wlllnd,it ... i, '.n,v •..r .4m ium•n1 bnd rtlonYGdltAl'IJrrt1,.n:.;.. .:ri•rn(nl Ilw.«nr, ' '".+`•,%F•�• ' 11: i A11tiFa�nn!land uall bOrrbl.nl,• , '/ -OFFICIAL aL•Aln , .. •I, E. SUE aRUENING'1 ,.• n ' •. 'I s�t�. !+' '( .l i'' ,:.'�•, '•+ M07(•R'e r Istalt 'AtaORNIA' ' • h' • '„ t bi4ASr LMINIT +•.•• '�'� ''ri:.' '�fw',-..R/an111.aWn Wi 2t,I111' �: 1i:, ei.�: T. '�.7:•=.. i :( '.. pp C (� �,... ,av+-trw+.+•",n>T.•os,a• 1:•:(;t'i):i .\•IILQ.�.,,�1:r:,:1 ,jy'Iuw7�:+Y a{Mnitl F,ll , •'K'�P �eL, Mai� ,.i •• •J •1, un,. �:,. :(i i J 1• ��� •.•Tilln•URler Nr'r,•, _ -,,..�` -- _ .4•,I':,MniYl•irr.l+mh'Ni,:: , --�'—•.�L�ii=i�:• +.'r•:, H({J '7i, ,;r `"t,"••r]` MAIL�TA%';5TA7EME1JTS AS OIAEETED:AaOVEt•r +iv City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX SUBJECT: TLA Restaurant (Jonathan Rodriquez-Atkatz, Item,No. 5 applicant) Use Permit No. 3612 A 3100 West Coast Highway TS No. 112 • Use Permit No.3612 and • Traffic Study No. 112 The project involves a use permit, a traffic study and a negative declaration, to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story Denied drive-through restaurant facility with a 300 sq. ft. storage building and related off-street parking.The applications include the following requests: • waive a portion of the required off-street parking. • allow an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical equipment screen to exceed the maximum area of 25 square feet permitted by the Municipal Code. • a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element,32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. • waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Staff presented the report stating that this project involves demolition of certain buildings on Coast Highway which are currently vacant and formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. The proposed project would occupy 50% of the site. This proposed project is unique in that it has no walk-up or on-site dining, no alcoholic beverage sales and high turn-over drive-through service only, resulting in no patron parking demand. The stacking lanes will be the patron parking, with consideration given to the capacity and ability to sustain demand for the facility. Parking will be provided for the employees. A key issue is the access and on-site circulation. Concern has been raised regarding a sole access driveway for patron usage for both ingress and egress. Due to anticipated conflicts of a dual left turn lane serving the site,access into the property from a left turn on east bound Coast Highway could be accommodated,but if so, an exiting movement left turn to east bound Coast Highway would be conflicting and create a safety hazard. Public Works has therefore strongly recommended that left turn movement be precluded. This proposed project will conduct order processing through menus distributed by on-site employees with no speaker boxes. To ensure new development be designed to maintain the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee recommendations,a condition has been included to have this project reviewed by a design consulting team retained by the City for the Mariners Mile area. 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX ign). Moton was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to October23td. Withou objection,the motion carried by acclamation. SUBJECT: Revised Regulations to allow convenience Item No.3 markets in conjunction with service stations A No.863 (Continued-Public Hearing) An amendment to Chapter 20.80 and Chapter 20.03 of Title 20 of the item tabled and Municipal Code to update regulations for service stations and to allow referred to Committee the co-development o�convenience markets and eating and drinking establishments, Motion was made by Corn issioner Selich to table this item and refer it to Committee to address corn lex concerns raised in the staff report. Without objection,the motion car \edby acclamation. SUBJECT: Harbor View Item No.4 • General Plan Arqendment No. 97-2 GPA No. 97-2 • Amendment No865 Amendment No.865 • Development Agreent No. 11 D A No. 11 Amendments to the General Plan, a pre-zone c�mendment; d Planned Continued to Community District development plan, and a de elopment agreement 10/23/97 .for the Harbor View North area (formerly Bonito Vill •ge) to establish pre- annexation entitlements in association with the pro• osed'detachment of this area from the City of Irvine ar =tld to the City of Newport Beach. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continu this item to October2ad. Without objection,the motion carried by acclamation. • k• 9 I�- City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Iri response to Commission inquiry, Mrs. Wood commented that the city has no design review authority. The Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee felt that if the city could provide some advice, keeping in mind the overall goals of the Mariners'Mile area,that there might be compliance. Commissioner Ridgeway asked about the twelve (12) foot right of way for the widening of Coast Highway. What would be the impact of stacking on this proposed site? Staff answered that the project has been designed with those setbacks provided,but the actual dedication is not being required except through a lease hold commitment. At Commission inquiry,discussion continued on restrictions,placements of exits and entrances. The conditions of the project make it clear if at some point later on that patrons complain about the inability to make a left turn, Public Works will not change that condition due to the safety factors. A U-turn can be done at the intersection that services Hoag Hospital and Balboa Coves. One of the concerns of the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee is the number of driveways in the area. CommissionerSelich asked for clarification of the number of parcels. Staff answered that the proposed project is on a single parcel and the driveway that is there currently provides access to three parcels. Ms.Temple stated that in checking assessor records and parcel maps it is actually two parcels that look like three in terms of the way the buildings are situated on them. It was determined that the site plan in the packet depictsjust the part of the parcel this project is on. To get access to the remaining portion of the auto facility's parcel and the small parcel next door, there will have to be two (2) additional driveways. Discussions had been held with the realtor who was marketing these parcels and discussion with potential buyers of the other two parcels. The other areas are being marketed as separate parcels. Public Works had been asked and provided a letter to the realtor indicating that the "other half' of this large parcel would be granted an additional driveway because that was a major concern of the property owner. But no access to the third smaller parcel was discussed. If this is truly a single parcel, then a single driveway with multiple use by three entities may be desirable, but given the layout of the site as proposed, may not work. Discussion continued about the possible placement of one driveway in relation to the proposed project and/or the addition of multiple driveways on the large parcel. Public Comment was opened. 11 City of Newport Beach 'Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz,3100 West Coast Highway-spoke in favor of this application. He thanked staff for their direction received on this project for the past few months. It is his objective to have a novel and unique drive-through facility and he has spent two (2) years in development. The�retait design is akin to public art having aesthetic value and sensibility that transcends which would be typically encountered in this area of commerce.The appearance of the building with the lighting and landscaping will be aesthetically pleasing. Systems for handling flow and traffic management have been reviewed by hired top traffic engineers in the country to analyze how this site functions. The queuing system has been specifically designed to address one of the basic flaws of fast food. We have the ability to que on site in excess of 32 vehicles. The building has been set back to address the requirements that might happen in the future and created landscape buffers in between that point. The operation dovetails the delivery of the product and service orientation that is expected of this type of approach. There are no speaker boxes nor menu boards. There are people on site who will greet:patrohsface to face. Newport Beach representsthe demographic, and density sought to make this business a realty. He concluded asking Commission to approve this application. CommissionerAdams stated that there has been an apparent change in the operational characteristics. The traffic study indicated that there would be menu boards and now there are not. Where are the menus going to be given to the patrons? The queuing now relies on sixty (60) seconds service time for the initial que. Referencing the exhibit on the wall,Mr.Rodriguez-Atkatzanswered that it will happen approximately 100 feet in to the site where the one lane splits to two. It will take approximately, from decision to order time, two to three minutes. Commissioner Adams continued saying that the difference between 60 seconds and 2 and i/2 minutes is huge. If the whole project is based on the 60 second service time for the initial stop how will that huge difference be resolved and can you demonstrate that the queuing at the first service is adequate? The traffic engineer hired was under the assumption that there was going to be an order board. Now the operation has passing out a menu, looking at the menu and then ordering. Those are two completely different things. If this project was designed based on order boards and the design has not been changed, I am concerned with the queuing capacity in the first part of the driveway. When a patron has ordered,how do theyknow which pickup lane to go to? He was answered that people on site will direct them to the appropriate lane. Commissioner Adams asked if there was a three dimensional model 12 , City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX showing the project and site and was answered that there was not one here tonight at the meeting. He stated that the exhibits on the wall were very confusing. Commissioner Fuller asked if this was the first project and was answered that this is the first one. Commissioner Fuller asked if on the project rendering it was a surf board and was answered that it is a fabric sculpture meant to reflect the maritime and nautical aspect. Discussion continued on the possible placement of a drive through to Avon Street, demographics, efficiency, stacking concerns, number of patrons,concern of number of parcels involved and safety. Commissioner Adams asked staff about the traffic report recommending left turn access out of the project. Were the U-turns at Superior taken into account? Staff answered that the study is based on the assumption that left turns could be done,the conclusions are the same. Mark Vanderzan,Boora Architects,of Portland Oregon-talked about the height of the building as a functional efficiency of the layout of the site. It allows the flow and function to be efficient with direction by professional traffic consultants with a 30% contingency for queuing built into the projections for the needs based on order times. The building has been put up thirteen (13) feet high so that any vehicle could travel underneath it with no conflict of the functional use which necessitated the slightly higher than normal two (2) story building. The mechanical systems and elevatorparapet are included. The building has been designed.to fit into the Mariners' Mile district. The character is derived from the marine imagery with canopies for shade to customers. They are elaborate works of art and depict boat sails. The main objective is to create something pleasing to the eye with the landscaping. A cost of one million, five hundred thousand dollars is being spent on this project. Commissioner Adams expressed concern regarding the issue of two parcels or one parcel of property. The City may have been misled with regards to what is being proposed here. A separate parcel is not being created or sold or designated for this project? Mr. Vanderzan stated that this issue is with the staff and had been brought up at the pre-application meetings when the process was reviewed as to what might be necessary with that situation,whether the parcels would have to be created or re-delineated. This is a single parcel now and we are leasing the easterly half of this parcel of land. Commissioner Fuller stated his understandingis that there are two parcels, a small parcel and a larger parcel. This is the easterly half of the larger parcel that the proposed projectwould be built on. 13 i • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Ms. Temple stated that the Theodore Robins holdings is a lot that is approximately 200 feet of frontage on Coast Highway. This project involves the easterly plus or minus 100 feet of the Theodore Robins holdings. The remaining 100 feet then beyond to the west of these holdings is a separate smaller parcel which does not go through to the dedicated area of Avon Street. All land had been utilized in the past functionallyas a single parcel. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the westerly parcel,if not a separate parcel but part of this 200 feet of frontage;how will it be accessed in the future? Mr. Edmonston reiterated that at the meeting with the Public Works Director and the realtor representing the Theodore Robins people,it was understood that there were two parcels. As a result of that, Public Works sent a letter to the realtor indicating that there would be, based on the discussion that day,a second driveway allowed on what was thought to be the westerly parcel. Now,it appears to be the westerly half of the one big parcel. Mr. Rodriguez-Atkatz presented a copy of this letter (with map),that the realtor had given him prior to theirsigning the lease. The letterstates that two drivewayswould be permitted for the property. Commissioner Ridgeway stated the Commission concern of accessing the future parcel. It appears, in looking at the map, .that the city engineer has been somewhat misled. This map shows a new twenty-four (24) foot driveway location to be determined. The problem is not the project but this additional driveway Which the Commission is trying to prevent. The Commission is concerned with access to -the other 100 linear feet on this parcel. Commission needs to resolve this before a determination can be made on the proposed project. Commissioner Adams stated that city staff has told the applicant that the city is okay with two driveways on this parcel back in July. Mr. Edmonston stated that is correct and it was subsequent to that time, after the letter was,sent,he-became aware of the Mariners'Mile Advisory Committee and their guidelines to try to reduce the number of driveways. Discussion ensued with design contingencies of the project on site with a center driveway in thedarger parcel. Taken into consideration during the discussion was time and money spent,ingress and egress. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Rodriguez-Atkatz stated he has read and agrees to the findings and conditions of Use Permit No. 3612. He stated 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX that he had read the recommendations of the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee. Public Comment closed. Commissioner Ashley stated that he and Commissioner Fuller were members of the business and citizens planning advisory committee for the Mariners' Mile group. The committee recommended and the city council accepted the following: • reduce number of curb cuts for driveways along Mariners'Mile • consolidate parcels • off-site parking For the applicant to come in now,with the request that Commission deal with only the easterly half of a unified parcel and not know what would be developed on the westerly half would be contrary to what the Mariners'Mile Citizen's Advisory Committee was trying to achieve. Maybe this is a good use, but until such time as to what would happen on the west side,Commission would not know if this was a good or bad use. The group wanted to restrict left turning movements on 'Coast Highway except at locations where there were signals. This is a very stressful location for this•type of use due to the left turning that would be required going over the median strip to enter the facility. Staff has proposed that there be only a right turn out so there would not be a left turn movement going into the opposite direction. The committee was also hoping to promote some form of design without expressing any particular architectural idiom that would be somewhat emblematic of a nautical community. We were hoping to avoid a catch 22 character as there is presently. This design does not appear to be of that intent due to the fact the project represents more curb cuts and left turning movements across a very busy highway at a very stressful location and does not provide any solution for release to Avon Street. The proposed use is very good and should be in Newport Beach, as this is a very innovative idea, but this is the wrong location for that use. This just doesn't seem to fit at all with what the committee has recommended to City Council. Mrs. Wood stated that a consultant has recently been retained by the City to address design issues and the contract is to prepare the development framework to establish guidelines for architecture,signage, and public spaces along Mariners'Mile. There is an option in the contract that the city can give them proposed plans for development on private property to review and make comment on. That is what staff is trying to do with one of the proposed conditions. The timing did not allow staff to give this to them earlier, additionally, these consultants have not been retained to provide any advice with regards to land use,purely design. 15 City of Newport Beach ,Planning Commission Minutes ` October 9, 1997 INDEX Discussion ensued on the location of the project on the parcel, unified circulation,serious-access issues,extension of Avon Street to the property line, cul-de-sac, basic recommendations of Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee, letter written indicating a second driveway could be allowed, design criteria, time constraints, lease, height modification, accommodation of other uses, perpetuating the problems on the .highway,concept of a drive through at that location on Coast Highway, minor walk-up service, curb cuts and, vested rights. Following the discussion of possible Avon Street extensions and resulting,problems, a straw vote of the Commission for support of a premise of a drive-through of this type at this location concluded with 4 Ayes and 3 Noes. Assistant City Attorney Robin Ciauson stated that a continuance would allow concern about drive approach, letter from city engineer and the Mariners' Mile Advisory Committee to be addressed. Just because that letter went out does not mean that the Commission has to approve this project when there ore other reasons for denying it. If a continuance is in order it is more specifically in order for an,evaluation of,the effect of the drive approach. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to November 6th to allow applicant time to explore possible answers of concerns raised. All Ayes. Public Comment was re-opened. Mr. Rodriguez-Atkatz,applicant stated'he would not be here today if at the outset of this process he knew he could not gain access to this property or in fact if he knew this use was not appropriate for this location.He concluded-stating he does not want a continuance of the application. Chairperson Kranziey stated that the Commission will consider a drive- through on that property, which leaves other questions. The other .questions need to be answered. You can say you are not in favor of a continuance and We will respect that. The only time that there is a ruling on whether this is appropriate is at the Planning Commission meeting and their decision can be appealed to the City Council. There has been no indication from the city if this is an appropriate use for that lot. Public Commentwas closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to deny the application' basedon the driveway location. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to deny on the basis that drive-through at this location is an inappropriate land use. 5 16 r ' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1997 INDEX Ayes,2 Noes. Motion was made to reconsiderthe Substitute Motion,All Ayes Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to deny Use Permit No. 3612 based on the revised finding in Exhibit B.-5 Ayes,2 Noes. FINDING: The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 will, 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: • that drive through land use is inappropriate at this site •rw nmwf+wvs�+wn�em�Y.+�4.r- SUBJECT: Activities Incorporated(Kathy Miller,applicant) Item No. 6 501 30th Street Use Permit No. 3614 • Use Permit No.3614 Request to'estabiish a private banquet/conference facility in a space Removed from formerly occupied by a full service restaurant.The operation will function calendar as a banquet facility,evenings and weekends,for events such as private parties and weddingswith activities which include: • on-site sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages; • a request to waive,a portion of the required parking; • the use of live entertainment and dancing. Staff has determined that the application as submitted is incomplete since information including but not limited to the hours of operation and specific operational characteristics have not been adequately presented. Therefore, staff has recomr�bnided that this matter be removed from calendar. Once the additionalµinformation is submitted, the matter will be rescheduled for public hearingtan noticing of the public hearing will be issued. �4 SUBJECT: Hard Rock Cafe(Ryan MacAfee,applicant) Item No. 7 451 Newport Center Drive a Use Permit No. 3615 • Use Permit No.3615 Request a change in the operational characteristics of an existing' ull Continued to service restaurant to allow: 11/06/97 17 �I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes ' October 9, 1997 INDEX \reqh facility to provide live entertainment cessationof regular meal service prior to the closingof the aurant and operation of the facility as a bar/nightclub alcoholic beverage service as the principal purpose from t time until closing ,this item was continued to November 6th,All Ayes General Plan Amendment97-3 ItemNo. 8 GPA No. 97-3 ate a amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Pro ram, Land Use Plan, as follows: A. 3300-3333 is Lido Recommended for B. Office Site kV/Koll Center Newport initiation C. Newport Villa a/NewportCenter D. Four Seasons HVel/Newport Center E. The Pacific Club/ oll Center Newport F, Newport Dunes Motion was made by Commission r Ridgeway to recommended for initiation General Plan Amendment97\,AIIAyesADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a.) City Council Follow-up-Oral re Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related i\planning - Mrs. Wood reported that at the September 22nd meting, the Ordinance Amendment for Mixed Use/Business Hours was called up and will be considered at the meeting of October and Council directed staff to proceed with written agre m ents with the County on the property tax exchange, the Coun�y Fire Authority and pre-annexation agreements with the Irvine Cqmpany. The City Manager has spoken with Mr.Jones who has ac Eeed to fund' a lighting designer consultant to give advice on hoN a resolve the problem of the lighting on their new complex in response to the many letters received by the City. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding the appr1l of Outdoor Dining Permits, Planning Director's Use Perrk'ts, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permits - Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit was issued for 102 McFadden Place; 18 fi�_o CITY OF NEV&T BEACH Hearin ate: October 9, 1997 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia sso NEWPORT BOULEVARD 644-3206 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 Appeal Period: 14 days (714)644-320 ;FAX(714)644-3250 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Rodriquez-Atkatz,applicant) 3100 West Coast Highway PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The project involves the approval of a use permit, a traffic study and a negative declaration,to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two- story drive-through restaurant facility with a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking.The applications include the following requests: • waive a portion of the required off-street parking. • allow an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical equipment screen to exceed the maximum area of 25 square feet permitted by the Municipal Code. • a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. • waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ACTION: Approve,modify or deny: • UsePeru:itNo. 3612, • Traffic Study No. 112 and • the acceptance of an environmental document LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot F of Tract 919 ZONE: SP-5 (Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial) OWNER: Robins Properties,Costa Mesa T 7Tf INITV M A P U I cvff Doti T ''C �Y,•�/ in b v 4 dY ph Ir .. O •� • R • • n 4. F. tiff! .� \ .r .... rw.•w., .,w,r ir+....« �:Z:� • Use Permit No. 3612 and Traffic. Study No. 1121 'Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is occupied by several vacant structures formerly,occupied by an automobile sales facility. The project facility will occupy the easterly 100 feet�of the property and only the buildings on the project site of the property will be demolished. To the north across Avon Street,are residential uses. To the east: is the Sterling Motors BMW Automobile Dealership.- To the south: across West Coast Highway,is the Tower residential Condominium Complex,the Villa Nova Restaurant and other commercial uses. To the west: is a commercial office building andirestaurant. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 2 Points and Authority • Environmental Compliance(California Environmental Quality Act) A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Negative Declaration is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application.The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are attached to this report and are also available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. • Conformance with the General Plan,Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail Service Commercial" uses. A restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. The Land Use Element and Municipal Code allocate a maximum square footage based on 0.3 FAR for restaurant uses. The total gross floor area of the restaurant is approximately 1,800 sq.ft. with a resultant FAR of 0.08. The project is therefore consistent with the FAR Guidelines of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. This facility is located in the Coastal Zone. Since the project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a new structure, Coastal Commission approval will be required prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits and implementation of this use permit. In accordance with Chapters 20.82 and 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code the approvals of a use permit and a traffic study are required for the construction of the proposed drive-throughrestaurant use. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.65 of the Municipal Code, a use permit is required to permit elevator*shafts and mechanical equipment screens to exceed the maximum area allowed of 25 square feet and the approval of a modification permit is required to permit architectural features in excess of the permitted height limit. • Use Permit and Modification procedures are set forth in Chapters 20.91 and 20.93 of the Municipal Code,respectively. Use Pcrmit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. t 12 Page 3 I Proiect Characteristics PROPOSED PERMITTED/REQUIRED Site Area' 21,823 sq.ft. Height: Building: 26 feet 26 feet midpointor to the top of a parapet wall;31 feet to the peak of a sloped roof. ElevatorShaft(Parapet Wall): 28 feet inches 31 feet Mechanical Equipment Screen: 29 feet 0inches 31feet Hours• Applicant's Proposal and Staffs Recommendation: 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.,daily Gross Bldg Area(FAR) Restaurant: 1,500 sq.ft. Storage Bldg: 300 sq.ft. TOTAL: 1,800,sq.$. (.08FAR) 6,547'sq.ft. (0.30FAR) Setbacks: Front(Coast Highway): 35 feet to building 50%at 5 feet and 50%at 5 feet and 50%at 10 feet is maintained by 50%at 10 feet;plus an additional the drive-through lanes in addition to the 12 feet 12 feet for future dedication is for future dedication also required Easterly Side Property Line: 28 ft.to the building; zero 2 feet to the steel truss element Westerly Side of Project Site: 5 ft.3 in,to the building: zero 26 ft.to the steel frame element Rear(Avon Street): zero to parking spaces; zero 1 foot to trash screen and storage building; 40 feet to steel truss element; 108 ft.to building. Number of Employees: 7 employees Parking @ One space for each 50 sq.ft,of gross floor area: 0 spaces 36 spaces plus one per employee based on peak employment: 7 spaces 7 spaces Extra Space: 1 space 0spaces Credit for vehicle stacking in the drive-throughlanes: 20 spaces not addressed TOTAL: 28 spaces 43 spaces StaffRecommendation: 8 on-site parking,spaces, waiver of 15 spaces and allow for the credit of 20,parking spaces in the vehicle stacking lanes to satisfy a portion of the parking requirement. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 4 Analysis The subject property is occupied by several buildings which are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. The proposed project will occupy the easterly 100 feet of the subject property which will be established by a long term lease agreement between the owner and the restaurant developer. The existing structures on the project site will be demolished and the balance of the buildings on the property will remain. The proposed structure will be two-story, with drive-through lanes which will pass under the structure. The ground floor of the main structure will be occupied by an exterior stairway, an elevator and storage room. The cooking facilities and related storage will be located on the second floor. Patron ordering will be accomplished by direct contact with employees who will be located at the ground level under a fabric sunscreen. The patrons will then proceed to the pick-up window under the main building. The project also incorporates the following operational characteristics: • no walk-up or on-site dining • no alcoholic beverage sales (on-sale or off-sale) or consumption is proposed • high turn-over drive-through service only, resulting in no patron parking demand In the review of this application staff has analyzed issues related to parking, site access, hours of operation, noise and menu boards. The area of increased height of the elevator shaft and the mechanical equipment screen, the increased height of an architectural feature and restaurant development standards were also analyzed. Off-Street Parking Requirement Off-street parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments are governed by the provisions of Section 20.66.070 of the Zoning Code. That section establishes the off-street parking for take-out and drive-in restaurants based on a requirement of one space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each employee based on peak employment. If this parking standard is adopted by the Planning Commission, the restaurant parking requirement will be 43 spaces. The subject facility differs from the traditional take-out restaurant facility by its unique concept which does not provide any patron walk-up window or counter and does not provide any patron seating or dining areas. Therefore, there is no need for on-site patron parking. It is the applicant's intent to utilize the on-site spaces for employee parking, to request credit for vehicle stacking in the drive-through lanes (20 spaces) to satisfy a portion of the parking requirement, and to request a waiver of the balance of the Code required parking (15 spaces) which cannot be provided on- site. Staff is of the opinion that the provision of employee parking will adequately serve the proposed use since there is no patron parking demand generated by the use because there is no patron dining on-site. Therefore, the waiver of 15 of the 43 Code required parking spaces is justifiable in this case. Use P etmit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page 5 Access and Site Circulation The project provides one access driveway from Coast Highway as the only means of ingress and egress of the property. Since there is only one access, the Public Works Department has recommended that the facility be limited to right-out only egress to prevent the conflict between the exiting vehicles and the left turning traffic entering the subject property from eastbound West Coast Highway. Conflicting moves at the egress could adversely impact site circulation by causing back-ups in the drive-through lanes on-site an&out onto Coast Highway. The Public Works Department in its initial review of the project recommended that a vehicular access connection between West Coast Highway and Avon Street be provided to accommodate exiting vehicles that wish to travel to the east of the subject property, since a left-turn movement onto West Coast Highway-has been prohibited.The Public Works Departmentis still of the opinion that such a requirement would be in the best interest of the project and the City. However,the operational logistics of utilizing such an access would require the patron to make a complete loop around the building and traverse the drive-through lanes to reach the Avon Street access. The applicant has argued and staff has agreed that utilization of such an access would create an on-site circulation problem.However,the Public Works Department also wishes to make clear its position to continue to oppose the introduction of any future left-turn movement exiting onto West Coast Highway. The Public Works Department has indicated that the proposed on-site stacking in the drive- through lanes is adequate to accommodate the proposed operation. Staff.believes that the number of drive-through lanes as proposed(two ordering lanes and three pick-up lanes)will minimize the incidence of back-ups onto Coast Highway. However, it is anticipated that during peak demand periods (lunch and possibly dinner time) there is the potential that the vehicle stacking could extend into the right-of-way and adversely affect traffic circulation on Coast Highway and the subject property. Therefore, the Public Works Department has recommended a condition of approval which requires that the applicant's representatives on-site to monitor the stacking of vehicles in the drive-through lanes to prevent back-ups into the Coast Highway right-of-way. Further, should back-ups occur, the conditions of approval require that the stop point of the drive-through lanes shall be relocated toward the pick-up lanes or the applicant's representatives on-site shall direct incoming customersto bypass the drive-up facility(or a combinationof both): Hours of Operation and Noise from the Restaurant Facility The restaurant facility will provide breakfast, lunch and dinner service with proposed hours of operation of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily. Given these hours, noise associated with the order taking process could disturb residential uses located across Avon Street which overlook the site. Therefore,staff has included conditions of approval requiring compliancewith the provisions of the Community Noise Ordinance.Additionally,consistent with operational procedures as proposed by the applicant, staff has recommended a condition of approval that the use of speaker boxes be prohibited.This should prevent any additional potential noise problems which could arise from the installation of a speaker system. Should the applicant wish to add such ordering speaker boxes in the future, an amendment to the use permit will be required. With these conditions, staff has no objection to the proposed hours of operation. Use Pcrmit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 6 Signs -Menu Boards The site plan included in the traffic study shows menu boards abutting the drive-through lanes. However,the plans submitted with the use permit application do not show any menu boards. The applicant has indicated that menu boards will not be utilized in conjunction with the proposed project, but that the patrons will be handed a menu by the employee taking orders. The applicant has also indicated that project identification signs will conform to the provisions of the Municipal Code. It should be noted that the site is allowed one freestanding sign and that if any menu boards are requested as freestanding structures in the future, a modification to the Zoning Code will be required. Additionally, the applicant foresees the use of small on-site directional signs to aid in traffic circulation which the Municipal Code allows by right. Use Permit Request for Increased Height Height Comparison PROPOSED PERMITTED/REQUIRED Building: 26 feet to the top of the building. 26 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof or to the top of a parapet wall; 31 feet to the peak of a sloped roof. height area height area Elevator Shaft(Parapet Wall) 28 ft 6 in. 105 sq.ft. 26 feet in height. Mechanical Equipment Screen: 29 ft.0 in. 260 sq.ft' 26 feet in height. Total: 365 sq.ft. 25 square feet (area exceeds amount permitted by exception) Architectural Features: 32 ft. at the high point, the structure is a 31 feet maximum height (26 feet plus sloping structure with a midpoint of 26 an allowance for an additional5 feet) feet. The provisions of 20.65.070 B allow elevator shafts and screened mechanical equipment up to 5 feet in excess of the permitted height and limited to a maximum area totaling no more than 25 sq.ft. As shown in the above chart, the elevator shaft (parapet wall) and mechanical equipment screen exceed the area to qualify for this exception.Therefore,the approval of a use permit is required.In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.42.050 I-2 (RSC area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area District),the Planning Commission,in granting any 'The plans show a dimension of 28 feet long and the applicant has indicated in his letter ofiustificatiowthat the dimension has been reduced to 20 feet which results in a reduction in the area to 260 sq.ft.. Usc Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page 7 1 0 use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit,shall find that each of the following four points Have Been complied with: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than would result fiat: compliance with the basic height limit. Particular attention shall be given to the location and orientation of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground coverage, and on the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area, within a general theme of the marine environment. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4 4. The increased height shall in no case result in a floor area exceeding the floor area permitted by Chapter 20.63 and this chapter. The applicant has provided the attached letter which provides his rationale and justification for the increased elevator shaft (parapet wall) and mechanical equipment screen area: In summary, he indicates that the proposed heights are a result of the required Site grading to achieve positive drainage and the height necessary to.achieve minimum vertical clearance for vehicles to pass under the second floor in the drive through lanes;and that the heights have been minimized to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, in order to adequately screen the mechanical equipment from the public street and the neighboring residential properties the height of the screening must be 29 feet and the area must exceed the allowable 25 sq.ft. The Code allows for a maximum area totaling no more than 25 square feet for elevator shaft, enclosed stairwells and screened mechanical equipment. This limitation cannot accomplish the screening of more than one such element on a building or the equipment on the proposed building. In this particular case for example, two chilling units and the elevator shaft are proposed on the roof and in order to efficiently and effectively screen them from sight would require separate screen enclosures or a large screen enclosure which exceeds the 25 square feet limitation(as proposed). The mechanical equipment has been placed'as close together as possible and minimum adequate screening has been provided (at 3 feet high, where the Code allows 5 foot high). Staff is of the opinion that the above required 'findings can be made for the additional area of increased height in this case'for the following reasons: 1. The Code allows the construction and placement of a building 26 feet high at the front setback line (50% at 5 feet and 50Vo at 10 feet from the ultimate right-of- way line of ,the future dedication) which would, be more obtrusive than the proposed building which is setback 35 feet. The additional area of increased height will not result in a reduction of public visual open space and views than the Use Pcrrot No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page 8 basic height limit since the proposed building provides greater front, side and rear yaz Ed set6acks than require oriented at an angle; is located in the middle of the property; and has a smaller footprint which result in reduced mass and bulk as viewed from Coast Highway. This also adds to the potential public visual open space of the area by affording public views of the bluff as viewed from Coast Highway. Finally, the percentage of building footprint (0.08 FAR) and the enhanced treatment of all setback and open areas with extensive landscaping also enhance and soften the aesthetics of the public visual open space opportunities available in the area and provided by the site. 2. The additional area of increased height when considered in conjunction with the orientation, location, footprint and mass and bulk of the structure (discussed in No. 1 above) will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area, within a general theme of the marine environment. That is, the physical attributes of the project further the intent and purpose of the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan to "...preserve and enhance the character of scenic highways -and drives..." by the greater project setback at Coast Highway, which provides enhanced aesthetic character and public visual open space views of the bluff. Additionally, the mechanical equipment screen meets the intent of the Code to screen equipment from the view from public streets and neighboring properties which may have a detrimental affect on existing views of residential properties overlooking the project. 3. The additional area of increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces since the Sterling Motors building to the east of the project is currently taller (35 feet) than the proposed screen structures (28.5-29 feet): Additionally, the total bulk of the proposed structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions has been taken into consideration since the ,proposed building has a limited footprint and significant opemarea on the first level. 4. The structure is allowed to be 6,547 square feet (0.30 FAR)and the proposed is 1,800 square feet (0.08 FAR). Therefore, the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Modification Request Section 20.65.070 of the Municipal Code provides that architectural features in excess of the permitted height shall be subject to the approval of a modification permit. Included in the application is a request to allow an architectural feature(steel frame facade element,32 feet high at its peak)to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation.In order to grant relief through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee, or, in this case, the Planning Commission, shall find: Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No, 112 Page 9 "that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, un er the circumstances o the particular case, be Velrunental to Ine nealM, ra-ftT, con fort 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, and fuurlher that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. " The applicant has provided a statement.in support of the modification request for the architectural feature in the attached letter. In summary, he indicates that the proposed height is a result of the required site grading to achieve positive drainage and the height necessary to achieve minimum vertical clearance for vehicles to pass under the architectural feature (steel truss) in the drive through lanes;and that the height has been minimized to the greatest extent possible. That portion of the architectural element (steel truss) which exceeds the permitted height,is minor in nature (one foot higher than allowed) and the mid-span height of the architectural element otherwise conforms to the 26 foot Height Limitation Zone requirement.The element in question is a long narrow architectural feature which will be utilized to reduce the visual bulk of the building face and to provide enhancement and relief to the elevation. Staff is of the opinion that the above mentioned finding can be made in this particular case, since the element is long, narrow and will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties. Additionally, the architectural element will not adversely impact or obstruct views from adjoining residential properties since the residential uses located to the rear of the subject property are located on a bluff overlooking the project. Staff also believes that the height of the proposed architectural feature is within the legislative intent of the Municipal Code since the mid-span of the element generally meets the.code requirement for the height of buildings. Proiect Design The Mariner's Mile Specific Plan requires site plan review for new construction in the area, This project is not subject to the,requirement because the proposed buildingis less than 2500 square feet. Nonetheless,staff believes that the project,as a newaddition to the important Mariner's Mile area, should be designed in a manner that will complement and improve the area. The Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens Advisory Committee report recently presented to the City Council includes a discussion of the importance of improving the aesthetics of the area with new development of private property.The Committee recommended that the City make design assistance available to project proponents,at no cost to them and with no requirements regarding design, to help insure that new development is well designed. The City has retained a design consulting team to prepare a development framework for Mariner's Mile, and to provide design assistance on new projects. Staff believes that this project should be reviewed by the design consulting team because it is an important new project in the area that can set the tone for future development. Additionally, because the proposal includes a use permit and modification to exceed height limits, the City should be assured that the project will have a desirable architectural treatment and result in positive contributionto the visual character of the area.A condition requiring this review and consultation is included in Exhibit"A." Use Pcrmit No.3612,and Traffic Study No.112 Page 10 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. Development Standards REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Site: Site shall be sufficient size and Waiver. The facility is easily accommodated by the subject configuration to satisfy all property and provides adequate area and setbackv for the requirements for off-street proposed building,landscaping and refuse storage.The number parking, setbacks, curb cuts, of required off-street parking cannot be accommodated on the walls, landscaping and refuse project site. However, staff believes that the intent of the storage as provided by Section requirement is met by the provision of adequate vehicle 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code. stacking in the drive-through lanes and adequate employee parking.Therefore,the waiver of this development standard is justified. Setbacks: 50%, 5 foot front yard setback Complies. and 50%, 10 foot front setback, zero setbacks sides and zero rear setback rear per SP-5 District Development Standards; to protect the public health, safety and welfare or to insure compatibility with uses on contiguous properties (Section 20.82.040 A-2,NBMC). Off-Street Off-street parking in accordance Waiver. The facility provides 8 on-site parking spaces. A Parking: with the provisions of Section portion of the remaining requirement (20 spaces) will be 20.66 of the Municipal Code. satisfied by the stacking of vehicles in the drive-through lanes and a waiver of the balance of the required parking(15 spaces). Staff believes that the proposed parking is adequate,given the unique operational characteristics of the project(no dining or walk-up window service).Therefore,a waiver of a portion of the required parking is justified. Circulation: Parking areas and driveways to Complies. The on-site circulation has been reviewed by the facilitate traffic and circulation of City Traffic Engineer and based on the information submitted, vehicles on and around the the on-site circulation and sight distance clearances are facility and to provide adequate adequate so long as all conditions of approval are implemented. sight clearances. Walls(adjacent A solid masonry wall 6 foot high Waiver. The applicant proposes a waiver of the 6 foot high to the interior shall be erected on all interior masonry wall along the side property lines. Proposed is the property lines): property lines of the subject erection of a combination of retaining walls and landscape property. Walls 3 feet in height mesh fencing in order to meet the intent of this requirement. shall be erected between the on- Since a wall 3 feet in height cannot be erected between the site parking areas and the public drive-through lanes and the Coast Highway right-of-way rights-of-way. I without adversely affecting the access to the property, the Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 11 REQUIREMENT PROPOSED applicant has requested a waiver of the wall requirement.The applicant also wishes to waive the requirement of a wall 3 feet in height between the on-site parking areas and the public rights-of-way since it cannot be provided at the rear of the property without adversely affecting the access to the proposed parking spaces which take access from Avon Street and the drive-through lanes which take access from Coast Highway. Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the Code. Landscaping: 10% of entire site, 3 foot wide Waiver.The 5 foot to 10 foot front setback areas at the front of landscape area shall be provided the property,with the'exception of the driveway access,provide to screen the parking area from more than the 3 foot wide landscape area required and the the public rights-of-way (Coast easterly property line is provided,with adequate landscaping., Highway and Avon Street). A 3 Landscaping between the parking and Avon Street cannot be foot wide landscape area adjacent implemented since the proposed parking takes direct access to the interior property lines shall 'from Avon Street. Additionally, the required westerly side be provided. property line landscape area does not strictly comply With the Code requirementbecause the landscape area is provided along an interior lease line (project westerly lease line boundary). Staff believes the landscaping provided on the westerly project boundary and between the on-site parking and the project satisfies the intent of the requirement. Lighting: Parking lot and site illumination Complies.Lighting on the building will be of low Wattage and height and intensity;to minimize will be designed in accordance with the Code provisions. A the reflection of lights to the condition of approval is also included which requires that the streets and neighboring exterior lighting be shielded or wattage reduced in order to properties. comply with this requirement. Utilities All utilities required to be Complies. undergrounded. Supply Storage Supply storage to be contained Complies. within a building. Refer eStorage Refuse storage outside of a Complies. building shall be hidden from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height with self-locking gates. Staff is of the opinion that the'on-site development standards as they apply to site requirements,off- street parking,walls and landscaping should be waived if the Planting Commission approves this application,since the granting of the waiver will generally achieve the same results as would strict compliance with the,requirements of Chapter 2UI Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak- hour traffic andcirculation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy L-18. The Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modified;or 'primary' street, based on the characteristics of the proposed development.Therefore, the project Use Permit No.3612 and Tragic Study No.112 Page 12 complies with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A detailed discussion of the ra lc s u y can a louncl In tHe appen ix o is report. Recommendation Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit,the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment,maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not,under the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In this particular case,based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff is of the opinion that the findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed drive-through restaurant facility since the parking requirement of the site, which cannot be accommodated on-site,has been adequately addressed by sufficient area for the stacking of vehicles in the drive-through lanes, adequate employee parking and the lack of patron parking demand stemming from the fact that no walk-up patron service or on-site dining is provided.Additionally,issues related to access and site circulation have been addressed by limiting the project to right-out egress only. Finally, the potential problems associated with hours of operation and noise generated by the proposed restaurant operation have been adequately addressed by the conditions of approval recommended by staff and the restriction on the use of outdoor paging or loudspeaker systems (including menu boards)which may disturb neighboring properties or residential uses in the vicinity. Staff is also of the opinion that the required findings for the approval of the 'use permit for the additional area of increased height of the elevator shaft (parapet wall) and mechanical equipment screen can be made in this case since the proposed building provides greater setbacks than required by the Municipal Code; the height of the screen is lower than permitted by Ordinance; the mechanical equipment is adequately screened from view; the height has been minimized to the greatest extent possible; the limited area allowed screen areas cannot adequately accommodate screening of the equipment of the proposed project; and the structure contains less floor area than permitted by the Municipal Code. Additionally, staff believes that the required findings for the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code to allow the architectural feature (steel truss) to exceed the permitted height can be made in this case since the mid-span of the element generally meets the code requirement for the height of buildings and the portion which exceeds the height limit is minor and does not significantly impact any views in the area. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and found the Traffic Study to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Further, that based upon the analysis contained in the Traffic Study, staff has determined that the addition of the project-generated trips will not make worse the level of service of any intersection and that.the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the traffic circulation improvements in the area. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page 13 Finally, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, t , measures and conditions of approval),could have a significant effect on the environment;therefore a,Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project,and'satisfies all the requirements of CEQA. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3612,Traffic Study No. 112 and accept the environmental document,the actions,findings and conditions of approval set forth in.the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested.However, should the Commission desire to deny this request, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit"B"are suggested. Submitted by: 'Prepared by: PATRICIAL.TEMPLE JAVIER S, GARCIA,AICP Planning Director Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" Exhibit"B" Appendix Letter from the Applicant Describing•the Project Operation Letter from the Applicant with Statement of Support for the Elements in Excess of the Height Limit Letter of Concern from a Neighbor Negative Declaration Traffic Study No. 112 Phase I Environmental Assessment Plot Plan,Floor Plans and Elevations RkUSERSXPLN\SHAP ED\I PLANCOM1t 99A 1009PC W P3612.DOC Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 14 EXHIBIT"A" Use Permit No.3612,Traffic Study No. 112 and the acceptance of the Environmental Document A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study,comments received,and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned, could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d)of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14,CCR. Mitigation Measures: 1. That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County Health Department, acceptable to the City's Building Department, signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 3. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City,with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met.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. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 15 ERfyli Findings: 1. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' uses and a drive-through restaurant is a permitted use withinthis designation. 2. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact,based on information presented and incorporated into the negative declaration. 3. That the proposal includes no physical improvements which will .conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That the purpose or intent of the restaurant development standards related to site . requirements,off-street parking,walls and landscaping will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements for the following reasons: • The required number of off-street parking cannot be accommodated on-site and the request to utilize credit for vehicle stacking in the drive-through lanes (20 spaces) to satisfy a portion of the parking requirement is reasonable based on the operational characteristics of the proposed facility, i.e.,drive-through only with no walk-up or on-site dining. • Adequate employee parking will be provided on-site. • Walls in full compliance with the standards would adversely impact traffic circulation and access to the on-site parking spaces from Avon:Street at the rear. • The increased landscape area will achieve conformance with the development standard as it relates to the percentage of landscaping required on-site; and the addition of landscaping at the front and rear of the property behind the building will not enhance the streetscape,views. • The provision of the required landscaping at the rear between the parking and the right-of-way would adversely affect the access to the proposed on-site parking 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 to allow the establishment of the drive-through restaurant facility 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 restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been incorporated which will minimize lighting and noise impacts. • The provision of employee parking will adequately serve the proposed use since there is no patron parking demand generated by the use because there is no walk- up use or patron dining on-site. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 16 • The issues related to access and site circulation have been adequately addressed by limitinge pr6ject to rigWout egress o f ions of approval o prevent vehicle back-ups onto Coast Highway. • That the limited hours of operation and prohibition of menu board speakers should limit potential noise impact on the neighboring residential uses. • No significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated from the proposed project as determined by the project analysis in Traffic Study No. 112. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 to allow the additional area of increased height of the elevator shaft and the mechanical equipment screen 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 and complies with the findings specified by Section 20.42.050I-2 of the NBMC: • The additional area of increased height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit zone since the proposed building provides greater front, side and rear yard setbacks than required by the Municipal Code and the height of the screen is 2 feet lower than permitted by Ordinance. • Particular attention has been given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover (0.08 FAR), and the treatment of all setback and open areas. • The additional area of increased height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the 26/32 Height Limitation'District since the mechanical equipment will be adequately screened from view and the height has been minimized to the greatest extent possible. • The additional area of increased height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces since the Sterling Motors Building to the east of the project is currently taller than the proposed structure (35 feet). Additionally, the total bulk of the proposed structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions has been taken into consideration (since the proposed structure provides greater front, side and rear yard setbacks than required by the Municipal Code). ••, The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. • The limited area allowed for such elevator shafts and mechanical equipment screen areas cannot adequately accommodate screening of then mechanical equipment of the proposed project. 7. The approval of the modification to the Zoning Code to allow the architectural facade element (steel truss) in excess of the permitted height will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings: Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Page 17 • The additional one foot in height is minor in nature and the mid-span height of the cuss element genera requirement. • The proposed architectural element will not affect the flow of air or light to or views from adjoining residential properties since the residential uses located to the rear of the subject property are located on a bluff overlooking the project. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance With the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations,except as noted below. 2. That,prior to the submittal of plans for building plan check,the applicant shall submit the site plan, elevations,landscaping and sign plans, and proposed colors and materials to the Planning Department for review by the City's Mariner's Mile design consulting team. The applicant shall consider the comments and recommendations of the team in preparing final plans. 3. That the hours of operation of the drive-through restaurant facility shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit: 4. That deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8;00 a.m., daily,unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this use permit. ; 5. That no 6n-sale or off-sale alcoholicbeverage service shall:be permitted on the.premises. 6. That the operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:0o a.m.and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m. Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: 60 dBA 50 dBA 7. That the use of outside paging system or loudspeaker system(including in conjunctionwith menu boards or patron ordering) shall be prohibited in conjunction with this food service establishment,unless an amendmentto the use permit is first approved. 8. That the approval is for the establishmentof a drive-through restaurant facility as,defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food Usc Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 18 • • I and beverages for off-site consumption. The approval prohibits walk-up or on-site consumption facilities,un e • 9. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Municipal Code. 10. That 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. 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. 11. That the proposed restaurant facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 12, That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). 13. Prior to,the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County Health Department, acceptable to the City's Building ,Department, signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 14. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 15. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided or other arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements,if it is desired to obtain grading or building permits prior to completion of the public improvements. 16. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer in conjunction with the review of plans issued for building permits. That the exiting from the property on West Coast Highway shall be limited to right out only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That all employees shall park on-site. 18. That the intersection of the private drives and West Coast Highway shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape,walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements.Landscaping within the sight,line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 19. That the drive-through facility shall be operated in such a manner that vehicles will not be allowed to block access driveways:The drive-through lanes operation shall be monitored at Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 19 all times by the applicants'representatives at,the site. If back-ups occur, stop point of the drive-ttiroug anes cueing s - customers shall be directed to bypass the drive-up facility(or combination of both-actions). If a traffic congestion problem occurs on West Coast Highway related to the drive-up facility that is not immediately corrected,the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of this Use Permit. 20. That Avon,Street be improved to a•minimum 20 foot street width along the project frontage with curb,gutter,sidewalk and retaining walls as required. 21. That a loading area be provided adjacent to Avon Street to accommodate deliveries to the storage area. The design of this area or operation shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. 22. That the building setback shall be a minimum of seventeen(17) feet for 50% of the front setback and twenty-two (22) feet for the remaining 50% of the front setback area (this includes a 12 foot width for planned future widening of West Coast Highway plus 5 foot and 10 foot setbacks for landscape purposes) from the existing West Coast Highway property line. That all lease documents shall include a.clause dhatthere is a planned future widening of West Coast Highway. 23. 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.There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials with the Coast Highway right-of-way. 24. That street drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a.licensed civilengineer. 25. That the Public Works Departmentplan check and inspection fee be paid. 26. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of.the Municipal Code unless it ,is determined by the City Engineer that such undergroundingis unreasonable or impractical. 27. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this use permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 28. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be submitted to the Building Department in conjunction with plans for construction of the project and shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments.That prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Use Permit No.3612and rrarlic study No.112 Page 20 Code Enforcement Division to confirm installation of the landscaping specified by this con t ion ot approval. 29. The landscape planter areas shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in healthy condition at all times. 30. That 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. That the area outside of the food establishment, including the public sidewalks, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner and may be subject to periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. 31. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent , properties or uses. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been,designed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirementhas been met.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. 32. That storage outside of the buildings in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. 33. That the project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal. 34. That a covered wash-out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and the area drains directly into the sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan. 35. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 36. That all trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies.That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and roofed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 37. That the applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which 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. Use Permit No.3612 and Tragic Study No.112 Page 21 liat SHOURI tRIS business be sold or otherwise come un er(litterent 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. 39. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits. 40. That 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. 41. That this 'Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. TRAFFIC STUDYNO. 112 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed-project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 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 in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'znajor,"primary-modified;or:primary' street,based on the characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That the Traffic Study indicates.that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent-of the existingtraffic during the 2.5 hour morning or aftemoonpeak periods on six of the seven study intersections. 5. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour morning and afternoon peak periods for the intersection of West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue. Further ICU analysis of the a.m. and p.m.peaks for the intersection of West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue,which currently operates at a LOS E (ICU of 0.92), indicates that the level of service will not be made worse'by the addition of the project-generatedtrips. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.'112 Page 22 EXHIBIT`B" -FINDMOSTOR-M lull, Use Permit No.3612,Traffic Study No. 112 and the Environmental Document A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: -No action is necessary for projects which are denied. B. USE PERMITNO.3612 FINDING: 1. The approval of Use Permit No. 3612 will, 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 project, without the provision of a legal left-turn movement exiting the site, provides the opportunity for illegal left-turn movement onto West Coast Highway which will create a traffic hazard to vehicles traveling on West Coast Highway. C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 112: -No action is necessary for projects which are denied. Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 Page 23 0 APPENDIX 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 A,located on Page 5 of the attached,traffic c study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 2 and 6 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the seven intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are listed in Figure 1,located on Page 3 of the 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 intersectionwhere,on any approach leg,project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 2%2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the seven intersections,the increase in traffic,at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-%2 hour morning peak traffic on one of the intersections(West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue) and was less than 1% on the remaining six intersections,as indicated on Table B, located on Page 10 of the traffic study. Therefore,an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for the West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue intersection.As indicated in Table B, located on Page 10, the ICU value during the A.M. peak for this'intersection currently exceeds 0.90(0.92),but will not be made worse by the proposed project- generated trips. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersection and that the project is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Use Pcnnit No.3612 and Trafric Study No.112 Page 24 B O O R A • A R C H I T E C T $ TLA RESTAURANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECTTEAM Architect: BOORA Architects,Inc.-Portland,Oregon Architectural Consultant: Richard Hobbs,FAIA-Washington,DC Landscape Architect: Walker&Macy-Portland,Oregon Traffic Consultant: Kittelson Associates-Portland,Oregon Specialty lighting: Candela-Seattle,Washington Kitchen Design: Edward Don&Co.-Atlanta,Georgia Project Management: Domoto Company-Seattle,Washington THE PROJECT To build and operate a new kind of quick service restaurant based on the principles of exceedingly high quality food,high quality service and an enhanced customer experience. The restaurant building and site has been designed'to serve as public art and to convey a refined aesthetic sensibility to the customer and the surrounding community. The facility Is engineered to operate with optimal efficiency while creating a refreshing environment. The menu consists of food and beverages of quality,taste and sophistication not yet encountered in a drive-up format. The Restaurant hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m, PROJECT LOCATION 3100 West Coast Highway,Newport Beach,California THE BUILDING The Restaurant consists of an elevated building of 1 A36 gross square feet,that will allow the customer to drive underneath it. Prepared food Is conveyed by an Industry proven mechanical system from the upper level to ground level. The elevated building allows three lanes to be available for ordering and delivery. This building has been engineered with the site to permit an optimal amount of queuing as discussed below. There is not customer seating on-site nor is there any walk-up service provided. The building's lower level consists solely of a 114 g.s.f. elevator and machine/mechanical room. The upper level program consists of: Kitchen 676 square feet Mechanical Room 65 square feet Restrooms 115 square feet Dry and Cold Storage 350 square feet TLA Project Avian August 6, 1997 Pens The main body of the building is 26 feet high with,the elevator overrun at 28 feet high and the ornament steel truss at 32 feet high.A 256 square foot Dry Storage Building Is at the rear of the site on Avon Street. Adjacent to'the dry storage Is an area for screened' service functions such as dumpster,transformer,etc. Employee parking Is located west of the Dry Storage Building. There are seven employees per-shift and the site plan provides for seven standard employee parking spaces,plus one handicapped space. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING The site plan Is the product of an integrated approach to engineering,taking Into consideration the customer order,the product preparation and delivery times with the use of the most current queuing models, The site has been designed to provide the maximum efficiency and to minimize the amount of time a customer will have to spend on site, The site traffic circulation has been designed to accommodate the turning movements of the largest of'non-commerclal vehicles to specifically make moving through the site easier for the customer. The point of sale and food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. Maximum duration on site is projected at eight minutes. This enables the facility to service 126 cars per hour at peak periods with less than 20 cars queuing on site at peak periods(the site has queuing capacity.for 30 cars). The turning radli have been engineered by Klttelson Associates for minimum Impact at curb cuts. Ail employee parking and deliveries will access the site off of Avon Street. DESIGN APPROACH The design objective is to develop a lasting architectural Image based on: • a building and site that together embody on'Intended functionality; • a refreshing,uplifting environment that stands in contrast to the typical road experience; • a contextual approach to design Intended to fit Into a community's aesthetic, cultural,and environmental values(e.g. Mariner's Mlle Comprehensive Plan); • a commercial building that will serve as public art This project will reflect the maritime character of the Mariner's Mlle District. The projects contextual integration Into the Mariner's Mile will be further enhanced by landscaping and will utilize indigenous plants such as palms and bougainvillea. Modern and tastefully executed signage,lighting and construction will reinforce the design objectives. 96OW/descript.doc MWV:agb L ;. Q'I ^. Tax Services f�` i __ - '".:.' stiff.-�•v'•'^'J•.`•.':-,�•-�"r tA ,Ai .i•L`•tGC.� .• l • rv�M n. 3 '•�Q�u�n�� i,1n III r • I'y�•KI.:� .mil k���'•%�; we Z� f r `Vr f 1 S •i • �`',� 1 -- � _ � �� �--( K ,_fir }_ • 1(X Y � 1 x�,-�.Y •� *7 � rlkd�xi �•SFr' 1 a ice' Y�J Ira •S.( �i s+ i«��r Ir I `�`r Cal !y 1 nlil � T:.ny -O� TS: tt'ry'cC ' �'Z f. f• c ayR i `�,,yy��'G*CYi�4" r,f+�'- .t� �•fit_n a?"'IN v '�yG':Y•` x'N+tv.— .....=.R,SS2. �r'�,y .� - .,:»i• tE• �.. ^'..w4•--}`' I _ _ i ' t '1. W- iw �r Im I1� 'I J3t}i*'r °��j.+u t�ylf��$� -rs'�i.�i ,� r•y..a+. �'�� � �4�,�r��� f SMilY'��c�''.' •s. ,.,vim• '` y.� A!e1L. .t.,Yn[i (-R f ..n ♦r x.. nti n. �T •.. .n �tp'ya yy. f rat y.�. 7s 'tc. � -�s.r.. TW S'� ,y�jv r•s t rvY 1�tr .� }'fir .. .!'•� � •. .\tYl,4 r, p ��'•-rr ti`x- �Y'S • .rho,.-!,. � �t ! •7-W'�.'� � xi�+h ;xi -� ra.�4ds.-='`--5s ,�x�� ni- .a + .s :'b�'r� r `y+ur i F � � ( c �r n i a•\i•'05 6'� �„ Y i ,�r �i' .r � ��"��,y� ''�j•• a} r }ram y - � t• }t�� i.• • , i�"�'�< _t t .j .+t" �y��p,�(� ". ^..�5r• , ..y 't F_. n YT •t 1 S: �. �1 f r^w f f r. "ri 11 T f 'r Z f 'I 1 ., .?-� • '' �. !L w�'i.�4• 15 './ _ _' I7 �:1� n 6i� i '~ .� "C�`•,. 1 .ir 4 ,'' ^ . -t. .p n- �C'"• oo i ..e—�.��„ ...y.R.i"i�ty�.�.:ss. 7, c fi Al .......... ---------- B O O R A A R C H I REM140 dV T E C T S September 9, 1997 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 15 1997 Javier'Jay'Garcia,AICP AV PM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7t8�91�11112��i415i6 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 RE: TIA-UP'S DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT Use Permit Height Clarification Dear Jay: As per our phone conversation on September 4, 1997,1 have summarized below our response to your concerns regarding the building height at the elevator shaft/enclosure, It It mechanical screen area and that portion of the steel truss which extends above the code allowed maximum height of 26-feet. i ' The first Item regarding the extension of the elevation shaft(I,)to 28'-6' (2'-6' above adjacent parapet)and the second Item regarding the mechanical screen area(11.)fall - •, „ under Zoning Code Article 20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Umits,Paragraph 'B'. The third Item regarding the steel truss extension(III,)falls under Paragraph 'A'for Architectural Features. . ., \1 ., , It i it c , .. it The establishment of the building height and the associated parapet height and i, „ r I i to it it . mechanical screen is directly related to the function of the building and site. As you know the building Is elevated above the in-and-out drive-through lanes. It Is this critical function of allowing the vehicles to pass under the building which has determined the �iit minimum clearance under the structure. From this established second floor elevation,we provided a minimum overrun height for the elevator shaft,the minimum roof structure - : S 1 depth and the smallest parapet height possible. In response to the four questions stated in the zoning code(section 20.65.050)for review by the planning commission,I offer the following response: — 1, Elevator Shaft/Mechnnicai Overrun 1. As mentioned above,the elevator overrun was a direct result of the required drive-through clearance and the subsequent floor to floor height. With the i i : building raised in the air,we haven-percent building coverage,40-percent planting/landscape and 58-percent hardscope on the site. The portion of the :i i roof used for the overrun Is 8-percent of the total roof area and is located•to the back of the structure. The structure is set back 35'-0' from the front property,11he at Pacific Coast Highway and is set at a 45-degree angle. I � - _. J B O O R A Javter'Jd�arcla,AICP • September 9, 1997 Page 2 A R C H I T E C T $ 2• In addition to the pragmatic necessities noted above,the elevator core and mechanical rooms provide a visual and aesthetic function as a solid mass to anchor the building on the site. It Is visually Important that ihe.shaff/core be expressed in a way that compliments the scale and components of the building, 3. The dimensional change between the main portion of the building and the elevator core Is 2'-6'. We do not feel that this small amount of Increase will have any affect on the adjacent structures or public spaces. In fact,the west elevation of the car dealership structure Immediately to the east Is a+/-35'-0' tall blank masonry wall which runs along 80-percent of the properly line. Additionally,beginning immediately from the norih,edge of Avon Street is a steeply sloping hillside which looks over the site and adjacent properties. 4, The proposed structure is well,below allowed floor area.We have 370 gsf. on the ground level and 1 A36 on the upper level. The proposed height Increases are not affected by the floor area. 11. Mechanical screen Area (Please note that we will shorten the.length of the screen area from 28'-0"to 20'-0'). 1., The proposed semi-transparent mechanical screen does not affect any public views either Into or from the site. The location of the building on the site and set backs are as stated in Item No. 1 above. The intent of the screen wall Is only to hide the mechanical equipment which would be a Visual detraction to the building and site If left unprotected. 2. The Intent of the screen wall Is to provide a visual enclosure around the roof top mechanical units so than the equipment does not detract from the overall appearance of the building, The proposed height of'the screen wail to adequately hide the units Is 29'-0" above grade,or 3'-0" above the adjacent parapet. The screen wall will be constructed of steel slats spaced apart to allow some transparency. 3. The proposed screen wall will not have any visual affect on existing developments or public spaces. The screen Is only to enhance the view of the structure and views Into the site. The screen Wall Is set back 2'-0'from the main parapet line and extends 20'-0" horizontally along the roof to screen the mechanical units, The seml-trgnsparent material is meant to act only as a screen and not part of the building moss. 4. Exceptlons,to the zoning code allows 25 square feet of area and up to 5 feet In height for mechanical equipment on a roof. Our proposal Is to allow a 20'-0" long X 12'-0" wide X 3',-0' high area. We are 2-feet less than allowed, however,we exceed the total allowed area. The determination of the screen wall height was generated by the visual sight lines Into the site from the street. h •� B O O R A Javier'Jay' *Ia,AICP • September 9, 1997 Page 3 A R C H I T E C T S III. Steel Truss Extension 1. The steel truss top cord extends up to 32'-0' above finish grade 6'-0" above the parapet on the back side of the building(opposite the street elevation). The truss Is open in nature,it can be seen through and it does not obstruct any views In or out of the site. 2. The exposed truss is a primary architectural feature of the building design and adds aesthetic appeal to the building elevation from the Interior of the site. 3. As a primory structural and aesthetic feature,the truss also serves as a scale element to tie the building together as a whole. There Is not adverse effect on the adjacent developments. 4. Not applicable. Hopefully the above response comments will address your concerns regarding the proposed building height limitations. If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BOORA ARCHITECTS,INC. Brian C.Jackson,A.I.A. Associate Principal BCJ:agb 96003/garcla.itr cc Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz-TLA,Inc, Joe Govela-Govela &Associate Enclosure Page 20.65.4 Height Limits community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, and OS Districts. B. 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone the maximum height limit shall be 28 feet; provided, however, that structures may exceed 28 feet up to a maximum of 32 feet in an adopted planned community district, or through the adoption of specific plan,or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all MFR Districts. - ®C. 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 26 feet up to,a maximum of35 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval.of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts, other than R-1, R-1.5, R-2 and MI"R, within the area known as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established by Ordinance 92-3 and shown on the Height Limitation Zones map. D. 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet;,provided, however, that a structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet through the adoption of a planned . community district, .or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through, the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts other than R-1, R-1.5, R-2 and WR which have boundaries not falling within the area above described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High-Rise Height Limitation Zone. E. High Rise Hei,,ht Limitation Zone. In the High Rise Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet. 20.65,050 Planned Community Districts A. In each planned community district established subsequent to the adoption this chapter, the height limits shall be established as pan of the planned community development plan;provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040 and as designated below: 24/28 FOOT HEIGHT LWITATION ZONE. 1. Upper Newport Bay Planned Community as established by Ordinance No. 1537 adopted December 17, 1973 (Amendment No. 409). • • Page 20.65.5 Height Limits tPla, ning-C mntissiotrot Eity---- Council in approving any planned community district, any specific plan, or in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit in any zone shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 20.65.060 Existing Structures and Permits A. Structures which were in existence or under construction-on the effective date of this chapter(October 11, 1972), and which do not conform to these regulations may be continued or altered; provided, that the changes do not result in a greater nonconformity than was existing. B. Structures for which building permits have been issued or for which use permits have been issued, on the effective date of this chapter(October 11, 1972), and which do not conform to these regulations, may be constructed according to the approved plans. C. Proposed structures within a planned community district adopted prior to the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be constructed in accordance with the height limits contained within the planned community text; provided, however, that a use permit shall be required for any structure which exceeds the height limits established by this chapter. D. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R-1 District which is replacing a structure which was in existence on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972). r Page 29.55-5 Height Limits existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, r 1972) may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above "r top of curb and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. 20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Limits © Architectural Features and Solar Equipment. Architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other decorative roof-top features of an open nature, and solar equipment, but excluding parapet walls, may be permitted in excess of permitted height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. ls/ Mechanical Equipment and Stairwells. 'Elevator shafts, enclosed stairwells and screened mechanical equipment', totaling no more than 25 square feet, shall be permitted to up to 5 feet in excess of the height limits. t C. Chimneys and Vents. Chimneys and vents shall be permitted in excess of height limits to the minimum extent required by the Uniform Building Code plus an additional 12 inches for the provision of spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature. Any such structures or features exceeding the Uniform Building Code requirements shall be subject to the following criteria: 1. That the overall dimensions of the chimney shall be limited to a maximum width of 2 feet by a maximum-length of 4 feet for any portion of the structure which exceeds the Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. That the allowance for the additional 12 inches shall .be solely for the incorporation of a spark arrestor as required by the manufacturer or for the incorporation of an architectural screening or treatment. All chimneys and vents exceeding the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, with the exception of an additional 12 inches for spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature, shall be subject to the approval of a modification permit. D. Skylights and Roof Windows. The terms skylights and roof windows shall be interchangeable and shall'be permitted in excess of the average height permitted in the IU U- :l• IU. -.l U / 17 JJJ ./VJ• ,/,,, ./1/„l.l...l./ lIIJ IIV� GrubbrOlis games Clarkson ' senior Vire Prrclrlcni °-opeciySulaaoa ' REUIVED aY October 2,1997 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT,BEACH Mr.Jay Garcia OCT 21997 Senior Planner �q pu CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _ ... P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 RE: Use Permit No.3612 3100 NV.Coast Highway Dear Planning Commission Members: It has come to my attention about an application submitted to the City of Newport for a drive-thru restaurant next to Sterling BMW. I cannot attend the October 9th hearing as I will be out of town on business,so I am writing you this letter of concern. My family and I live directly above this proposed development,at 237 Santa Ana Avenue. The concerns I have are listed below. I am asking each member to please take into consideration what I and other homeowners will be forced to live with for an indefinite period of time. • 1 have seen the elevations of this building and 1 do not think it is in keeping with the"Mariner's Mile" architecture theme that has been established by the City. This restaurant is not a chain and this concept does not have a proven track record of success. Be careful not to end up with a"white elephant"on your hands if the business fails and the City has a vacant building here. Screening the rear property line from the residents with "thick" foliage. This will help block carr headlights that may shine into the resident's homes as customers drive through the"double"drive thru. It will also buffer the noise and visual appearance of the building.The plans show eleven(11) palm trees, but do not specify the size. I request that you ask for"mature"palm trees at a minimum of 25' tall and study the plan to see if additional foliage can be added in other places. • Screening the roof equipment on four sides helps but does no good for the residents who look down on top of the building. Please request that the roof equipment be entirely enclosed with a"top"on it. • The lighting plan must have"down lights" that do not shine onto the residents. As an example,the parking lot lights of"Bistro 201"desperately needs reflectors on them to shine down and not up. • Try to impose,as a condition of approval, that the Landlord (property owner)must also demolish the adjoining car lot buildings that have been a terrible eye sure for the City of Newport. This will probably help dispose of the remaining parcel since no buyer wants it in its present condition. • My tutderstanding is that there is no reader board menu or speakers to take the orders. This is obviously very noisy, especially when the business is 100%drive-thru. Be aware that the applicant Grubb&Ellis Conipany 4695 MacArthur Coun Suite 600 Newport Beach,CA 92660 714.833.29(X) 714.833.8037,fax Air.Jay Garcia October?, 1997 Adge 1 may come back at a future date once the restaurant has been open for a while. The questions to ask the applicant is,"Where,does the person stand who is taking the order when it rains?". • The AQNW'has new standards for exhaust fans that will contain the smoke and grease so as not to emit itinto the air. Believe me, if they vent their cooking directly outside,every homeowner will constantly smell what they are cooking. • I ask that this drive-through have limited hours to 10:00 p.m.and=a 24-hour operation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I know your position is to do the best tiling for the City. I do not oppose the use,but there are certain things that can be done to protect the City and adjacent homeowners. I have been,in the commercial development business for 19 years. I have had every one of these concerns and solutions I have mentioned imposed on me,or my client when I have processed applications through cites in Orange County. Your biggest concern should be,what do we do with this building if this new business concept fails. We all maybe confronted with a similar problem sooner than you think when the"Speedway"goes out of business down the street. Thank you again for listening to my concerns. Si cerely, /✓� t� l Jim Clarkson Senior Vice President JC:jma earcia.dx Grubb&Ellis Company 469S MacArthur Court Suiia 6txl Newport Beach.CA 92660 714.833:2900 7I4.833.8037.fax Filed in the County of Orange, California C Y OF NEWPOR p pCarry Granville, Clark/Recorder 33001VevvporK Boulevard_p.tI9IIIIIIIII�uI� II�II�iIdNIII�9N�� 38.09 19978000787 12:03pm 09/09/ Newport e c ,CA 9AW'B (714) 644-3200 Z01 1 31.10 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 POSTED Newport Beach,CA 92658.8915 Sacramento,CA 95814 SEF O 9 19 7 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange xx Public Services Division GARY I XFU NVILLE,CI P.O.Box 238 DERMc received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period.- September 8, 1997 to October 9, 1997 Name of Project: TL 4 Drive-through Restaurant(Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz, applicant) Project Location: 3100 West Coast High way, located on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. Project Description: The project involves the approval of a negative declaration,use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit includes a request to allow portions of the proposed building to exceed the permitted height and a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature to exceed the height limit(a portion of which is 32 feet high).The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment A copy of the initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-makers)prior to final action on the proposed.project. if a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have ny estions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned at(714)644-3200. � �`•�— Date September 8. 1997 lavicr S.GarciT a,AICp Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\TLA-RESrNEGDEC.DOC CITY OF NEWPORT BEJSH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIW FORM 1. Project Title: TLA Drive-Through Restaurant Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S.Garcia,Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department (714)644-3200 4. Project Location: 3100 West Coast Highway located on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. 5. Project Sponsors Name and Address: TLA, Inc. (Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz) 4464 Fremont Avenue North Seattle,WA 98103 6. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial 7. Zoning: SP-5'(Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area,Retail and Service Commercial) 8. Description of Project: The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking.The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with a rooftop elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28-29 feet high), where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and waiver of,development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Cade are also included with the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height,limitation. The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 1 9. Surrounding Lances and Setting: Current The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently %acant and were formerly Development: yry•mtantimiuMlesalm fauffily. To the north is a commercial office building and restaurant. To the east: across Avon Street,are residential uses. To the south: is the Sterling Motors BMW Automobile Dealership. To the west: across West Coast Highway, is the Tower residential Condominium Complex,the Villa Nova Restaurant and other commercial uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Coastal Commission , the California Department of Transportation and the Orange County Health Department. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Q Circulation ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral Aesthetics Resources 1. ❑ Water Q Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page-2 DETERMINATION (*be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT'have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, p I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be.a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to�the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. p I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect B (s)on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated:' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 1 find that although the.proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed:adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and-(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. p c� September 8. 1997 Signliture Nj Date Javier S.Garcia Printed Name Form:F:4USERS1PLMSHAREDIIFORMSWEG•DEC%ODCKLIST.DOC Document:F:IUSERSIPLNII PLANCOSt1PENDR:GITLA•RESTDCKLIST.boC TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Pager Hq Adftk Potentially Posen Less than No Sigrificant Significant Sgruficant Impact Impact UnIm Impact Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 designation or zoning?(1,2) b) Conflict with applicable environ- ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or ❑ ❑ ❑ operations(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or minority community)? it. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regional or local population projections?(1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 especially affordable housing? TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page,*' 1{ 5 Potenhany Polen Less than No Significant Sigrur Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mnigatlon walad 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑. 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, orvolcanfc ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 hazard?() e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading,or fill? (3) g) Subsidence of the9and? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 features? IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) C) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 other alteration of surface water quality(e.g.temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water in any water body? ( ) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 5 Potentially Potent Less than No Significant Sgndr Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ O ❑ 0 or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ O ❑ 0 waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1) Substantial reduction in the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ a pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture,or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 temperature, or cause any change in climate?( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ congestion? (4) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page,6 �j 1 Potentially Pot Less than' No Sgmricant sg nt significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation rporaied b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ ❑ Q ❑ features(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment? (4) c) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q access to nearby uses? (4) d) insufficientparking capacity on-site ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or off-site? (4) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or bicyclists? ( ) t) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ Q supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q impacts?( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ❑ Q species or their habitats(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species(e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ Q heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q communities(e.g.oak forest, coastal habitat,etc.)? (, ) d) Wetland habitat(e.g, marsh, riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ ❑ Q corridors? ( ) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page i Potentially Poten Less than No Significant S- Is Significant' Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Vill. ENERGY& MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (5) b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 sources of potential health hazards? (5) e) increased fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (6) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Pagel =j� Potentially Pote Less than No Significant Sign, .5gnificant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation alod b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ 13 ❑ 0 levels? (6) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ H c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ El d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ O XII. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b), Communications systems? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ a c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ C�! distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Storm water drainage? ( } ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑' ❑ ❑ 0 TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Pagek Potentially Potent. Less than No SignificantSgn Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Md,gation nc,owabd XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative Q ❑ 0 ❑ aesthetic effect? ( ) C) Create light or glare? ( ) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ U XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? D ❑ ❑ R1 b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q C) Affect historical resources? ( ) ❑ D ❑ Q d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ 11 D 0 uses within the potential impact area?( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ D ❑ neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ opportunities? ( ) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page-10 r'I Potentially Pot ly Less than No Sgmfcant Sp nt Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population,to drop below,self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to achieve short-term„to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on-human beings,either directly or Indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. There has been no previous analysis performed on the subject property or in the general vicinity which would be applicable to the proposed,project. Form:F:XUSERSWLWHAREDIIFORNISNEG•DEC,%DDCKLIST.DOC Document:FAUSERSIPLMI PLANCOMIPENDINGITIA•RES rYDCKLIST.DOC TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Paged-1' • SOURCE LIST • 1. Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan 2. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 3. City Excavation and Grading Code,Section 15.04.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 4. Traffic Study No. 112 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, EnviroPro Inc., dated July 10, 1997 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page,]-2' ENVIRC.IENTALANALYSIS CHECKLIST OLANATIONS TLA Drive-through Restaurant 3100 West Coast Highway Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Project Description The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive- through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with a rooftop elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28-29 feet high), where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and waiver of development standards specified' by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included with the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to allow An architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is SP=5 (Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial). The proposed drive-through restaurant facility is a permitted use within this designation.This project is located within the Coastal Zone Boundary,therefore a CoastalDevelopment Permit and Coastal Commission approval will be required. 1I. Population and Housing Population The proposed project is non-residential and therefore will not cause or induce,either directly or indirectly,any growth or reduction in the area's population. I Housing • No additional housing demand would result from the project since only a minor employment increase is anticipated and no displacement of existing affordable housing is anticipated. III. Geologic Problems(Earth) According to the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the project is located in an area of historic occurrence of liquefaction and seismic activity which may be subject to ground shaking, ground failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, landslides/mudflows,subsidence or expansive soils or erosion and unstable soils conditions.The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features.Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections) and the Uniform Building Code should adequately address the potential impacts of seismic activity. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards(item no. IX).Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC See.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure No. 1 That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City.Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. Water The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed and no appreciable change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and flow of surface runoff is anticipated. The discharge of storm water runoff during the constructionphase will be adequately addressed by erosion control measures specified by the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections), therefore no drainage impacts would be anticipated.The project is located outside the flood hazard area and is not located in an area which will affect the quality, rate and flow of existing ground water. V. Air Quality Construction Phase During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by The CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page,2' City and Quality Management District regulate.Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project.No additional statirmary—equipment is proposed_ that could generate additional emission as part of the project. Operational Phase Odors associated with the preparation of food items during the regular operation of the restaurant facility are anticipated to be generated and will be noticeable to the surrounding area. Odors and their sources are not specifically regulated by the Air Quality Management District Regulations. However, should problems arise with regard to the generation of odors in the vicinity,conditions of approval have been included in the use permit which will require the installation of adequate hood equipment to alleviate such occurrences. VI. Transportation/Circulation/parking Traffic Impact The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development.The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources, trip generation rate for the proposed expanded facility would generate an increase of approximately 850 trips per day. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic study was required since the traffic increase of the proposed development exceeds trip generation requirement(300 or more trips per day) of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Although the increase in the vehicular trips may be potentially significant, the traffic study did not identify any significant.traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures have been recommended nor required in conjunctionwith the traffic study for the project. Site Access The existing single access driveway which will be relocated to the easterly side of the property. The Study's analysis of the project access, identified no significant problems associated with the proposed facility and adequate emergency access to neighboring properties is maintained and not affected by the proposed facility. Hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists are adequately addressed by the compliance with City Standards related to sight distance requirements. CH ECR LIST EXPLANATIONS Paga- Parkin • The applicant proposes to provide 8 employee parking spaces for the facility and the nroiect application includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces.No adverse parking impact is anticipated since the proposal is for a"drive-through only" facility with no walk-up service. Additionally, inclusion of the automobile stacking within the drive-through lanes toward the parking requirement will further accommodate any increased parking demand of the facility. Transportation impacts The project will not result in any conflict with adopted policies related to alternative transportation.The project is not located in an area which provides any rail,waterborne or air traffic transportation. VII. Biological Resources(Plant and Animal Life) Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. VIII. Energy and Mineral Natural Resources Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. IX. Hazards Construction Phase The proposal may include the removal of underground gasoline storage tanks or removal of contaminated soils which may expose construction employees to potential health risk, however, general construction practices will provided adequate protection to the employees and the remediation will reduce any future hazard to a level of insignificance. Remediation will be in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Health Department, Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County CHECK LI S T EX PLANATI ON S Page 4� .-r Department, Health D•rtment, acceptable do the City's Builo signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. Operational Phase The proposed project does not store or utilize hazardous materials on-site therefore no adverse affect on human'health is anticipated. The property is not located in an area of increased fire hazard. X. Noise Construction Phase Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to,construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations(NBMC Chapter 10.28). Operational Phase Noise generated by the regular operation of the restaurant facility will be adequately addressed by conditions of approval of the use permit which will require compliance with provisions set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance. XI. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. XII. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility system and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system related to power,natural gas,communications,water treatment,storm water drainage, solid waste disposal or local or regional water supply is anticipated. XIII. Aesthetics The site is located in a commercial zone, and the proposed drive- through restaurant facility would not .result in any significant CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS PageeS' aesthetic in*ts on any existing scenic vista or scenoghway than the other existing adjacent commercial uses. Negative Aesthetic Effect The increase height of portions of the proposed project has the potential to pose a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the neighboring commercial and residential properties. However, the overall height of the project is not abrupt in scale with the commercial automobile sales facility located to the east of the subject property since it will be lower in height.The nearby residential uses will not be visually impacted to any significant degree by the proposed use,since the proposed use is located below the line of sight of the residential uses on the bluff overlooking the project. Liphtand Glare Exterior lighting of the project could produce light and glare that would adversely affect the adjacent residential properties.Although the project is tucked into the base of the existing slope and will not readily visible to the neighboring residential properties located above and overlook the subject property, it is anticipated that some of the exterior lighting will be visible to the neighboring residential properties.Therefore the use permit will include standard conditions of approval to ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the greatest extent feasible. Mitigation Measure No. 3 That prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system is designed,directed,and will be maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the neighboring residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 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 determine substantial conformance with the intent of this condition of approval, the control of light and glare. XIV. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 6' XV. Recreatiie . Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis,the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other,projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Forth:F:1t1SERSIPL.WIIAREDIIFOMiSINEG-DECOIEXPLAN.DOC Documcnt:F:IUSERSIPL\11 PLANCOIT,PENDING\TLA.kESI)EXPLAN.DOC CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 7 MITIGAON MONITORING AND REPORTI�ROGRAM TLA Drive-through Restaurant 3100 Nest Coast Highway Traffic Study No. 112 I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6(AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions,and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards,and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting, after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval,a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies,standards,or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances,policies,standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements,and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal,the City will approve the report, request additional information,or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVEDECLARATION TLA Drive-throughRestauranl 310D West Coast Highway Use PermitNo.3612and - Traflic Study No.112 September5, 1997 Implementation Methodof Timingof Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures - Action Verification Verification - Person Date Ill. GEOLOGICPROBLEMS 1. The Applicantwili comply With the erosion and siltation Conditionof Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Planning Department • control measures of the City's grading ordinana and all applicable approval anybuildingpermit and Buil ding Dept local and State buildingeodes and seismicdesign guidelines. Xl. HA?ARDS. - 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant Conditionor Plan Check Priurto the issuance of Public worts -shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building approval any gradingor Department. and Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has buildingpertnit BuildingDepanment undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contaminationbasbeen cleared. XIIL AESTHETICS Lightand Glare Cunditionof Building Permits Prior to the issuanceof Planning Department 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the approval Plan Check. Feld any buildingpermit and Building Dept applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department thatthe Inspection as lightingsystem is designed,directed.and will be maintamedi t such - a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light necessary spillageand glamto the ncighboringresidcntialuscs.Thc plansshall he prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer.with a • letter from the engincerstating that,in his opinion,this requirement has been met.That prior to issuance of the«nificatcofoccupancy or final of building permits,the applicant shall schedule an evening - inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to determine substantial conform nee with the intent of this condition of _ approval.the control of light and glare. F:1USF.R5l11I.NlSI TARED%I PLANCOMIPENDING%TLA•RES,nmtT•MSR.DOC Page 1 • • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applicationof. TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Rod rieuez-Atkatz,applicant)for Use Permit No. 3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 on property located at 3100 West Coast Highway. The project involves the approval of a negative declaration use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot bwo-story drive-through restaurant a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking The use permit application includes a request to allow portions•of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28 29 feet high) where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive aportion of the required off-street parking and development standards specified by Section 20 82 040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included in the use permit application A modification to the Zoning Code is requested to allow an architectural feature (steel- frame facade element 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation The on site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department,City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,California,92659-1768(714)644-3200. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 9th day of October 1997, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California,at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. For information call(714)644-3200. Thomas J.Ashley,Secretary,Planning Commission,City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. • 0 VICINITY MAP p* ✓✓�J/Ft Ry � •�• �/ M ryfJr pY �� r r •" ?Y O o .Y 'fir p\ , . y IlL IF Al INI ��� • ` l \\ �:�ow ww•nn uiw..mow i•i��11'i�r•rw_— \\ rn�nr. Iw W Y,rr/MY.1 rwr.1 l�}(M two �� \ wi•N M•..•r wr w..a r...r.•�ti 1:�.� 1/061.41'11 \tf1.f MN fNMi RC�fN NfNNRf Rk°. nAKs IWCU RMA"MA \ .�7� RSC•N to 6tif i•7•gf I \\ \\ NI M.V ML I \ .� Use Permit No. 3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 £euronunra(Ana(pu TramP,annn Entnwtnnr aro(oti anJ ttlILIndr LSA Habitat Rtuoratan Resom ce Minalcatent Comm..°),and Land PLnnmt Lndurpe Arcbirr".n Arch"OV and PalcomoLrp August 15, 1997 P-Incipali DRAFT Janet Divan Rob Men Associate Civil Engineer S"Brady City of Newport Beach Lei j CardCardDa:d Gorr 3300 Newport Boulevard Stre Granho(m Newport Beach, CA 92658 Rrhard Harlache, RoterHirrss Subject: Traffic Study for TIA Restaurant at 3100 West Coast Highway, A,,Homntha.un Newport Beach Larr7 Kemmnts Crony.Lhell Dear Ms. Divan: adl Mayer Rob schonbohr iSAAssociates. Inc. (ISA) is pleased to provide the following traffic analysis for .Ngkolm/.Spro.( the proposed TIA restaurant located along West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis has been prepared at the request of City staff to identify off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)analy- sis, to examine on-site circulation conditions to ensure that the proposed ac- Iamse+aa n, cesses provide adequate Ingresslegress to the local street system, and that on. Co ank catty site storage areas are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project srtorn W.conk lint Rau Wbencen Gary Dow SUAMMRYOFFINAINGS Rxhard Eritkwn K"'n F°'ch`r 1. The site was a car dealership, but is currently vacant. One full move- cau Kellner went driveway provides access from the project parcel to West Coast L.ra Lein y� Benson Lie Highway.Hi The project does not propose any new access driveways. Jrdab H.MaLmat Sabrina Nithaw 2. West Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is a five lane arterial, M.to•adr O'Connell three westbound and two eastbound. There are no committed, funded Anthorsy Perot projects to provide additional arterial capacity. Improvements to the tyr„r stanching , SR-55 (Newport Boulevard)/SR-1 (West Coast Highway) interchange will ].a Wilson enhance the operation of this intersection. Livia.Zd, 3. At the project driveway, approximately 850 vehicle trips per day arc forecast to enter and exit the site,with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the am. peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m.peak hour. BA"74I:V(2iB733\1?AFF7C.LTVP One Pgrk Plan,Snitr$00 TeIrphonr714 333-0666 Other ofJins located in aerkdry lrvine,GGfomia 92614 FanLmle 714 MJ4076 Pt.Richmond,Riverside and Sgaamento ! f-mail lea jas.Qsiznttmm.mm �, 0 , 114 b-arite"/m Extensive studies have shown that much of drive thro roh rcaaurane traffic generated at the project driveway is already on the street for another purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips,and account DRAFT for approximately 47 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveway. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 460 new project trips, 37 new am.peak.hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation net. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, no significant Impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new pro- ject trips to the circulation network 5. Due to the current provision of a continuous left turn lane along west Coast Highway adjacent to the project(previously used by the car deal- ership)and the low volume of peak hour traffic forecast to turn left into and out of the project site, full movement access (i.e., left and right turns in and outbound) is considered acceptable for the project. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1,on-site storage area is available for approximately five vehicles at the menu board and approxi- mately seven vehicles at the ordering location. It Is recommended that the first menu boards be moved north approximately 35 feet to provide greater vehicular storage during the most tlmaconsuming(menu selec- tion) phase of the operation. with this modification, no adverse im- pacts are anticipated with respect.to the on-site storage of vehicles. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site at 3100 west Coast Highway was a car dealership, but is cur- rently vacant. The project location is illustrated In Figure 1. The proposed site plan is illustrated In Figure 2. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 1,200 square foot elevated, drive through restaurant. The proposed site plan retains,a single access driveway along west Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be reconstructed and moved east to the easterly edge of the project site. The project does not propose any additional access drive. ways. Prv/ed Mp GeneraKon Table A presents the total trip generation resulting from application of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) industry standard trip rates to the proposed 1,200 square foot drive through restaurant. 'like source of the trip rates Is the February 1995 Update to the Fhb Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual .(Lund Use Code 834: Fast Food-Restaurant with Drive Through Window). The project Is forecast to generate approximately 850 average daily trips.(AM),with 67 vehk3e trips occurring during the am.peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occur• ring during the p.m. peak hour. 1Y14N7RL•XNB7'J3\77UFF7C:L'rTt� ,+�� rtd,sr k 5 �P HOSMAL PCH RD PROJECT OJE vt� �of o PCN ao �y v �c ITE _ BA1'StD PCtt e44 oO Study Intersections &7.97(cs+a733) Figure I N DRAFT Location M and ,-�L �/�(� KOSC& Study Inters ctions x' Q .. N 6 AVAAscrt N ��44 is vimwcw / �CrwVT rim 1 AVA ma we I s• N tr UbSC�M'[ im aiw }�011MCA Y CMLPT MqL / AVA 1t 40 • /^E4441.815. r � • ret�, C3 r lrgl�• �� Sauce:BooraAmbhxn $nW(CNB733) Figure 2 N DRAFT L SA xes..% Site Plan U4 Am ciatrA the Table A-Trip Generation DRAFT Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Sim Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total Drive-Through Restaurant 1.20 TSF Trip Rate 1 710.08 28.49 27.38 55.87 19.01 17.55 36.56 Trip Generation 852 34 33 67 23 21 44 Pass-by Trips 192- 15 15 30 11 10 21 otal New Trips 0 -460- 19 18 37 12 11 23 Notes- ' Institute of Transportation Engineers,Update Who Fib Edition ofTrlp Generation,February 1993. T'r Thousand Square Feet 404,97(r•1�7 1TRtPGFNXLSf 6 lS4 Ap iw:ea Inc r ses ofthis pmject aothe averse tripgeneration identified in seto Fa u roms a ors on site and at the project drive. ways. Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the restaurant traffic generated at the site driveway is already on the street for another purpose. DRAFT Based on logarithmic equations contained in the M Trip Generation manual, approximately 47 percent of the daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destlaa- tion. This factor is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways in Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approad. mately 460 new project trips, 37 new am. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. These"new project trips" are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (M)analysis. Protect T•rip,DhWbution Figure 3 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project. The distribution plan is based on the trip distribution patterns identified for other recently approved fast food restaurants along West Coast Highway, and-shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The proposed project trips are distributed equally east and west of the project site. Once on the arterial street system,the project traffic will disperse onto the Balboa Penin• suta and to other local destinations. The project trip assignment is based on the application of the project trip distribution to the trip generation. The total-trip generation is identified-at the project access. Based on the assignment plan,"new project trips'identified-in Table Aare assigned at the TPO study area intersections. Figure 4 presents the peak hour project-trip assignment at the study area intersections. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE CIVO)ANALYSIS Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Administrative Procedures for Imple- menting the TPO anatysls, trips are generated, distributed and assigned to the seven study area intersections presented In Figure 1. These Intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of intersections was reviewed and approved,by the City Engineering staff. Existing traffic conditions for the Intersections are based on winter/spring 1996 and 1997 counts. The Intersection at Newport Boulevard/Via Lido is based on a wintcr/spring 1994 traffic count. tl� i ITh Sr iy�y J�. JQ 0� HOSPITAL 10 RD ,a PCy 5 PROJECT �7r SITE oa 10 ,0 5 5 �B PCq �0 40 0 5 rn 0: O BAY 10 Fft 70 Pemntage to/from Project E Fmk 13M(CNB733) 41�-. F igure 3 N h, DRAFT LSxasc,x Project Trip Dist bution 17tb sr � v emu. t pC� RD �tP tr PROJECT aT a A J tcit J r �'45► 'may V LFGEND• dlySIDw ►Ch A oct Peak Flour O � Pmjtxt Traffic Vo)umet *Sttbowdmmfiwuprrbykip _date" from thr=Sb mtwatmi and a16taa to ms mr..nneiwho.pejatYk 13W(CNB733) 4�01 figure 4 N DRAFT - LSANos. Project Trip Assi nment • • LSA Commi traffic volumes at the -tudv area intersection- ere t24&n from the City's cumulative projects list prepared on August 4, 1997. Cumula• tive growth volumes, also included In this analysis, are based on City of New. port Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for street segments within the (� City of Newport Beach boundary. DRAFT•r One percent rrv7c volume Analysts The"One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" tests,as defined in the Traffic Phas• ing Ordinance No. 86-20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed projeces peak period trip assignment for the four study area Intersections in the City of Newport Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1999,one year after occupancy of the proposed project The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" worksheets are presented as an attachment The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are summarized in Table B. This table identifies the seven study area intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each approach leg of an intersection,the 1999 am. and p.m.peak period one percent test volumes, the proposed projcces peak period trip assignment, and a comparison of.the peak period volumes are presented Under the "Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes; those approach legs to an intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes are Identified As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the TPO, critical intersections are defined as those locations in which project generated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour perked traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections In the committed plus project condition. As indicated In Table B,the intersection of West Coast Highway/htstin Avenue will exceed one percent of the Intersection approach volume during the am. peak hour. It should be noted that the 1999 one percent volume is one vehicle in the am. peak period The project will add two vehicles in the am. peak period. As a result,intersection capacity utilization QCU) analysis Is required at West Coast Highway/Ilutin Avenue during the am.peak hour. ,rntersectio„Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analys" The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volumelcapacity(v/c) ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and their v/c ratios are then examined to determine the overall capacity utilization for each intersection in the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU is the percentage of an Intersection's capacity needed to adequately vehicles traveling through accommodate all the inter- section. Hence, the higher the ICU, the higher the percentage of capacity utilization,where an,ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization,residual capacity will sn�+s7a:Kxe��'txatFrc.Lna �9 LSAAmwim 041,. Tabu B-Tramc PbAmIns C2dtaance(Ppo)Intersection Analysts Summary MUST 2967ss'Ivoufm PsojwrpsA11!la30DTA19f IST10 CIL 19671F0 No la MANSICEON AN 7lALPa20D PMPiAXPMOD Air TO'tAi 9M TOTAL AWMA[YOM 91117AKHOt1a la IGlf. AMu.y. Ns a As wa tra a a va ProtSo a wa Ns a a ws Ns " -a ws its R a !a AAMPU AM - FM .TMD-Aim" d 0001=01allo.d Qm M 40 u a •• 77 S0 9 • • 0 0 2 2 0 0 NO No No No No NO No NO wiw0Dau1wrl a'4syrYTJs�(ilr7 Di 27 0 9 70' 90 0 a a a 0 0 • ♦ 0 0 No No No No No No 1#0 No s1�LiyuMrAra Q(ijR'.�rsii (if!) 52 u 106 26 D! 23 40 N ♦ 2 • - 30 2 2 2 t NO No No No No NO NO No DrM go)cmd tush"mi s) O 7 99. 95 1 23 40. 79 0 a is is O 2 22 10 NO No NO NO NO NO NO NO A+rr(t0ijR'.eri 7W1►) 0 1 M 42 0 2 $2 A 0 2 is 16 - 0 2 to 3o NO YO No No No No No No 0.92 an 000 Dr sq�lar•oir.QkLt'� +►r1Guq • 29 aL " 2 50 94 104 0 • 14 22 0 2 a a NO No No Pro No No No No �►+fii4d�7(N1 9 ! 73 47 25 • 70 7s 2 0 12 10 2 0 a 0 No No No No No No No No DRAFT 0 . ! IS4 1 ..r..:v A, pm2il, The ICU calculations presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines,critical Intersections,where DRAFT project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an Intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheet for Coast HighwayMustin Avenue is included as an attachment to this report. The ICU worksheet Indicates that West Coast Highway/rustin Avenue operates below the 0.90 threshold today,but Is forecast to operate with an ICU of 0.92 (LOS E) In the future cumulative condition. The addition of the project traffic does not affect this ICU value. The Intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E (ICU of 0.92)with the addition of project traffic. Therefore,per the TPO analy- sis, no significant Impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new project trips to the circulation network. pROJECrSIMACCESS As identified in the site plan presented in Figure 2, one driveway is proposed to provide access to west Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be relocated further east to the easterly boundary of the project site. Currently,a continu. ous left turn lane is provided along West Coast Highway to allow left turns in and out of the project site as well as full movements to adjacent properties. Full access was provided via the continuous left turn lane to the previous car dealership on the site. The purpose of this on-site analysis Is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the relocated existing access driveways,and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. Based on the trip assignment presented in Figure 4, approximately 17 left turn movements are forecast In and out of the project site during the peak morning commute period This is approximately one vehicle every three minutes on a random basis. Signalized Intersections crdst along West Coast Highway at Riverside Drive and southbound Newport Boulevard ramps to potentially platoon vehicles,providing some gaps in east and westbound through traffic. No obstructions to sight distance are evident in the vicinity of the project access location. As the continuous left turn lane currently exists and has provided full move- ment access to the previous land use and adjacent restaurant land uses,and as the left turn volume of traffic into and out of the site Is relatively nominal, maintenance of full movement access Is considered appropriate for the project site. ett487R1:tcxa735\TXVF1C-LT%. �11 0 . VEHICLE STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS According to the project description provided by the applicant, the site has been designed to minimize the,of time a consumer will have to spend on site. The point of sale and the food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. One variable that cannot be quantified for this analysis is the time spent by the patron In reading the menu boatels and making an order selection. But the applicant is projecting a maximum duration of 8:00 minutes per vehicle. According to the project trip assignment, approximately 34 vehicles per hour will arrive at the site during the am. peak hour, or almost one vehicle every two minutes based on random arrivals. Using the 8:00 minutes maximum duration estimate, four vehicles would arrive prior to the departure of the initial preceding vehicle. In this system,a total of 16 vehicles would be on site at a given time with a trip generation of approximately 34 vehicles per hour. The project description and site plan Indicate a total queuing area available for 30 vehicles. Tberefore, the site incorporates adequate vehicle storage for as much as twice the reported trip generation. Based on this analysis, adequate storage Is provided on site. The Iocation,of the first menu boards, however, may create limited queuing area during menu selection. Approximately five vehicles may queue up to the fast menu boards. Given the trip generation estimates, the maximum duration and the uncertainty In time of patron menu selection, it is,recommended that the first menu boards be moved approximately 35 feet north to provide an queuing area for five additional vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare" traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful in your planning needs. Should you have any questions,or if I can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to call-me at (714) 553-0666. Sincerer, L9AASSOCIATPS, INC. DRAW Anthony Pettus Associate Attachments: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets cc: Javier S.Garda,Senior Planner sn0741-.% en3MtatFttc.tna �2� 1 % Traffic Volume AyWsis cr`ro'rr �p �On 11EAPORT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 en ) Ewsttn Peak 2 112 Hour Approved acted Approach g Proj 1% of Projected Project Ofrection Peak 2 112 Four Regional Proj2acb F{ote Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth PEAK 12 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4363 87 100 4550 46 4 Southbound 3599 72 367 4038 40 4 Eastbound 1140 0 50 1190 12 0 Westbound 759• 0 20 779 8 0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X Peak 2 M Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is astimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2U2 Hour Traffic Volume. IntsrsactIon Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysts Is required. DATE: PROJECT: Y rt�x+oa i zi 1 % Traffic Volume dbalysis Wersmhn NEHPORT BOULEVARD / BOSPIM ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSprtng 1997 PPX Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Pro Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Ragionsil Projocts Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2112jHow P jact Volume CrovM PEAK 2 t12 Hour Wt 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4078 82 200 4360 44 2 Southbound 7371 147 203 7721 77 2 Eastbound 2874 0 144 3018 30 0 Westbound 899 0 0 898 q 0 Project Traffio Is estimated to be less than 1% of "acted X Pak 2112 Hour Tretnc Volume, a Project Trafflc to estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour TraHlo Volume, Intenocaw Capscity utirmation Analysts Is raqurro& DATE: PROJECT: 13 nmurpt 11 ra c o ume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage n er pr ng _, AM Pak N Hour Approved WAIpproachxtsting Regfonal Projects projected if of Projected Project k 2 HHour Growth Peak Zy Hour Peak N Four Peak 2h tour Pak 2y Ho Yolwe Volume volume volume Volume Volume 0750 10 3085 31 6 or2707 0 0 2707 2 6 Eastbound 45 0 0 45 0 0 westtwund 907 0 0 907 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Ef Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I c o ume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT SL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Yerage n er pr ng pM Peek 11 four Approved ptaltb uistfn ReytoMl Projects ProjectedPfE ISof Peak 2y four 6roxtfs Peek A Four Peak 2% fourPeak Volume Volume volume Volume No 3270 0 4 32T4 4975 0 6 49814 2$ 0 0 25 0 0 823 1 0 0 823 8 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected -Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. intersection! Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 4� �41• I 1 % Traffic Volume Ands Cr~oa^J IGI NrVY1n1 T..�TrG1 1.�A�UVD-S ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 - AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Volume Growth PEAK 2 Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1R Hour Volume Volumee Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3182 0 18 3200 32 4 Sorthbound 1151 0 18 1169 12 2 Eastbound 9699 194 670 10563 106 4 Westbound 2276 46 239 2561 26 10 j Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater then 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volums. intersection Capacity Utlnzatfon (i.C.U.) Analysis Is requirsd. DATE PROJECT: e :twt�a u M9 1 % Traffic Volume �alysis Ga�oapr � n pllAn COAST U1GWATIB6LBOA BLVD. -SDP1 nToR AVE, ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 - P ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Now Approved Projec4d 1% of Pro ectad Pro O ject ncUon Peak 2 1/2 Hour Repionel Projecb Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112jHour Peak 2112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 Volume Volume Volume Volumee Hour Volume Northbound 3234 0 32 3266 33 2 Southbound 2499 0 10 2509 25 2 Eastbound 5544 111 350 6005 60 2 Westbound 5s89 112 733 6434 64 6 a Project Trafno Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ pro act Trdfio Is estimated to be yrester than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intarsectton Capacity UUliratton (I.C.U.) Analyst* Is requirsd. DATE: PROJECT: to nwugt 1 % Traffic Volume Aysis 4roeM HGANWUVIIa-a—r�'ca.�'��'� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected "act Direction Peak 2 U2 Hour Ragional Pro Beta Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1f2 Flour Volume Growth PEAK 1e2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 12 19 0 0 Southbound 703 0 41 744 7 2 Eastbound 5069 101 762 5932 59 38 Westbound 2935 59 544 3538 35 18 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected Psak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. lntenectlon Capacity UU'liration (I.C.tl,) Analysis Is required. DATE: PROJECT: to RVttp� t~ew�ere ;• I % Traffic Volumealysis ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring, 19' 97 PX j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected "Set Diiecticn ?ask 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Volume Growth PEAK 2 Hw Peak 2 1f2 How Puk 21f2 How Peak 2 i112 }{our Volume Volumes o Volume Volume Volume Northbound 77 0 0 77 1 0 SOtf0"I'd 1302 0 16 1318 13 2 Eastbound 5223 104 680 6007 60 12 Westbound 6896 138 904 7938 79 10 a 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 Flour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is mutt" DATE PROJECT: 0 'ttt¢r(Y NSW der I % Traffic Volume An�isis nterseccbbon—��T-� '�$ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996- pus ) Approach Existing Ptak 2 1/2 Hour 4PrWord Projected 1% of "acted Project Direction Peak 2 1R Hex Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peek 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Now Volume C� PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Vdume Volume Volume Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 Southbound 117 0 24 141 1 2 Eastbound 4620 92 852 5564 56 16 Westbound 3590 72 538 4200 42 16 n Project Traffic is estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected u Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volums. intersection Capacity Utilization (LC.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 2 11r4r:Y t j roar I % Traffic Volume iklysis nleection _rne,qT ATCMAz,cxQsxu,_U, ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring. 1996 - PH Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of "acted Pro oct Direction Peak 2 1f2 Hour Regional oro� Pt AK 2a 1 s Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112jHour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 So&bound 208 0 8 216 2 2 Eastbound 4463 89 689 5241 52 10 Westbound 5654 113 986 6753 68 10 Project Tratfic is asttmatsd to be toss than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Voluma. n Project Trarno Is asUmated to be pnstar than 1% of Projected u Peak 2112 Hour T.nH1c Volume. MUrsoctlon Capacity Utllixatlon (I.C.U.) Analysts to required. DATE: PROJECT: B nwnn a+6W PbRr I % Traffic Volume An�sis ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter i Spring 1997 ex ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1/2 Hour AAp�od projwted 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 U2 Hour Regional ProjeoU Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 1l2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 352 0 0 352 4 0 Southbound 2609 0 266 2875 29 4 Eastbound 5077 102 952 6131 61 14 Westbound 4825 97 616 5538 55 12 ElProject Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1•% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE PROJECT: i NEW�41 ' 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis uso• hlersecb DRIVE —COAST UG111AY I DOPER DR — BATSHORE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average YYinterlSpring J997 PH ) Approach FAsting Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Prr;+ct Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional gro�l PEAK 2e t$ Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 21/2Hour Peak 2 1f2 Hour Volume 12 Volume Volumr Volume Volume Volume Northbound 234 0 0 234 2 0 Southbound 2813 0 166 2979 30 2 Eastbound 4638 93 704 5435 54 8 Westbound 9100 182 1148 I 10430 104 8 Q Project Traffic Is estimated to be leas than 1% of'Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2W Hour Tragic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilisation (I.C.U.) Ansfos Is required. DATE: PROJECT: ' I % Traffic Volume Aysis *--In- ers ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 19 96 — Am Approach Existing Peak 2 1f2 Hour Approved "acted 1% of Projected Pr:;eet O recUon Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 V2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 873 0 29 902 9 Southbound 133 0 153 286 3 0 Eastbound 6440 129 122 7291 13 12 Westbound 4275 86 361 4722 47 10 Project Traffic li estimated to be toss than 1% of Projected X Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 V2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utitization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: •PROJECT: e w.unt a 01 % Traffic Volume Anais roe I l.tgChofl COAST HIMAT/DATSIDE DBIVL ( Existing traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 19 96 — PH Approach "sung Peak 2 112 Pour Approved Projected 1%,of Project Direction Psak 2 112 Pour Regional Projjse4 Projected Growth PEAK 2 1R Flour Peak 2 112 Pour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Pour Volume Volume Volume Vdume Volume Volums Northbound 1258 0 15 1273 13 2 Sorthbound 137 0 249 386 4 0 Eastbound 6651 133 496 7280, 73 8 Westbound 6732 135 751 7618 76 1 6 ElProject TratYc Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Pour Traffic Volume. Project Trdrw is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utinzagon (I.C.u.) Analysts Is required. DATEq PROJECT: CM2635AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONt MAST 11OWAY L TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUTES USED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC YINTER/SPR1Ng• ..• - 1996 AN ..................................................................... I EXISTINGIPRGPOSEDIEXI$TINGIEXISTIMC REGIONALICOMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT 1M0vmentl lanes lanes I PK NR I V/C GAMIN PROJECT V/C Ratio lYotuaa � Y/C l lGLa tty1tapacityl :021 1 Ratio f VOW= IVotut IWo Project Ratio I Yolust 1. .............................................o . 1 .00 ....... ..... .. .......o . .... .. . ........ .NT ' 1600 !........1 0 ' 0.00 !..0_....1 0..._.!..:0.00 .!...0...10.00 i 1 I 0 3 10 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00- 1......................................•--.................................................. I St. 1 1 33 1 0 1 8 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 ST .) 1600 i........:......2 0.04 • 0....i...O.....1 0.04 • I. 0 10.04.1 1........) ..................3 ............................---................ I sit 1 t6 1 0 1 4 1 0.00 1 1 10.00 i...........................................................................................1 I EL 1 16001 1 421 0.031 1 1 1 1 0.03 1 1 10.031 I........................................................................................... I ET 1 1 2340 147 1 426 1 0.88 1 7 10.88 I........) 3200 ..................) 0.73 +.............................................. I ER I I 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 I..................................................................................... ..... I k I I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 o..00 I........................................................................................... I ,WT 1 "00 1 1 1555 1 0.32 131 1 267 1 0.39 1 8 10.39 �...............o.....................°:......1.............!--�......00 !---........00 (EXISTING 1 0.77 1 I............................................................................ 1 1EXtST + AEG GROUTN + COMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.92 1 I........................................................................................... 1EXISTING + COWITTED + REGIONAL GROWN + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.921 1_1 Projected+ project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I3Q Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems isprovement rill be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Trprovements Wit be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system irprovement: PROJECT FORM It CM2635AM L4YIROP INC. Camprcb"Vc EGYMOMaW Sa-*=A 1Deho03op PHASE I EWIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Conducted at 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy Easterly Portion Newport Beach, CA July 10,1997 Enviropro, Inc.Project No..E0838001 Prepared for TLA Incorporated do Mr.Joe Govela Govela a Asmnlatn 11 Blue Jay Drive Arms Viejo, CA 92666 9745 Eton Ave-•ue • Cbstswerik, CA 91311 0 a1E•991.7197 FAX dlt•998. 7255 .A Trrc ComproLemive Fam momw Savka A Tecinobgy July 10, 1997 TLA incorporated do Mr. Joe Goveia Goveis &Associates 11 Blue Jay Drive Afiso Viejo, CA 02858 Project No. E0838001 Subject: PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AT: A10t1 West pacific Coast Hvry-Newport EWch,CA Dear Mr. Goveia: Enclosed you will, find Envkopro, Inc.'s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report conducted for the above-referenced property. If you have questions or need further information,please call us at 818-998.7197. Sincerely. ENVIROPRO, INC. Avital Orrveau, R.E.A. #06663 AHERAAshestos Building Inspector # IEl13092810 Michael M. Uziel, Ph.D. Vice President/Principal Engineer A011e �� 9763 Eto • Areooe 6 Chateaorth, CA 92311 813-99II-7197 • FA 'i 811-999.72Si TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................... ... ..............I..........I...... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................•............................•........................... 1 3.0 SITE OVERVIEW.................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Location....... .............................................................•.•...•.......—.................... 2 3.2 Site Description.................................................. ................ .............................. 2 3.3 Adjaoent properties................•......• 4.0 SITE HISTORY AND OPERATIONS...............................•...................................... 5 4.1 Results of Sanbom Map Review... . . . ....................................................................5 4.2 Results of the Aerial Photograph Review..................................................•..............6 4.3 Results of the Munger Oil Map Review.....................................................................7 5:0 SITE SETTING....................................................................•................................... 7 5.1 Topographic Setting. ................•.....................,........,.............................................. 7 5.2 Regional Geology........................................... .........................................................7 5.3 Hydrogeologicat•Setting............................................................................................7 6.0 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.................................................................... 8 6.1 Site Visual Inspection Observations............................................4......................... 6 6.2 Results of Regulatory Agency Contacts 10 6.2.1 Results of Regulatory Agency Direct Contacts..................................................... 10 6.2.2 Results of Computerized Records Review........................................................... 11 6.3 Results of,the Radon Investigation.........................................................................12 6.4 Results of the Suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials Survey..............................12 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................13 8.0 DISCLAIMER.............................................•..................................•....................... 14 9.0 LIMITS OF LIABILITY........................................................................................... 14 n ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the property located at the easterly portion of 3100 West Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this work was to assess if potential environmental interests that might impact the property may exist at the site or surrounding sites. 2.0 SCQEE OF Conduct a visual inspection of the site to identify readily apparent potential sources or signs of contamination. This site inspection Wudes a thorough inspection of the property with attention to potential or present sources of environmental concern at the site. The visual inspection also includes interviews with managemeK employees, and other readily available persons regarding site history, waste handling practices, current environmental conoems, and any other pertinent environmental concerns. Photographs documenting the site visit are presented in Appendix A. Review historical aerial photographs, Sanbom Maps,and Munger Oil Maps, if readily available, to docu neat the previous uses of the site. These materials help assess past site activities that may have an impact on the property today. Commission a records search and report from an environmental regulatory database vendor for infomnation pertaining to soil and/or groundwater contamination at the subject site and surrounding properties within a one- mile radius. Contact the following agencies, if,possible, to inquire as to whether they maintain any files on the subject property. The following Is the minimum fist of local agencies to be contacted: The Fire Department The Department of Public Works The Regional Water Quality Control Board The Department of Health Services The Department of Toxic Substances Control(EPA) 1 r� • interview current and previous site owners (if possible) for information on any chemicals that may have been used, and knowledge of any spills and/or dwe cal teaks that may 'have occurred at the subject site or knowledge of potential or known environmental conoems. • Prepare an overview of the topographic, geological, and hydrogeobgical settings and information for time subject site and surrounding area from readily available geologic documentation, as related to environmental Issues. • Review research literature on radon Investigations performed for the State of California. Analyzed'pertinent data pertaining to the subject site and the possibility of a radon concern in the subject sib area. • Perform a visual inspection and sampling of suspect asbestos containing materials. Bulk samples were transferred to a state-certified laboratory, using the appropriate chain-of�lody, for analysis. Suspect asbestos samples were analyzed,using polarized light microscopy. • Prepare aseport documenting the results of the investigation. 3.0 AiTEM RVIF_W 3.1 LOCATION The subject site is located on the east"portion of 3100 West Pacific Coast MMy (PCH) in Newport Beach. The site is situated on the north side of PCH, east of Newport Avenue. Please see Drawing 1 for the Site Location Map. 3.2 SITE DESCWPTION The subject site is currently occupied by a vacant,auto repair shop and showroom offices. The subject site is a portion of what-used to be,a larger automobile sales and repair facility, Newport imports. The subject site contains a large, two-story showroom building, which also contains offices. This buliding fronts along PCH. 'fie nor of the property contains an automobile repair shop with several repair bays and parking area. Please see-Drawing 2 for the Site Plot Plan. 2 t �� s C Fir -s+�,► �"r►4 �► .-- � + � xkit WA* pA� Awl rldl Topographic .. . ENVIR 1• •,, it 55-gallon Wheel. Alignment drums Machines Generators North Repair torag Bay • oom Paint Booth O O r--+ M (� ® C== El U East Repair Bay West Repair Hydraulic Oil '��"' Bay Reservoirs • OMW Fuel Pump MW Underground O MW Tanks W Showroom & Offices lQtw O MW MW O Pacific Coast Highway Legend Drawing Not To Scale MW Monitoring We# Hydraulic Lift • Abandoned Hydraulic Lift d Aboveground Lift ❑ Aboveground New Oil Tank O 66-gallon drum of waste Enviropro, Inc. Site Plot Plan Drawln Z 9766 Eton Avenue ClientNam: Chatsworth, CA 91311 Goveia & Assoclate&fnA Inc. LDate: o1 o. pro Site• Address: JLu1y1997 EOt33t3001 A.O. 3100 W. PCH, Newport Beach, CA . r 3.3 ADJACEtIT PROPERTIES The subject site is situated in a mixed-use commerciallresidentiaf area. The adjacent sit"am described below: north. a steep diff is present at the northern border of the site. Atop this cliff are single family residential homes. south-across PCH from the subject site Is a large hotel. There are also several restaurants and an office building south of the site. Further south is the Newport Bay and Pacific Ocean. east-adjacent to the east, along PCH is a BMW automobile dealership and repair shop. west-adjacent to the site is the western portion of the former Newport Imports auto mobile dealership and repair shop. Further west Is a Chills restaurant, and the Newport Beach-Chamber of Commerce. 4.0 KW HISTQRY AND OPERAIRM 4.1 RESULTS OF SANBORN MAP REVIEW The Sanborn Map Company provided map coverage for this site. The following is a summary of the available maps provided to Enviropro. 1;3>71 The subject site appears to be vacant in this photograph. The front auto repair shop for the westerly portion of the former Newport Imports facility is present to the west The Sanborn map indicates that this budding is used for automobile repairs and painting. There Is also a car wash facility associated with this westerly portion of 3100 PCH. Piles of lumber are stored In the rear of the repair bay building. East of the site is a motel. South of the site, across PCH is a used boat sates shop and storage area, a furniture retail store and associated manufacturing and painting. Southwest of the site Is the Orange County Harbour Engineers. The subject site appears similar to today with the showroom budding and automobile repair shops. The westerly portion of 3100 PCH has also been further developed with another repair bay behind the original building. The surrounding sites appears the same as In the previous map. 5 - r: • • 4.2 RESULTS OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW Sir historical aerial photographs, the oldest of which dates back to 1922, were reviewed by an Enviropro, Inc. representative for the subject property at the UCLA Spence and Fairchild collections. These photographs were reviewed with attention to possible sources of environmental concern due to past activities on and around the property. Copies of the aerial photographs could not be obtained, and are therefore not Included in this report. The fo0owing is a descdpfion ofeach aerial photograph reviewed: 28174)4 1922 The subject site and surrounding sites are vacant and undeveloped. The marina is also not,developed and PCH is not present. E-1979 4112/26 The subject she and sites to the4MM, south, and east are vacant. PCH has been constructed. South of the site, across PCH is a commercial building. The building's use can not be determined from this photograph. E-0146 6/27/36 The subject site is still vacant and appears undeveloped. There is an advertising sign located on the subjed site along PCH, but the ad could not be read in this photograph. North of the site, atop the cliff, is what appears to be one single family residential home. South of the site is the commercial budding. West of the site is an industrial property, and east of the site Is vacant Q0,A3036 4r27/47 The southern 33 of the subject site Is being used for mobile tome parking in this photograph. The northern 1/3 of the site appears'to be used for materials storage for the industrial site to the west. These materials appear to be stacks of wood, posslofy for boat construction. A motet Is present to the east, and additional residential homes are present to the north,atop the cliff. South of the site is a bait shop (a sign can be read on the budding) and what appears to'be a tits and boat maintenance facility. r, E_-147784A 1 MISA The subject site appears similar to today. The properties adjacent to the north, east and west appear similar to the previous photograph. South of the site, across PCH,is a commercial property which appears to be associated with the marina, its use can not be determined from the photograph. B (fig 2/3I66 The subject site and surrounding adjacent sites appear similar to the 1955 photograph, However, south of the site, across PCH is what appears to be a hotel and parking lot 4,3 RESULTS OF THE MUNGER OIL MAP REVIEW There are no former or present oil weft noted in the maps on or immediately adjacent to the subject site. Therefore there is little likelihood for concem due to former or present oil wags on the subject site. There is an area of of exploration south and southwest of the subject site, app udmatety 1000 feet from the subject site. These wells are a significant distance from the subject site so that they most likely do not pose an environmental concem to the subject site. 5.0 IME s NG s.1 TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING The Subject site is situated at an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level and Is located approximately 400 feet from the Newport Say which connects to the Pacft Ocean. The elevation Increases dramatically at the northern border of the subject site, where a cliff rises to 75 feet above mean,sea level. 5.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject site is located along the shore of the Pacific Ocean and at the base of a 75-foot tall cliff The soils at the subject site and immediate area can be expected to be sandy. 5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING Because this site is so loose to the Pacific Ocean, groundwater can be expected to be quite shallow. In addition, groundwater quality can be expected to be poor due to salt water intrusion. The groundwater elevation can also be expected to be greatly influenced by the local tides. Some groundwater elevation information has been provided by a groundwater monitoring report prepared by WA Consulting, Inc. who installed and has performed quarterly monitoring for eight groundwater monitoring wells on site. According to their information, groundwater is present at approximately 7 to 7.5 feet below ground surface. 7 HF 'jLTS OF THE INVESTIGATION Outlined below are the results from the visual inspection, regulatory agency search, computerized records search, radon review, and suspect asbestos Inspections. 6.1 SITE VISUAL INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS A visual inspection of the site was conducted on dune 28, 1997. tt involved a walk- through of the subject property and the immediate vicinity by, Avltai Oliveau, an Enviropro, Inc. representative. to identify possible sources of emrironmmW concern. The ales inspection was led by Mr. Joe Govo ls, a representative for the buyer. There were a number of environmental concems noted at the subject site and in the western portion of 3100 PCH, which is not a potion of the property being purchased by Enviropro's client, but was part of the former automobile sales and repair shop known as Newport Imports. The first item of environmental concern is the groundwater contamination which is apparently presets as described in the MJA Consulting, Ins.'s 'Groundwater Monkuft Weil Sampling and Gradient Assessment, Second Quarter 199T report. Apparently, one or more underground-tanks on site (which were replaced) leaked. This report describes the latest round of groundwater sampling (from the date of this Phase 1) conducted for the eight monitoring weft on she. Of Noose eight wells, only one is located.on the subject site. The remaining seven wells are located on the western portion of 3100 PCH. he groundwater underlying the suW site appears to be contaminated with gasoline and STEX (benzene, toluene, ethylybenzene, and total xylenes). Throughout the years of sampling (2l90 07) ooncentrations of gasoline have ranged from nondetected to 61,000 ppm. The most recent round of groundwater sampling, collected on June 20, 1997 shows the following results: a TABLE 1 Groundwater Analytical Results-June 1"T 3100 West PCH-Newport Beach, CA Welt No. B T E X IIA fBE MW-1 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 21 MW 2 200 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 53 MW,3 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8.2 MW-4 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.6 MW_5 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 25 MW-8 15,000 20 <4.3 <4.3 2,820 11 MW 7 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 MW-8 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1 1.5 The historical anaW.M groundwater analyses show that the concentrations of gasoline and BTEX are steadily decreasing through time. Please note that the underground tanks present today are located on the western portion of 3100 PCN (not a part of the subject site); however, the fuel pump is located on the subject site. The second item of environmental concern noted onsite are the four double and six abandoned single hydraulic tilts. Please see the Site Plot Plan for their locations. Each of these hydraulic lifts contains a snag underground tank of hydraulic oils. For the abandoned tilts, it is unknown if these lifts were decommissioned because of a leak which stopped the operation of the Aft, or simply because it wasn't used. Please note, two of the double lifts apparently have aboveground tanks which contain their hydraulic oil. A third Kom of environmental concern noted on site are the 21 55-gallon drums located at the northeast comer of the site. The drums were unlabeled and fun. For safety reasons, the drums were not opened to assess their contents. The asphalt underlying this drum storage area was also etched with circular drum markings,which could indicate historical leaks. A fourth item of environmental concern noted on site are the numerous aboveground tanks and drums of new aril used oil and Miters. These tanks and drums are located throughout the subject site. Please see the Site Plot Plan for their locations as noted during the site inspection. A fifth item of environmental concern noted on site is the oil staining underlying a small generator near the northeast comer of the site, within a covered shed. It is apparent from the staining that oil has leaked from this generator onto the underlying asphalt. 9 Another item of environmental concern to the subject site which is located on the westerly portion of 3100 PCH is the•paint booth, The paint booth is located near the western end of the site; please see the Site Plot Plan. Paint spills were noted near the paint booth and painting operation within a paint booth are known to pose a potential risk for solvents and other regulated compounds to have affected the underlying sod. There were two pole-mounted'transfomiam observed now the northeast corner of the site, behind the property line. Time transtomiers are owned by Southern California Edison, who has indicated in a written notification to EnvlWo, Inc. that they no longer have PCB-containing transbrrnars, and that their agency has never spedtied PCB-containing transformers in the past. Therefore, there is little concern due to PCBs from these transformers. 6.2 RESULTS OF REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS 6.2.1 A regulatory agency search was conducted for information pertaining to sod and/or groundwater contamination at the property located at 3100 West Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The Mowing Is a list of the agencies contacted and responses received:• A. Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Board(CRWQCB): Records were found for the sub)ed-property according to Ms. Margie Quiroz B. Orange County Health Care Agency: Records were found for tha subject property according to the file clerk. C. Newport Beach Fire Department Records were found for the subjed property according to Ms. Nadine Meschusky. E. Cardomia Envirorxnentai Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC): No records were found for the subject property according to tuts. Julia Johnson of DTSC. 10 6.2.2 A record search was conducted by Enviropro. Inc. through Vista Emrironmentars (Vista) database service for the subject site and surrounding sites within a one- mile radius. Please note that the statements made below are based on this database search. Enviropro, Inc. has no control over how current these listings are. Therefore, triers is a likelihood that they may not represent the entire sum of known or potential hazardous waste or contaminated sift. The accuracy of the Vista report is constrained by the limits of care and professional skill exercised by the subcontractor. The database report can be found in Appendix B. Newport Imports is listed several times in the database report as having a leaking underground tank and as being under county oversight for groundwater clean-up. Acoording to the database report, groundwater is contaminated by gasoline on site and further remedial investigation is required. The site is also listed as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste. There are five other sites within a 19 mile radius from the site which are also Gsted as having a leaking underground tank. According to the database report, these fire sites have received closure or have completed rsmediation, and are therefore not considered to be an environmental concern to the subject site. The Harbor Ckib Marina, located at 3333 Pacific Coast Hwy. and Newport Cleaners, located at 106 Tustin, are fisted in the database report as conducting a groundwater remedial investigation due to gasoline or other contamination. According the address, these sites are located downgradlent from the subject site and most likely does not pose an environmental concern. The upgrad'rent sites listed in the database report are the Newport Beach City Landfill, the Newport City Corporate Yard, the A and G Garage, and Hughes Aircraft. The landfill is currently closed and was a solid waste dispose)facility. The corporate yard is listed as requiring no further action by DISC. It also had contamination related to a leaking underground tank, but the case has been dosed. These two sides are not considered to pose an em►horxnental concern to the subject site. The garage and Hughes Aircraft are a significant distance from the site as not to pose an environmental concern to the subject site. The database report fists three unmapped sites. No locating information is available in the database report to quantify the sites' locations. These three sites are landfill sites. The aerial photograph review did not reveal a landfill within the immediate area of the subject site. Therefore. it is not expected that these sites will pose an environmental concern to the subject sits. 11 I' 6.3 RESULTS OF THE RADON REVIEW Radon is a colorless. odorless, tasteless. radioactive gas that Is produced as a natural decay product of uranium. Because uranium and radon occur in varying amounts in rock and soils, radon is present in all the air we breathe. Furthemtore, due to its radioactivity, numerous studies have shown that at elevated levels, there is a link between radon and lung cancer. Concentrations-of radon gas are expressed as pico Curies per liter of air (pCVQ. There were no readings for the subject.zip code 92663. Reading for the zip code 9=7, approximately 314 mile north of the siite are 0.0. Readings above 4 pCiA can be a source of concern according to the moat recent report by the Department of Health Services "California Statewide Radon Survey Interim Results"published In 1992. 6.4 REVIEW OF SUSPECT ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS Due to the age of the building(s) on the subject site, suspected asbestos- containing materials were sampled. The foltowirg Table describes the sample$ collected and analytical results. TABLE 2 Analytical Results for Asbestos Sampling 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy-Newport Beach Sample Material Sample Asbatasi No. Description Location Content 1 la$fer parts room wall 0 2 nd showroom wail 0 3 LaNing oeft file showroom office,2nd Floor 0 4 stucco outside parts office 0 5 brown vinyl floor tile 2nd floor office 0 6 1,0xl0teft file main show room calling 0 As noted in the table, none of the suspected materials sampled tested positive for asbestos. Therefore,there.appears to be no concern due to asbestos containing materials on site. The analytical laboratory report from the state-certified laboratory and chain-of- custody are presented in Appendix C. V 7.0 S'cONGLUSIONq AND iZECQMIMENDATIOt�(;� Enviropro, Inc. has perforrned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in minimum c orrformance with the scope and Crnitations of ASTM Standards E 1527 for 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy, in Newport Beach, CA. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 9.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized,environmental conditions in connection with the property except for Me following: Conclusion:There were a number of groundwater monitoring,wells located on the westwly portion of 3100 West PCH and one well on the subject site. A report provided by WA Consulting, Inc. Indicates that groundwater contamination does exist on site and on the westerly portion of 3100 W PCH. in addition, the environmental database report indicates that the groundwater on site is affected by gasoline and addition remedial investigation is necessary. Recommendadon: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that the Orange County Health Care Agency files,Water Board files, and Fire Department files be reviewed to fully assess the environmental investigatory work conducted on site. A summary of Me proposed additional remedial investigation and clean-up measures should be provkW to the client. Conclusion: There are two underground tanks registered on the wesfedy portion of 3100 West PCH. These tanks will most tritely not be used in the future and they do not meet current underground tank regulation requilra wds. in addition, the fuel pump for these tanks is located on the subject she. Recommendatton: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that these tanks and the associated fuel pump be removed acccceorrding to regulatory agency guidelines. Conclusion: According to the indoor Lion provided by Mr. Joseph Goveia, representative for the-buyer, all the structures on site will be removed and the buildings will be demolished. This will require removing the underground hydraulic lifts. Rscommandadon: Envkopro, Inc. recommends that the underground hydrauk Oft be removed property with proper disposal of the hydraulic oil and property testing at the base of each hydraulic lift Conclusion: There were several aboveground tanks and 55-gallon drums of new and waste od and filters. in addition, there were 21 55-gallon drums of what is most likely waste materials at the northeast corner of the subject site. In addition, staining and etching were noted under the dnuns. 13 Rocommondadon: Enviropro, Inc. recommends Ifiat th—m— materiali be propecly removed and disposed from the site prior to demolition. Also a minimum of two soil samples should be collected In this area to assess the underlying soil for volatile organic compounds and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Conclusion: One paint booth and evidence of paint spills was located near the west end of the westerly portion of 3100 West PCH. Paint booths are commonly associated with solvent affected soli. The evidence of paint spills in the adjacent room' indicates poor housekeeping and adds to the question of subsurface affected sol. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that a minimum of two soli gas borings be drilled on two sides adjacent to the paint booth to assess the underlying soil for volatile organic compounds. Conclusion: Ot staining was observed under a generator near the northeast comer of the site. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that one soil sample be collected in the stained area. Soil samples should be collected at 2.5 and 5 feet bgs and analyzed for TRPH by EPA Method 418.1. 8.0 DISCLAIMER This report is limited to the observations possible based on visual inspection and on a records search at government agencies. Only the specific government records listed in Appendix 8 were searched. Additional government record sources may not have been Included in this report, and no represetitations are made of the record's adequacy. Enviropro, Inc. is not responsible for any incomplete government records. in addition, government agencies do not list all tides otenvironmentat contamination. 9.0 LIMITS QE l ABILi1 Y The information provided In this report is solely for the use of Mr. Joseph Goveia and TtA Incorporated. The information is valid only for the reason for which this report was produced, and for the time this report was produced, since environmental conditions may change with time. Any reliance on this information by third parties shall be at such parties'We risk. Enviropro, Inc. liability Is limited to the fee received for preparation of this report or S20K whichever is less: 114 F LSA Associates,Inc. 'R Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering LSD OCTU - g 1997 Habita andt Res orati ndr .�\J Hnhitrtt Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Ardiitectnre Archaeology and Paleontology October 3, 1997 Principals Rob Balers Janet Divan Sheila Brady Associate Civil Engineer Les Card City of Newport Beach David Clore stenvranh 3300 Newport Boulevard Rich Cranho ch Newport Beach, CA 92658 Rrrintrd Hmlacbrr Roger Harris Are Hornighasaem Subject: Traffic Study for TLA Restaurant at 3100 West Coast Highway, Larry Kennings Newport Beach Carallyn Lobell Bill'ilaye. Dear Ms. Divan: Rob McCann Rob Sdsonboltz LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to provide the following traffic analysis for ,ilalrohn J.Sproul the proposed TLA restaurant located along West Coast Highway in the City of Associates Newport Beach. The analysis has been prepared at the request of City staff to identify off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analy- Deborah Baer sis, to examine on-site circulation conditions to ensure that the proposed ac- James Baum cesses provide adequate ingress/egress to the local street system, and that on- Connie Calica Ste✓en lS!Cosskling site storage areas are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project. Ross Dobberteen Gary Dom Richard Erickson SUALWRYOFFINDINGS Kevin Fincber Clint Kellner 1. The site was previously a car dealership, but is currently vacant. One Laura Lafler driveway provides access from the project parcel to West Coast High- Benson Lee pray, The project does not propose any new access driveways. Judith H.Malamut Sabrina Nicholls M.W. `Bill'O'Connell 2• West Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is a five lane arterial, Anthony Petros three westbound and two eastbound. There are no committed, funded Lynette Stanchina projects to provide additional arterial capacity. Improvements to the Jill Wilron SR 55 (Newport Boulevard)/SR-1 (West Coast Highway) interchange will Lloyd B.Zola enhance the operation of this intersection. 3. At the project driveway, approximately 850 vehicle trips per day are forecast to enter and exit the site,with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. 30/2t97K1.\CNB733\1RAFF1CXM)* One Park Plaza,Snue 500 Telephone 714 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley bonne,California 92614 Farsnnle 714 55J-8076 Pt.Richmond,Riverside and Sacramento E-mail lsa_ir✓@&netcvm.com LSA Associates,G¢. w ' Extensive studies have shown that much of drive through restaurant traffic generated at the project driveway is already on the street for another purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips, and account for approximately 47 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveway. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 460 new project trips, 37 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation net- work. 4. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new pro- ject trips to the circulation network. 5. Access to the project site will be provided at one location and will in- clude left in,right in, and right out turn movements. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1, on-site storage area is available for approximately five vehicles at the menu board and approxi- mately seven vehicles at the ordering location. It is recommended that the first menu boards be moved north approximately 35 feet to provide greater vehicular storage during the most time-consuming (menu selec- tion) phase of the operation. With this modification, no adverse im- pacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site at 3100 West Coast Highway was a car dealership, but is cur- rently vacant. The project location is illustrated in Figure 1. The proposed•site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 1,200 square foot elevated, drive through restaurant. The operation and sophistication of the menu of the proposed project has not been encountered to date in a drive-up format. The proposed site plan retains a single access driveway along West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be reconstructed and moved east to the easterly edge of the project site. This access will provide right in/out and left in movements only. The project does not propose any additional access driveways. Project Trip Generation Table A presents the total trip generation resulting from application of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) industry standard trip rates to the proposed 1,200 square foot drive through restaurant. The source of the trip rates is the February 1995 Update to the Fhb Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual (Land Use Code 834: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window). These rates provide a conservative estimate of the trip generation of the pro- posed project. These rates are based on trip generation information from nationally operated restaurant chains (e.g.,McDonald's, Burger King, and Taco Bell). These types of restaurants are characterized by a large carry-out clientele 102N7a1:\CNB733\7RAFFIC.LTB» • 2 17th ST S�. QO w� y�w HOSPITAL RD pQy PROJECT w� SITE �9 �l LO v Q9 b0 pCH �w - O O� PCJul BAYSIDgD LEGEND: O R O Study Intersections 10/7J97(CNB733) Figure 1 li r1 N Location Map and L A No Scale Study Intersections � S 76!S•OQ. N 1551.0597 �- 19%96. O �. E 14`S�11611 � I `w If Iogco, t PAWK ; r • LANDSCAPIE , N 53.632 4 E O %a RAW LAHMCAK N 1 b CANOPY ADONPI�� A •l'1 a a� y Il/lOSCIPE a / 4/ NFA ''- 0 C i �1 1v m 2. N \ LIE a fnu tNnsclPE .� 1a�%f¢1t� STA AFEA WARD r CHOY CFIIi`FN NC y - CNIOPY/B01f. y 3f /y mosm n3 AREA 6 4 • /Z �: 03- T3•� N f330 ASG�, ------LLLLLL /E 4443'.81S Source:Boom Architects. � ' '`.`� 1• r• 10/1J97(CN8733) Figure 2 41, N �`y' LS A No Scale Site Plan LSAAstvctates,Tnc v Table A-Trip Generation Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total Drive-Through Restaurant 1.20 TSF Trip Rate t 710.08 28.49 27.38 55.87 19.01 17.55 36.56 Trip Generation 852 34 33 67 23 21 44 Pass-by Trips 2 392 15 15 30 11 10 21 Total New Trips 460 19 18 37 12 11 23 Notes: 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers,Update to theF#?b Edition ofTrip Generation,February 1995. 2 Pass-by trip factor based on percentages in ITE manual,referenced above. A.M.Peak Hour=45% P.M.Peak Hour=47% Daily Traffic=46% (based on a composite value of the weekday a:m.and p.m.peak hour time periods) rsr Thousand Square Feet 9/29i97(1ACVB7331TR1PGEN.las) • LSA Associates,Inc. and long hours of service (e.g., 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.) However, this devel- opment serves a smaller segment of the fast-food market. In addition, these rates are based on restaurant facilities that provide sit-down service and recre- ational facilities for children, neither of which is a part of the proposed project. Despite these differences, the proposed development more closely resembles these type of restaurants than any other land use with trip generation rates documented in the ITE manual. Therefore, to provide a conservative estimate of trip generation, it is recommended that the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour and daily trips shown in Table A be used to conduct the traffic impact analysis. The project is forecast to generate approximately 850 average daily trips (ADT), with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. For purposes of this project analysis, the average trip generation identified in Table A is used to determine traffic conditions on site and at the project drive- ways. Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the restaurant traffic generated at the site driveway is already on the street for another purpose. Based on logarithmic equations contained in the ITE Trip Generation manual, approximately 47 percent of the daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destina- tion. It should be noted that the percentage of pass-by trips for this develop- ment is expected to be between 60 and 70 percent based on its proximity to West Coast Highway and exclusive drive-through service. However, to remain conservative, the lower pass-by percentage documented in ITE was used for the calculation. This factor is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways in Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approxi- mately 460 new project trips, 37 new a.m.-peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network These"new project trips" are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. Project Trip Distribution Figure 3 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project. The distribution plan is based on the trip distribution patterns identified for other recently approved fast food restaurants along West Coast Highway, and shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The proposed project trips are distributed equally east and west of the project site. Once on the arterial street system,the project traffic will disperse onto the Balboa Penin- sula and to other local destinations. The project trip assignment is based on the application of the project trip distribution to the trip generation. The total trip generation is identified at the project access. Based on the assignment plan, "new project trips"identified in Table A are assigned at the TPO study area intersections. Figure 4 presents the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area intersections. 102N7K1ACNB733\TRAFFIC.LTR+ 6 17th ST WSJ, 'rT 4P,w Qo4�wv 9J _`IpF �R 10 HOSRPIITAL pr9 5 PROJECT 4` � SITE Sy° 10 10 © a� 0 $ 50 5 5 15 0�09 `fro pcy 10 ow`9 of 40 °e5 10 4. 5 PCR LEGEND: BAYSi 10 Percentage to/from Project ��OR 10/2/97(CNB733) Figure 3 10, L►JL 1 No Scale Project Trip Distribution l7th ST S�. S�. as 04 a,Q04A. b H _ HOSPrrpL RD w PROJECT owe r' 5/3 8/B I r614 rya o �e PCH LEGEND: _ BAYsfpg pR AM/PM Peak Hour O 2�1 Project Traffic Volumes - *Subtraction reflects pass-by trip reduction - from through movement and addition to turn - - - - movements tolfrom project site. 10/2/97(CNB733) Figure 4 N LSANo Scale Project Trip Assignment LSA Associates,Inc. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE(TPO)ANALYSIS Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Administrative Procedures for imple- menting the TPO analysis, trips are generated, distributed and assigned to the seven study area intersections presented in Figure 1. These intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of intersections was reviewed and approved by the City Engineering staff. Existing traffic conditions for the intersections are based on winter/spring 1996 and 1997 counts. The intersection at Newport Boulevard/Via Lido is based on a winter/spring 1994 traffic count. Committed project traffic volumes at the study area intersections are taken from the City s cumulative projects list prepared on August 4, 1997. Cumula- tive growth volumes, also included in this analysis, are based on City of New- port Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for street segments within the City of Newport Beach boundary. One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" tests, as defined in the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance No. 86-20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed project's peak period trip assignment for the four study area intersections in the City of Newport Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1999, one year after occupancy of the proposed project. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" worksheets are presented as an attachment. The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are summarized in Table B. This table identifies the seven study area intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each approach leg of an intersection,the 1999 a.m. and p.m. peak period one percent test volumes, the proposed project's peak period trip assignment, and a comparison of the peak period volumes are presented. Under the 'Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes," those approach legs to an intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes are identified. As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the TPO, critical intersections are defined as those locations in which project generated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour period,traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections in the committed plus project condition. As indicated in Table B, the intersection of West Coast Highway/rustin Avenue will exceed one percent of the intersection approach volume during the a.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the 1999 one percent volume is one vehicle in the a.m. peak period. The project will add two vehicles in the a.m. peak period. As a result, intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis is required at West Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue during the a.m. peak hour. 10a,97«1ACNB733\M"IC.L7R» 9 ISAA.rmciate&Lae. Table B-Traffic Pleasing Ordinance(TPO)Intersection Analysis Summary 1%TMVOLUME 1%TESTVOLUME PRO)ECr PEfKPERIOD TRH'8 EXCEEDI%TPO EXCEEDI%TPO *Pmjelw/pmjel ICU INTERSEcnoN AMPEeKPERIOD PMPEAKPERIOD AM TOTAL PM TOTAL AMPEAKHOUR PMPPAKHOUR ICU ICU I Change NB SB I D VB NB SB I IM WB NB SB I EB VB NB SB I EB VB NB SB I EB VB NH SB I IM VB AM PM AM PM AM PM tapm Boukvatd(NIS)Aimpital Rwd(E/W) 46 40 12 8 44 77 30 9 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO avpo Boulevard(NS)Prm Lido(FM 31 27 O 9 33 50 0 8 6 6 0 0 4 4 0 0 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO H1vd.Supai-A-e.(NA),Cw Higluvay(EM 32 12 106 26 33 25 60 84 4 2 4 10 2 2 2 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Rivmide Dtive(N/S)rC Highway(EM 0 7 59 35 1 13 60 79 O 2 18 18 0 2 12 12 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Avenue(N/S))Cw Highwxy(FJW) 0 1 56 42 0 2 52 68 0 2 16 16 0 2 10 10 NO YFS NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.92 0.92 0.00 Dr-33, aeDr (NM)Cwft HighwayMW) 4 29 61 55 2 30 54 104 0 4 14 12 0 2 8 8 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ide Drive(NMICout Highway(AM 9 3 73 47 13 4 73 76 2 0 10 10 2 O 6 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO a 1012S7(LICN87331TPO=C-UV • • LSA Associates,h¢. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICQ Analysis The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volume/capacity(v/c) ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and their v/c ratios are then examined to determine the overall capacity utilization for each intersection in the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU is the percentage of an intersection's capacity needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles traveling through the inter- section. Hence, the higher the ICU, the higher the percentage of capacity utilization,where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization, residual capacity will prevail. The ICU calculations presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections,where project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheet for Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue is included as an attachment to this report. The ICU worksheet indicates that West Coast Highway/1'ustin Avenue operates below the 0.90 threshold today, but is forecast to operate with an ICU of 0.92 (LOS E) in the future cumulative condition. The addition of the project traffic does not affect this ICU value. The intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E (ICU of 0.92)with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, per the TPO analy- sis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new project trips to the circulation network. PROJECT SITE ACCESS As identified in the site plan presented in Figure 2, one driveway is proposed to provide access to West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be relocated further east to the easterly boundary of the project site. Currently, a continu- ous left turn lane is provided along West Coast Highway to allow left turns into the project site, as well as left turn movements into adjacent properties. Al- though full access was provided via the continuous left turn lane to the previ- ous car dealership on the site, left turn out movements are not proposed for this project. The purpose of this on-site analysis is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the relocated existing access driveways,and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. Based on the trip assignment presented in Figure 4, approximately 17 left turn movements are forecast into the project site during the peak morning commute period. This is approximately one vehicle every three minutes on a random basis. Signalized intersections exist along West Coast Highway at Riverside 10/2N7<:\CNB733\TRAFFIC.L7RH 11 • 0 LSA Associates,hic. Drive and southbound Newport Boulevard ramps to potentially platoon vehi- cles, providing some gaps in east and westbound through traffic. No obstruc- tions to sight distance are evident in the vicinity of the project access location. VEHICLE STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS According to the project description provided by the applicant, the site has been designed to minimize the time a consumer will have to spend on site. The point of sale and the food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. One variable that cannot be quantified for this analysis is the time spent by the patron in reading the menu boards and making an order selection. But the applicant.is projecting a maximum duration of 8:00 minutes per vehicle on site. According to the project trip assignment, approximately 34 vehicles per hour will arrive at the site during the a.m. peak hour, or almost one vehicle every two minutes based on random arrivals. Using the 8:00 minutes maximum duration estimate, four vehicles would arrive prior to the departure of the initial preceding vehicle. In this system, a total of 16 vehicles would be on site at a given time with a trip generation of approximately 34 vehicles per hour. The project description and site plan indicate a total queuing area available for 30 vehicles. Therefore, the site incorporates adequate vehicle storage for as much as twice the-reported trip generation. Based on this analysis, adequate storage is provided on site. The location of the first menu boards, however, may create limited queuing area during menu selection. Approximately five vehicles may queue up to the first menu boards. Given the trip generation estimates, the maximum duration and the uncertainty in time of patron menu selection, it is recommended that the first menu boards be moved approximately 35 feet north to provide an queuing area for five additional vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful in your planning needs. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anthony Pe s Associate Attachments: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets CC: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner 10297a1ACNB733\7RAFF[C.LTR» 12 O�agW RjgT . M 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis (ntefSeCl1011 EPAR NEMRT BOULD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 AX ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected i% of Projected Project Projects peak 21f2 Hour Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour RegionalPeak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 V2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4363 87 100 4550 46 4 Southbound 3599 72 367 4038 40 4 Eastbound 1140 0 50 1190 12 0 Westbound 759 0 20 779 8 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected nx Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: e nvutrtat arEWR'a, 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Inlersedon HE RORT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter]Spring J997 PH ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projecb peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volumee Volume Growth PEAK 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4078 82 200 4360 44 2 Southbound 7371 147 203 7721 77 2 Easthound 2874 0 144 3018 30 0 Westbound 898 0 0 898 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected g Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak.2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1WATC2 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3075 0 10 3085 31 6 Southbound 2707 0 1 0 1 2707 1 27 6 Eastbound 45 0 0 45 0 0 Westbound 907 0 0 907 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2)-g Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 11 _) PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% E2� cted Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 29 Hour Peur Peak 2y HoVolume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 3270 0 4 3274 33 4 Southbound 4975 0 6 4981 50 4 Eastbound 25 0 0 25 0 m 0 Westbound 823 0 0 823 8 0 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� Peak 2> Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 4�Ew�Rr 10 40 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis �`•ipeNr It1t2fS2Cf100 COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BLVD—SUPERIOR AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 — AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approvedacts Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Prof Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 3182 0 18 3200 32 4 Southbound 1151 0 18 1169 12 2 Eastbound 9699 194 670 10563 106 4 i Westbound 2276 46 239 2561 26 10 I I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: to nautwt �PEW�9r z 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis G COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BLVD. —SUPMOR AVE. I�terseotioo ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 19 96 — PM ) Approach 'Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Projects Direction peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Crovm PEAK 2 Hour Volume Volumee Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3234 0 32 3266 33 2 Southbound 2499 0 10 2509 25 2 Eastbound 5544 111 350 6005 60 2 Westbound 5589 112 733 6434 64 6 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: e wwol 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersedon COAST HIGHWAY / RIVERSIDE AVENUE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 AM } Approach Existing Peak 2 U2 Hour Approved Projected 1'6 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 M Hour Regional K 211 Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 12 19 0 0 Southbound 703 0 41 744 7 2 Eastbound 5069 101 762 5932 59 18 Westbound 2935 59 544 3538 35 18 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 13 tweoat .��gWPpgT • • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Inierseciioo COAST HIGHWAY / RIVERSIDE AVEM ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 ats j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Projects Direction peak 2 1f2 Hour RegionalPeak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 77 0 0 77 1 0 Southbound 1302 0 16 1318 13 2 Eastbound 5223 104 680 6007 60 12 Westbound 6896 138 904 7938 79 10 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: MAUCM �,EwaoRr Q4 • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis C``•`Oa�`r COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVE InIE(SeCi1011 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996- AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APProVed Projected 1% of Projected Project Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour g Peak 2 i/2 Hour peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 Southbound 117 0 24 141 1 2 Eastbound 4620 92 852 5564 56 16 Westbound 1 3590 1 72 538 4200 42 16 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected nX Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (1.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ® nuwtot 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Infersei;Gan COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 — PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 Southbound 208 0 8 216 2 2 Eastbound 4463 89 689 5241 52 10 Westbound 5654 113 986 6753 68 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less then 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak:2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: e tiawty Ii 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis � � r Iniersedon COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 AH ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects peak 2 112 Hour peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 352 0 0 352 4 0 Southbound 2609 0 266 2875 29 4 Eastbound 5077 102 952 6131 61 14 Westbound 4825 97 616 5538 55 12 Q 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. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: Iw em .�aEWPpRT I � • I % Traffic Volume Analysis �+ercoeN� Init?(St?Cf101) COAST HIMAY / DOVER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter]Spring 1997 FX ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected i% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Or PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 234 0 0 234 2 0 Southbound 2813 0 166 2979 30 2 Eastbound 4638 93 704 5435 54 8 Westbound 9100 182 1148 I 10430 104 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak'2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 11 IL1. CM t�EW�RT M 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis w InterSBCUOII COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter!Spring 19 96 - AM Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APProVed Projected i Y. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Project+ Peak 2 112,Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 873 0 29 902 9 2 Southbound 133 0 153 286 3 0 Eastbound 6440 129 722 7291 73 12 Westbound 4275 86 361 4722 47 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 0 iuwyax 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Ga,roa��' InIersedon COAST HIGEAAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 — PH ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected r Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects j 1 h of Projected Project Growth PEAK 2 1f2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1258 0 15 1273 13 2 Southbound 137 0 249 386 4 0 Eastbound 6651 133 496 7280 73 8 Westbound 6732 135 751 7618 76 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 0 Itlwcx A C82635AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1996 AM ••••..--_•....•.•..•••....................................................................... I I EXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTING IEXI STING[REGIONAL I COMMI TIED I PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT INovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Votune I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I RL 1 I D 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I........) ..................) -----------------------------------------------I I NT 16001 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.001 I--------) ------------•.....) -------------------------•---•------ I MR I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------I I SL 1 1 38 1 0 1 8 1 0.00 1 0 10.001 I........) .................. -----------------------------------------------I 1 sT 1600 I 1 2 0.04 • 0 1 0 1 0.04 1 0 10.04 I ........) i-------------•--- -----------------------------------------------I SR 1 0 1 4 1 0.00 1 1 10.00 1 1------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------I EL 1 16001 1 421 0.031 1 1 1 1 0.03 11 10.031 ----- - ------------------- --------------------------- J ET 1 1 2340 147 1 426 1 0.88 1 7 10.881 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.73 ----------------------------------------------I I ER I I 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 10 10.00 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL I I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I------------•-----------•-••--------•-----••-------------------------------•------•-_------I I . WT 1 4800 1 1 1555 1 0.32 131 1 267 1 0.39 1 8 10.39 1 =----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I WR 1 16001 1 361 0.021 1 1 2 1 0.00 1 0 10.001 I--•••---_...._--•------•--•-------•-----•-----•-•----•--•--•-.-•-------•-------------•--••-I 1EXISTING 1 0.77 1---------------------------------•-------------------------- .-•----•---•--• I I EXISTING------ ----- +REGION-------------------------------- -----•---.----.------i-O•92 1 0.92 1 ITTED AL GROWTH + 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 RProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_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 It CH2635AN r LSA • TRANSMITT• LSAAssodams. Inc. , T7. To, City of Newport Beach Transmitted• 3300 Newport Boulevard a Foryour review ❑ Foryourfiles Newport Beach, CA 92658 o Atyour request o ForyourWarmatlon Cl Foryour approval o Distribution Arm: Janet Divan,Assoc. Civil Engineer Date: August 15, 1997 subject: Draft TPO Analysis Project: TLA Restaurant-Newport Beach Project* CNB733 Late Copies Description August 14, 1997 1 Draft TPO Analysis Report 7be above are transmitted] a Herewab ❑Under separate cover a ytar Courier GmeraiBemarks. Janet,please review the draft report and send comments to our office. We have not ced Tay because of the draft nature of the report Once the report has been finalized,we will send to the planning department Thank you Coplesto, Project File By, Dennis Pascua for Tony Pettus one Parkph=%Suite500 Telepbone714553-WW Pane,CaltfomI492614 FmOmile714553.8076 033W4(L:%FORMS•.TRANSMIT.FRM) • • • LSA Associates,Inc. Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering LSh Biology and Wetlands Habitat Restoration Resource Management Community and Land Planning Landscape Architecture Anhaeology and Paleontology August 15, 1997 Principals Janet Divan DRAFT Rob a BradyalenAssociate Civil Engineer SheilaBra Les card City of Newport Beach Druid Clore 3300 Newport Boulevard Steve Granholm Newport Beach, CA 92658 Richard Harlacber Roger Harris Subject: Traffic Study for TIA Restaurant at 3100 West Coast Highway, Arr Hmnrighausen Newport Beach Lary Kennings Ctrollyn LobeU Bill Mayer Dear Ms. Divan: Rob,lfcCann Rob Schonboltz ISA Associates, Inc. (I.SA) is pleased to provide the following traffic analysis for Malcolm J.Sproul the proposed TIA restaurant located along West Coast Highway in the City of Associates Newport Beach. The analysis has been prepared at the request of City staff to identify off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance CM) analy- Deborah Baer sis, to examine on-site circulation conditions to ensure that the proposed ac- fames Baum cesses provide adequate ingress/egress to the local street system, and that on- Connie Carta site storage areas are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project. Steven W.Conkling Ross Dobberteen Gary°ou, SUMMARY0FFINDl1VGS Richard Erickson Kevin ellnerr 1. The site was a car dealership, but is currently vacant. One full move- che Clint LaursLafier ment driveway provides access from the project parcel to West Coast Bemon Lee Highway. The project does not propose any new access driveways. fYdith FL Mahtmut Sabrina Nicholls 2. West Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is a five lane arterial, . A!.W.'Bill'O'Connell three westbound and two eastbound. There are no committed,funded Anthony Parts projects to provide additional arterial capacity. improvements to the Lynette Stanching SR 55 (Newport Boulevard)/SR-1 (West Coast Highway) interchange willFLU Wilson I dB.Zola Lkyd B. enhance the operation of this intersection. Llo 3. At the project driveway, approximately 850 vehicle trips per day are forecast to enter and exit the site,with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m.peak hour. $A4t97«I:\C0733\TRAFFIC.LTR» One Park Plaza,Suite 500 Telephone 714 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Gvinf,California 91614 FacsfmUe 714 5S3-8076 Pa Richmond,Riverside and Sacramento E-maillsajm@&netcom osen tsn Amdatet,t,Jc. Extensive studies have shown that much of drive through restaurant traffic generated at the project driveway is already on the street for DRAFT another purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips, and account for approximately 47 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveway. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 460 new project trips, 37 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation net- work. 4. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (ITO) analysis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new pro- ject trips to the circulation network. 5. Due to the current provision of a continuous left turn lane along West Coast Highway adjacent to the project (previously used by the car deal- ership)and the low volume of peak hour traffic forecast to turn left into and out of the project site, full movement access (i.e., left and right turns in and outbound) is considered acceptable for the project. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1, on-site storage area is available for approximately five vehicles at the menu board and approxi- mately seven vehicles at the ordering location. It is recommended that the first menu boards be moved north approximately 35 feet to provide greater vehicular storage during the most time-consuming(menu selec- tion) phase of the operation. With this modification, no adverse im- pacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site at 3100 West Coast Highway was a car dealership, but is cur- rently vacant. The project location is illustrated in Figure 1. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 1,200 square foot elevated, drive through restaurant. The proposed site plan retains a single access driveway along West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be reconstructed and moved east to the easterly edge of the project site. The project does not propose any additional access drive- ways. Project Trip Generation Table A presents the total trip generation resulting from application of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) industry standard trip rates to the proposed 1,200 square foot drive through restaurant. The source of the trip rates is the February 1995 Update to the Fhh Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual (Land Use Code 834: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window). The project is forecast to generate approximately 850 average daily trips (ADT),with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the am.peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occur- ring during the p.m. peak hour. 8A074(1NCNB733\TRAMC1nt* 2 nu,Sz l9�� `04Q. O4�S y � HOSMAL PC RD PROJECT SITE `S a� t. OPCR OCR Gd A 1 O all PCR ey ar LEGEND: O O Study Intersections s7197(cxs733)41�. Figure 1 N DRAFT /� Location Map and L 1 1 NoScate Study Intersections ' � I ._ .f . � I �_• 19j� �_ ` N 15514597 O 44 4 loa PAW 1E �� 1� O30 N 4492.312 E �492.3112 NO -• N r • VJIIILKM AS FANG , ow � y r ye IMOSCfPE s / NIfA � A. S. 10d1 /ry 111 0 AA01E ��plRa� NiA 00 l ` / 11�11M A11aC ,<ABM t y 'J AMOSClPE REA 6 0, C • /? Z843• CY + N 1330 ASG� 31 /E 4443AW15 loam, r 1oQ1w Source:Boora Architects. 1 ,�L 8r/i97(CNB733) Figure 2 N DRAFT LSAN.S.d. Site Plan • L4tLLcmCiRl6ri Inc, Table A-Trip Generation DRAFT Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total Drive-Through Restaurant 1.20 TSF Trip Rate ' 710.08 28.49 27.38 55.87 19.01 17.55 36.56 Trip Generation 852 34 33 67 23 21 44 Pass-by Trips 0� 392.. 15 15 30 11 10 21 Total New Trips ©v" -460- 19 18 37 12 11 23 Notes: 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers,Update to theFijtb Edition of Trip Generation,February 1995. r" Thousand Square Feet 8114j97(1.•1CNE733VRW GEV-V,9 • LSA Associates,Inc. For purposes of this project analysis, the average trip generation identified in Table A is used to determine traffic conditions on site and at the project drive- ways. Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the restaurant traffic generated at the site driveway is already on the street for another purpose. Based on logarithmic equations contained in the ITE Trip Generation manual, DRAFT approximately 47 percent of the daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destina- tion. This factor is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways in Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approxi- mately 460 new project trips, 37 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. These"new project trips" are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (ITO) analysis. Project Trip Distribution Figure 3 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project. The distribution plan is based on the trip distribution patterns identified for other recently approved fast food restaurants along West Coast Highway, and shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The proposed project trips are distributed equally east and west of the project site. Once on the arterial street system,the project traffic will disperse onto the Balboa Penin- sula and to other local destinations. The project trip assignment is based on 'the application of the project trip distribution to the trip generation. The total trip generation is identified at the project access. Based on the assignment plan, "new project trips"identified in Table A are assigned at the TPO study area intersections. Figure 4 presents the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area intersections. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE(TPO)ANALYSIS Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Administrative Procedures for imple- menting the TPO analysis, trips are generated, distributed and assigned to the seven study area intersections presented in Figure 1. These intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The fist of intersections was reviewed and approved by the City Engineering staff. Existing traffic conditions for the intersections are based on winter/spring 1996 and 1997 counts. The intersection at Newport Boulevard/Via Lido is based on a winter/spring 1994 traffic count. &g07QAr,WB733NMtAMC.Ln* 6 171h ST �9`6 `rT �a ro HOSPUAL RD Act PROJECT SITE 10 © qS' ��3e 4� 10 d 5 15 o o PCA 10 0 ®. o r0 PCII LEGEND: O B9ys��� 10 Percentage to/from Project .Q 8/13/97(CNB733) S?, Figure 3 N LSA No3cOe DRAFT - Project Trip Distribution t nth Sr iy�4sT It ,o 4' 4� O4 t HOSPITAL PC9 RD 1 J� N T PROJECT 09� d O PCH ~sueO f Q' m Pen LEGEND: 6AySIDPp�, AM/PM Peak Hour O . � Project Traffic Volumes Subtraction rcttmts Pass-by trip reduction from through movemutt and addition to tum movements to/fmm project site. O 8113n7(CNB733) Figure 4 N c DRAFT L►Jl/�i�� No Seale Project Trip Assignment t 0 LSA Associates,Inc. Committed project traffic volumes at the study area intersections are taken from the City's cumulative projects list prepared on August 4, 1997. Cumula- tive growth volumes, also included in this analysis, are based on City of New- port Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for street segments within the City of Newport Beach boundary. DRAFTOne Percent Trc{,f"ie Volume Analysis The"One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" tests, as defined in the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance No. 86-20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed project's peak period trip assignment for the four study area intersections in the City of Newport Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1999, one year after occupancy of the proposed project. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" worksheets are presented as an attachment. The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are summarized in Table B. This table identifies the seven study area intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each approach leg of an intersection, the 1999 am. and p.m.peak period one percent test volumes, the proposed project's peak period trip assignment, and a comparison of the peak period volumes are presented. Under the "Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes," those approach legs to an intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes are identified. As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the TPO, critical intersections are defined as those locations in which project generated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour period traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections in the committed plus project condition. As indicated in Table B, the intersection of West Coast Highway/1'ustin Avenue will exceed one percent of the intersection approach volume during the a.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the 1999 one percent volume is one vehicle in the am. peak period. The project will add two vehicles in the a.m. peak period. As a result,intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis is required at West Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue during the a.m.,peak hour. intersection Capacity Utilization (ICI)Analysis The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volume/capacity(v/c) ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and their v/c ratios are then examined to determine the overall capacity utilization for each intersection in the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU is the percentage of an intersection's capacity needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles traveling through the inter- section. Hence, the higher the ICU, the higher the percentage of capacity utilization,where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization, residual capacity will aa074q:vcHe733\TRAMC.trR» 9 lSAAaociwU;lir. Table B-Traffic Phasing Ordinance(TPO)Intersection Analysis Summary 1%TESTVOLUME 1%TESTVOLUNE PRO)ECfPEAK PERIOD TRIPS EXCEEDI%TPO EXCEEDI%TPO No Pmj w/Pmj ICU DPIERSECTION AY PEAK PERIOD PMPEAKPERIOD AM TOTAL PM TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR I ICU ICU Cb..Se tmj SB EBVS NB SB EB VB NB SB EB VB NB SB EB VB NB SB EB VB NB SB EB VB AMPM AMPM AMPM ewpat Budmrd(SAWmpkdRmd(BIW) 40 12 8 44 77 30 9 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ewpW Bwk—M(NAWk Lido @M 27 0 9 33 50 0 8 6 6 0 0 4 4 O O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Bbd.Supal-A—(N)S)r--HW—y(EM 12 '105 26 33 25 60 84 4 2 4 10 2 2 2 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Dire QOW--a IrShwayQM 7 59 35 1 13 60 79 0 2 18 18 0 2 12 10 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Menge(NA)Xd HWwW(PM 1 56 42 0 2 52 68 0 2 16 16 0 2 10 10 NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.92 M92 0.00 Q(*)Xws Hl&.V MW) 29 61 55 2 30 54 104 0 4 14 12 0 2 8 8 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Fqade Drive(N/SW-W HW—y(EM 3 73 47 13 4 73 76 2 O 12 10 2 0 8 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DRAFT • 811397 ry•1aM7MVPOCMCXr.9 0 LSA Associates,Inc. prevail. The ICU calculations presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections,where Di ��� project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an R intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the am. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheet for Coast Highway/rustin Avenue is included as an attachment to this report. The ICU worksheet indicates that West Coast Highway/rustin Avenue operates below the 0.90 threshold today, but is forecast to operate with an ICU of 0.92 (LOS E) in the future cumulative condition. The addition of the project traffic does not affect this ICU value. The intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E (ICU of 0.92)with the addition of project traffic. Therefore,per the TPO analy- sis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new project trips to the circulation network. PROJECT SITE ACCESS As identified in the site plan presented in Figure 2, one driveway is proposed to provide access to West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be relocated further east to the easterly boundary of the project site. Currently, a continu- ous left turn lane is provided along West Coast Highway to allow left turns In and out of the project site as well as full movements to adjacent properties. Full access was provided via the continuous left turn lane to the previous car dealership on the site. The purpose of this on-site analysis is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the relocated existing access driveways,and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. Based on the trip assignment presented in Figure 4, approximately 17 left turn movements are forecast in and out of the project site during the peak morning commute period. This is approximately one vehicle every three minutes on a random basis. Signalized intersections exist along West Coast Highway at Riverside Drive and southbound Newport Boulevard ramps to potentially platoon vehicles, providing some gaps in east and westbound through traffic. No obstructions to sight distance are evident in the vicinity of the project access location. As the continuous left turn lane currently exists and provided full move- has ment access to the previous land use and adjacent restaurant land uses, and as the left turn volume of traffic into and out of the site is relatively nominal, maintenance of full movement access is considered appropriate for the project site. 4g07*1ACNB733\7RAMQLTR» 11 0 • LSA Associates,[tic. VEHICLE STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS According to the project description provided by the applicant, the site has been designed to minimize the of time a consumer will have to spend on site. The point of sale and the food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. One variable that cannot be quantified for this analysis is the time spent by the patron in reading the menu boards and making an order selection. But the applicant is projecting a maximum duration of 8:00 minutes per vehicle. According to the project trip assignment, approximately 34 vehicles per hour will arrive at the site during the a.m. peak hour, or almost one vehicle every two minutes based on random arrivals. Using the 8:00 minutes maximum duration estimate, four vehicles would arrive prior to the departure of the initial preceding vehicle. In this system, a total of 16 vehicles would be on site at a given time with a trip generation of approximately 34 vehicles per hour. The project description and site plan indicate a total queuing area available for 30 vehicles. Therefore, the site incorporates adequate vehicle storage for as much as twice the reported trip generation. Based on this analysis, adequate storage is provided on site. The location of the first menu boards, however, may create limited queuing area during menu selection. Approximately five vehicles may queue up to the first menu boards. Given the trip generation estimates, the maximum duration and the uncertainty in time of patron menu selection, it is recommended that the first menu boards be moved approximately 35 feet north to provide an queuing area for five additional vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful in your planning needs. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to call me at(714) 553.0666. Sincerely, LSAASSOCIATBS, INC. DRAFT Anthony Petros Associate Attachments: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets cc: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner 8A4/97«I:\CNB733\MtAFFiC.LMt* 12, 4 agwA0R� 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis U }h Intersection NEWPORT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 Ate ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 4363 87 100 4550 46 4 Southbound 3599 72 367 4038 40 4 Eastbound 1140 0 50 1190 12 0 Westbound 759" 0 20 779 8 0 , Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected nX Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 8 r wee r�W'Oar u 1 % Traffic Volume An Intersdon NMORT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter]Spring 1997 PM ) Approach Exlating Peek 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4078 82 200 4360 44 2 Southbound 7371 147 203 7721 77 2 Eastbound 2874 0 144 3018 30 0 Westbound 898 0 0 898 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak,2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. - DATE PROJECT: @ 11Wgta 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 Art Peak 2$ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3075 0 10 3085 31 6 Southbound 2707 0 0 2707 1 27 6 Eastbound 45 0 0 45 0 ' 0 Westbound 907 _ 0 1 0 907 9 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] .Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng _ PM --------------- Peak 2y Hour Approved FApproach Existing Regional Protects Protected 1% of Protected ProJeet Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2 no Volume Volume volume Volume Volume, Yoimne Northbound 3270 0 4 3274 33 4 Southbound 4975 0 6 4981 50 4 Eastbound 25 0 0 25 0 0 Westbound 823 0 0 823 8 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �aEW�Rr • < A 1 % Traffic Volume An ysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BLVD—SUPERIOR AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1996 — Am ) Approach Existing peak 2 112 Hour Approved projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volumee Volume Growth PEAK 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3182 0 18 3200 32 4 1 Southbound 1151 0 18 1169 12 2 Eastbound 9699 194 670 10563 106 4 Westbound 2276 46 239 2561 26 10 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El 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. i M DATE: PROJECT: e ti MCM ��F,WPOR O • } 1 % Traffic Volume An sis v >e 4R °eNr COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BLVD. —SUPERIOR AVE.Intersectieo • ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 96 — Ply ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Four Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 3234 0 32 3266 33 2 Southbound 2499 0 10 2509 25 2 I' Eastbound 5544 ill 350 6005 60 2 Westbound 5589 112 733 6434 64 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater then 1 Y. of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. DATE: PROJECT: 0 Imcm �Ew:'O,gT 1 % Traffic Volume An ysis �`•`OeN� Intersection COAST HIGHWAY / RIVERSIDE AVENE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter J Spring 19 97 Am ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1 Y. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 12 19 0 0 Southbound 703 0 41 744 7 2 Eastbound 5069 101 762 5932 59 18 Westbound 2935 59 544 3538 35 18 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 0 rtwct . OQ agW FOR� • I 1 %, Traffic Volume Analysis cis°aer InIEfS@CG00 COAST HIGHWAY / RIVERSIDE AVEMM ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 97 rM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 77 0 0 77 1 0 Southbound 1302 0 16 1318 13 2 Eastbound 5223 104 680 6007 60 12 Westbound 6896 138 904 7938 79 10 Project Traffic 13 estimated to be less than 1% of Projected nX Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: B Mwce 4�gW�Rr s 0 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis �Clsp�Nd Intersedon COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1996- Are ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 Southbound 117 0 24 141 1 2 Eastbound 4620 92 852 5564 56 16 Westbound 3590 72 538 4200 42 16 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization nX I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: to nuutrtx e� 0 1 % Traffic Volume Anl sis Intersection COAST HIGWAY/TUSTIH AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter]Spring 1996 - FM ) Approved,Approach Existing peak 2 112 Hour A PP projected 1% of Projected Project j Direction peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 Southbound 208 0 8 216 2 2 Eastbound 4463 89 689 5241 52 10 Westbound 5654 113 986 6753 68 10 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak:2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 9 fS wVI 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional Project+ peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 352 0 0 352 4 0 Southbound 2609 0 266 2875 29 4 Eastbound 5077 102 952 6131 61 14 Westbound 4825 97 616 5538 55 12 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak'2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: e mwo 1 1 % Traffic Volume Analps Interne on cOAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected i% of Projected Project Projects Direction Peak 2 112 Hour RegionalPeak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 234 0 0 234 2 0 Southbound 2813 0 166 2979 30 2 Eastbound 4638 93 704 5435 54 8 Westbound 9100 182 1148 10430 104 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: � rywtrta t�E��RT 0 1 % Traffic Volume Ana�sis intersedon COAST HIMAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 19 96 - AM Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 M Hour Regional Projects peak 2 1/2 Hour peak 2112 Hour peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volumee Volume Growth PEAK 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 873 0 29 902 9 2 I I sauthbound 133 0 153 286 3 0 Eastbound 6440 129 722 7291 73 12 Westbound 4275 86 361 4722 47 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i % of Projected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected ' Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 0 n WCM �gw�Rr I % Traffic Volume Analysis u » Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 96 — Pm Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected i% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1258 0 15 1273 13 2 Sorthbound 137 0 249 386 4 0 Eastbound 6651 133 496 7280 73 8 Westbound 6732 135 751 7618 76 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected nx Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: to twueCe CH2635AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING _----••-.•-_-1996 AM- -------•............................•--•---•----............---......... I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT 1, V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I Icapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/c Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I -------------•------------_ -••--. •.---•--•-. --------------- I NL I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I........) -----•------•-- -) ............................................ .I I NT 16001 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 10.00 1 0 10.001 I_ .... .) .................. ........................_......................I I MR I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I -----------------------------------•----•-----•--•--------•--------•-•------------•--- -I 1 SL 1 1 38 1 0 1 8 1 0.00 l 0 10.00 1 I- •-- -) .................. ..........................•............._......I ST 16001 1 2 0.04 . 0 1 0 1 0.04 1 0 10.041 I --• •) •-•............ .) ---•-...........-•-------..............••--- .I I SR 1 1 16 1 0 1 4 1 0.00 1 1 10.00 1 I------_-----•--------------------------•----_-----------------------------.----•--•._.-_._.I I EL 1 16001 1 421 0.03 1 1 1 1 1 0.03 1 1 10.03 1 I------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------I I ET I 1 2340 147 1 426 1 0.88 1 7 10.881 I.._.....) 3200 ..................) 0.73 •........._....._..._....._....--._._.._._....:I I ER I I 1 10 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL I I 1 01 1 0 ► 0 I 0.00 1 0 10.001 --•-------------------------------------- i . WT 1 4800 1 1 1555 1 0.32 131 1 267 1 0.39 1 8 10.39 1 I- --•-----------------------------------------------------------•----------•-•---------•- •I I - WR I 1600 I i 36 I 0.02 1 1 I z i 0.00 10 10.00 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING 1 0.77 1 1 1 ----•-------------------- -".._- _---------------•-----------•--------•-- 1 ]EXIST + REG GROWTH + CCMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.92 1 I 1-----------------------------------------------•-----•-----------•--------•-------•--------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.92 1 .....................•-.•-•..............---•.::-....... .................................... 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1Xl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project --...•.........................•............-•..-•.............__.__.•---..._._.___..._.. Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It CH263SAM a�W PORT • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 C441 FO Tt PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206 July 25, 1997 TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Atkatz,applicant) 4464 Fremont Avenue,Suite 310 Seattle,WA 98103 Attention: Jonathan Atkatz Subject: Traffic Study for TLA Restaurant Project 3100 West Coast Highway(Traffic Study No. 1121 Dear Mr.Atkatz: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by LSA Associates,Inc., I Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine CA 92714, regarding a traffic study required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed TLA Project located at 3100 West Coast Highway. The proposal contains an outline of the required work,schedule of time,and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees areas follows. Consultant Fees $ 5,000 City Fees(10%) $ 500 Total Request: $ 5,500 Please submit a check in the amount of$ 5,500 payable to the City of Newport Beach and sign and return the enclosed authorization. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director BY 'A—^ Javier S. Garcia,AICP Senior Planner attachment: Copy of Traffic Consultant Proposal Contract Authorization cc: BooraArchitects F:\USERS\PLMSHAREDIiTRSTUDY\TS 112\TS 112CST.DDC 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Jul-25-9-> O3:38P TLA 206-545-9044 P.01 Fremont Avenue N.,Suite 310 Seat - � INCORPORATED Seattle,WA 9 tet:206-5A5-9055 055 fax.206545-9044 Fax To: Jay Garcia From: Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz Fax: 714-644-3250 Pages:3 including this page Phone: 7146443206 Date: July 25, 1997 Re: Traffic Study CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle e Comments: Dear Jay, To follow is the contact authorization sheet,which I have signed on behalf of TIA,for the traffic study to be performed by LSA with respect to our proposed restaurant at 3100 West Coast Highway. I also attach the signature page of the contract which I have also signed. I have asked Joe Goveia to provide you with a check in payment of the fees for the study. Please let me know if you need any further information. Thanks very much for your assistance with our application. rely an POR • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 aK 0% *1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206 July 25, 1997 TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Atkatz,applicant) 4464 Fremont Avenue,Suite 310 Seattle,WA 98103 Attention: Jonathan Atkatz Subject: Traffic Study for TLA Restaurant Project 3100 West Coast Highway(Traffic Study No. 112) Dear Mr.Atkatz Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by LSA Associates,Inc., 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine CA 92714, regarding a traffic study required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed TLA Project located at 3100 West Coast Highway. The proposal contains an outline of the required work,schedule of time,and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows. Consultant Fees $5,000 City Fees(10%) 500 Total Request: $5,500 Please submit a check in the amount of$ 5,500 payable to the City of Newport Beach and sign and return the enclosed authorization. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PATRICIA L. TEMPLE,Planning Director BY aaaw A� Javier S. Garcia,AICP Senior Planner attachment: Copy of Traffic Consultant Proposal Contract Authorization cc: Boora Architects FAUSERSTLMSHAME)MRSTUDWS 112%TS 112CST.DOC 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PoR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U - P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 a� C'94/FOfk x PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 July 25, 1997 LSA Associates,Inc. 1 Park Plaza,Suite 500 Irvine CA 92714 Attn: Tony Petros Subject: Traffic Study for TLA Restaurant Project, located at 3100 West Coast Highway 0 CONTRACT APPROVAL/AUTHORIZATION: Approved By: Javier S. Garcia Title: Senior Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Date: July 25, 1997 Traffic Consultant: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine CA 92714 Date of Proposal: July 24, 1997, copy on file Project Applicant: TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Atkatz, applicant) Applicant Signature Approval: TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Atkatz, applicant) Project Address: 3100 West Coast Highway PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director BY Javier S. Garc , AICP Senior Planner cc: Joe Goveia F ERS\PLM RED TRSTUDY\TSI12\TS112APP.DOC 3300 Newport Boulevard, ` ewport�`�eac�1 • • LSA Anada c4lm: , r KCIrCIYCu of £nvironmmu/Andpis PLANNING DEPARTMENT Transportation Engineering LC /� -21TY OF NEWPORT BEACH HabogyandWetlands ►Jl � Habitat Restoration Resomrce Management JUL 2 51997 Commmnity and Land PL croft ^ t� Ipin{�1� f ..' LandsuprAandP ko t9 t2� �l6 „-,atcdaaralogyandPaleoMolop. July 24, 1997 Mr.Jay Garcia Principals City of Newport Beach-Planning Department Rob Balen 3300 Newport Boulevard Sheda Brady P.O. BOX 1768 Les Card Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 David Clore Steve Granholm Richard Harlachn Subject: Proposal to Prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis for a Drive- Roger Harris Art Hontrigbanren Through Restaurant on West Coast Highway in the City of Art Lissy Kennings Newport Beach Carolhn Lobell Bdl.lfayer Dear Mr. Garcia: Rob.11cCants Rob Srhonholtz LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit the following proposal to pro- Malcolm J.Sproul vide a traffic Impact analysis study for a high quality drive-through restaurant Associates proposed at 3100 West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. Accord- ing to the project description provided by City staff, the proposed restaurant Deborah Baer would be used solely as a drive-through restaurant. No on-site customer seat- James Baum ing or walk-up service would be provided. Connie Calica Steven W.Conkling Ross Dobberteen The following scope of work is based on discussions with Janet Divan,Associate Gary Dow Civil Engineer-Public Works Department, and reflects our experience in pre- Richard Erickson paring traffic circulation analyses for development projects in Newport Beach. Kevin Fincher Chet Kellner Ben TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE(TPO) Ben son Lee rr Judith H.Afalantut Sabrina'vichoBs The City of Newport Beach uses the Traffic Phasing Ordinance CM) analysis Al.IT: 'Bill'O'Connell methodology to determine off-site project impacts. Anthony Perms Lynette Stanrbina LSA will prepare a TPO analysis for the proposed project consistent with City of Lloydd B B.Zola analysis Jill d Beach TPO guidelines. Per discussions with Janet Divan,LSA . will employ project trip generation rates provided in the July 10, 1997, trip generation letter prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for this project. Briefly, the Kittelson letter recommended that the Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through trip rates TM Code 834)from the TTE TNp Generation Manual, February 1995 Update, be used for estimating project trips. 71207«H:\DE MS\FMVRO\TLWMST.PRO* One Park Plaza,Smite 500 Telephone Ill 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Irvine,California 97614 Facsimile 714 553-8076 Pt.Richmond,Riverside and Sacramento E-mail haJrv@&netcom.com • . LSA Azoci•re,Inc. Although the project site was previously occupied by an automobile dealership, the site has been vacant for more than one year. As a result,no trip credits for the previous auto dealership use will be considered It should be noted that a portion of the project trips are riot skiff wipe—to"' . local circulation system, but are pass-by trips that are already traveling on arterial streets. For this reason, LSA will use the pass-by trip reduction factors developed in the Kittelson letter prior to identifying off-site project Impacts. Based on discussions with City staff LSA will prepare the project trip 2mign- ment based on trip distribution percentages derived for another fast food drive- through facility on West Coast Highway. City staff has determined that a total of seven intersections will comprise the extent of the study area. These inter- sections are listed below. • Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road • Newport Boulevard/Via Lido • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway • Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway • Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive/West Coast Highway • Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway. LSA will utilize the City's most recent peak hour turn volumes and peak period approach volumes as the baseline condition for the TPO analysis. Consistent with the TPO analysis guidelines, a request will be made to the City for an "Approved Projects List." The test year for the analysis will be based on infor- mation provided by the applicant, and is one year after full occupancy of the proposed project. The results of the TPO analysis will identify the projeces potential to exceed the "one percent"test results, and any study area intersections exhibiting an unac- ceptable level of service (LOS E or worse). If required,mitigation measures will be recommended based on City of Newport Beach General Plan guidelines for Intersections where the project contribution is 0.01 ICU or greater. ON-SITE MCULATION The purpose of the on-site circulation analysis is to ensure that the proposed access driveway is adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project, and is located where it will provide safe access to and from the local street system. 7/24,97«H..\DPNNISFR.ESVRO\77MREST.PRO» 2 • • can,twa&�,I= ISA will distribute the peak hour trips in and out of the site to determine traffic demand at the access driveway. The analysis will determine whether the drive- way can support full access movements (left turns in and out) from the site based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without signifl-. cant interruption to the traffic flow on West Coast Highway. In addition,engi- neering vehicle turn templates will be used to assess the proposed turning radii of the projeces drive through lanes. QUBUING ANALYSIS LSA will review the proposed site plan to identify potential vehicle queuing on site to determine whether adequate vehicle storage area is available to meet the peak demand. Service rates furnished in the"Entrance-Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities" report by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. will be used to determine the peak number of vehicles that may be queued on site. BUDGET LSA estimates a budget of$5,000.00 will be required to accomplish the analysis outlined above. This work effort will be completed on an hourly basis, consis- tent with the attached rates. This amount will not be exceeded without prior authorization. SCHEDULE Upon receipt of authorization to proceed,LSA will coordinate with City staff to request baseline traffic data, including recent counts and the Approved Projects List. Once these items have been collected, LSA will begin preparation of the TPO,on site analysis, and queuing analysis. We will prepare and submit the traffic analysis report for your review within two weeks of receipt of baseline traffic data from the City. Eased on your comments, LSA will revise and resubmit the final report for City staff approval. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We trust that you will find our proposal comprehensive, and that it will meet your planning needs. 7/207«H:WIIiMS*7UES\PRO\TLtAREST.PRO» 3 • . LSA Apt,.htc. Should you have any questions, please call me at(714) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSAASSOCIATES, INC. Anthony P tro Associate THE ABOVE STATED TERMS ARE HEREBYACCEPTED AND AUTHORIZED CONSULTANT: CLIENT: LSA Associates,Inc. Company � � orized Signature Authorized Signature ArIIW,-,I//CtJ Title Title Date Date Attachment: Rate Sheet 724,97*H:\DeiN15i-n.ESPRONTLkA ST.PRO* 4 LFAA hw- SCHEDULE OF STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND BILLING RATES FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Awd-Fee Contracts if a Hated-fee proposal, the professional services described in the Scope of Services section of the attached proposal shall be provided for the fixed fee noted in the Compensation and Terms section of the proposal. All other pro- fessional services are considered extra services. Extra services shall be provided on a time and expenses basis at the same rates specified for hourly contracts unless other arrangements are made in advance. Hourly Contracts if an hourly plus expenses proposal,the professional services described in the Scope of Services section of the attached proposal shall be provided on a time basis at current hourly rates. These rates are as shown on a Rate Schedule that is attached or can be made available. Hourly rates are subject to review at least annually on or about July 1 each year, and may be adjusted to reflect changing labor costs at our discretion at that time. Out of pocket expenses shall be reimbursed at cost plus 10%, unless other arrangements are trade in advance,and are not Included in the hourly fee for professional services. Out of pocket expenses include, but are not limited to, costs of: 1) reproduction of reports and graphics furnished or prepared in connection with the work of the contract, 2) long distance telephone and telegraph charges, 3) laboratory services, 4) automobile travel at 31 cents/mile, 5) truck travel at 46 cents/mile, 6) other travel,subsistence,vehicle rental, and lodging in connection with the work of the contract, 7)fees of specialized con- sultants retained with the approval of the client and 8)facsimile transmittals at one dollar per page. The total estimated amount of time and expenses noted in the Compensation and Terns section of this proposal will serve as a control on the services to be provided. The specified amount will not be exceeded without prior approval of the client. FREQUENCYOFBdLING Monthly invoices shall be submitted for progress payment based on work completed to date. Out of pocket expenses shall be billed on the same mon- thly invoice and shall be identified as a separate item. 10/15196«L:\C0RPV 0NnACr.PBO» PAYMENT OPACCOUNTS Accounts are due and payable upon receipt of invoice. A service charge of 1 Vi% of the invoice amount (18% annual rate) may be applied to all accounts not paid within 30 days of invoice date. Any attorney's fees or other coats incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by the Client. - x MMINA27ONOPSERVICES These services may be terminated upon ten days written notice for good reason by either party. In this event, payment for all services and expenses Incurred prior to the date of termination shall be due and payable upon receipt of final invoice in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing section. REVOCA77ON If this Schedule of Standard Contract Provisions is attached to a proposal, said proposal shall be considered revoked if acceptance is not received within 90 days of the date thereof, unless otherwise specified in the proposal. 10/15i964-.\CORFWNMCf.PRO» 2 HOURLY BILLING RATES - EFFECTIVE OCrOBER, 19961 job Ciass{?ca0on Hourly Rat*2 PRINCIPAL $100-165 r ASSOCIATE/PROJECT MANAGER $65-120 ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER $ 50-75 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT SCIENTIST $ 45-75 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST/ASST. PLANNER/ASST. ENGINEER $ 40-60 FIELD DIRECTOR(ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY/BIOLOGY) $ 35-50 RESEARCH ASSISTANT/TECHNICIAN $ 25-50 FIELD CREW $ 15-40 GRAPHICS $ 55 OFFICE ASSISTANT $ 35 WORD PROCESSING $ 50 1 Revised October, 1996 2 The hourly rate for work involving actual expenses in court, giving depositions or similar expert testimony,will be billed at$200 per hour regardless of Job classification. 10i15,964QAcosrr ONMucrsRo» 3 PORr • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 c. cqG/FORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 July 25, 1997 LSA Associates,Inc. 1 Park Plaza,Suite 500 Irvine CA 92714 Attn: Tony Petros Subject: Traffic Study for TLA Restaurant Proiect, located at 3100 West Coast Highway Q CONTRACT APPROVAL/AUTHORIZATION: Approved By: Javier S. Garcia Title: Senior Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Date: July 25, 1997 Traffic Consultant: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine CA 92714 Date of Proposal: July 24, 1997, copy on file Project Applicant: TLA Restaurant (Jonathan Atkatz, applicant) Applicant Signature Approval: TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Atkatz, applicant) Project Address: 3100 West Coast Highway PATRICIA L.TEMPLE,Planning Director BY 02AK". o4�— /Javier S. Garc , AICP Senior Planner cc: Joe Goveia 3300 Newport Boulevard;`'eWOLM teac t TUDNT5112\TSII2APP.DOC . • LSA Associates,Inc. Should you have any questions, please call me at (714) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AnthonY P tro Associate THE ABOVE STATED TERMS ARE HEREBYACCEPTED AND AUTHORIZED CONSULTANT: CLIENT: LSAAssociates, Inc. Company G..., Y orized Signature Auth rized Signa Ar; //C��I 4MN�X Title Title July z r99� '� tis t7 Date Date Attachment: Rate Sheet 7/24N7<<H:VJINNISWUXS\PRO\TIAAREST.PRO» 4 • LEA Associates,Inc. Kh"iYCU Lit Environmental Analysis PLANNING DEPARTMENT Transportation Engineering LSA w�TY OF NEWPORT BEACH Habitat Restoration Wetlands 1.1L 1 Hology Restoration JUL 25 1997 Resource Management PM Community and Land Planning AM 8 9 ID ll 1212 3 4 c ArchaLandseology aape nd Architecture ' ' ' ' ( � � � � 1�16 Archaeology and Paleontology July 24, 1997 Mr.Jay Garcia Principals City of Newport Beach-Planning Department Rob Bolen 3300 Newport Boulevard Sheila Brady P.O. BOX 1768 Les Card Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 David Clore Steve Granholm Richard her Rogerge Harrisarris Subject: Proposal to Prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis for a Drive- Art Homrigbausen Through Restaurant on West Coast Highway in the City of Larry Ken»mgs Newport Beach Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Dear Mr. Garcia: Rob McCann Rob Scbonholtz LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit the following proposal to pro- Malcolm J.Sproul vide a traffic impact analysis study for a high quality drive-through restaurant Associates proposed at 3100 West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. Accord- ing to the project description provided by City staff, the proposed restaurant Deborah Baer would be used solely as a drive-through restaurant. No on-site customer seat- James Baum Connie Calica ing or walk-up service would be provided. Steven W Conklmg Ross Dobberteen The following scope of work is based on discussions with Janet Divan,Associate Gary Dow Civil Engineer-Public Works Department, and reflects our experience in pre- Richard Erickson ping traffic circulation analyses for development projects in Newport Beach. Kevin Fmcber Clint Kellner Laura Laflor Benson Lee TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE(TPO) Judith H.Malamnt Sabrina Nicholls The City of Newport Beach uses the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis M.W.'Bill"O'Connell methodology to determine off-site project impacts. Antbony Pebos Lynette Stanching Jill Wilson LSA will prepare a TPO analysis for the proposed project consistent with City of Lloyd B.Zola Newport Beach TPO analysis guidelines. Per discussions with Janet Divan, LSA will employ project trip generation rates provided in the July 10, 1997, trip generation letter prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for this project. Briefly, the Kittelson letter recommended that the Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through trip rates (ITE Code 834) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, February 1995 Update, be used for estimating project trips. 7/24t97((H-.\DENNis\FILES\PRO\TLt,AMT.PRO>> One Park Plaza,Suite 500 Telephone 714 553-0666 Other offices located in Berkeley Irvine,California 92614 Facsimile 714 553-8076 Pt.Richmond,Riverside and Sacramento E-mad Isairv@ix.netcom.com • • LSA Amdateg Inc. Although the project site was previously occupied by an automobile dealership, the site has been vacant for more than one year. As a result, no trip credits for the previous auto dealership use will be considered. It should be noted that a portion of the project trips are not new trips to the local circulation system, but are pass-by trips that are already traveling on arterial streets. For this reason, LSA will use the pass-by trip reduction factors developed in the Kittelson letter prior to identifying off-site project impacts. Based on discussions with City staff, LSA will prepare the project trip assign- ment based on trip distribution percentages derived for another fast food drive- through facility on West Coast Highway. City staff has determined that a total of seven intersections will comprise the extent of the study area. These inter- sections are listed below. • Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road • Newport Boulevard/Via Lido • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway • Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway • Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive/West Coast Highway • Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway. LSA will utilize the City's most recent peak hour turn volumes and peak period approach volumes as the baseline condition for the TPO analysis. Consistent with the TPO analysis guidelines, a request will be made to the City for an "Approved Projects List." The test year for the analysis will be based on infor- mation provided by the applicant, and is one year after full occupancy of the proposed project. The results of the TPO analysis will identify the project's potential to exceed the "one percent" test results, and any study area intersections exhibiting an unac- ceptable level of service (LOS E or worse). If required, mitigation measures will be recommended based on City of Newport Beach General Plan guidelines for intersections where the project contribution is 0.01 ICU or greater. ON-SITE CIRCULATION The purpose of the on-site circulation analysis is to ensure that the proposed access driveway is adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project, and is located where it will provide safe access to and from the local street system. 7/24,97<<H;\DRNMSWMES\PRO\TLAAREST.PRO" 2 • • LSA Associates,Inc. LSA will distribute the peak hour trips in and out of the site to determine traffic demand at the access driveway. The analysis will determine whether the drive- way can support full access movements (left turns in and out) from the site based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without signifi- cant interruption to the traffic flow on West Coast Highway. In addition, engi- neering vehicle turn templates will be used to assess the proposed turning radii of the project's drive through lanes. QUEUING ANALYSIS LSA will review the proposed site plan to identify potential vehicle queuing on site to determine whether adequate vehicle storage area is available to meet the peak demand. Service rates furnished in the"Entrance-Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities" report by Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. will be used to determine the peak number of vehicles that may be queued on site. BUDGET LSA estimates a budget of$5,000.00 will be required to accomplish the analysis outlined above. This work effort will be completed on an hourly basis, consis- tent with the attached rates. This amount will not be exceeded without prior authorization. SCHEDULE Upon receipt of authorization to proceed, LSA will coordinate with City staff to request baseline traffic data, including recent counts and the Approved Projects List. Once these items have been collected, LSA will begin preparation of the TFO, on-site analysis, and queuing analysis. We will prepare and submit the traffic analysis report for your review within two weeks of receipt of baseline traffic data from the City. Based on your comments, LSA will revise and resubmit the final report for City staff approval. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We trust that you will find our proposal comprehensive, and that it will meet your planning needs. 7/24H744I:\pENNIS\F=\PRO\TLAAREST.PRO» 3 • • MAssociates,Inc. SCHEDULE OF STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND BILLING RATES FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Fixed-Fee Contracts If a fixed-fee proposal, the professional services described in the Scope of Services section of the attached proposal shall be provided for the fixed fee noted in the Compensation and Terms section of the proposal. All other pro- fessional services are considered extra services. Extra services shall be provided on a time and expenses basis at the same rates specified for hourly contracts unless other arrangements are made in advance. Hourly Contracts If an hourly plus expenses proposal, the professional services described in the Scope of Services section of the attached proposal shall be provided on a time basis at current hourly rates. These rates are as shown on a Rate Schedule that is attached or can be made available. Hourly rates are subject to review at least annually on or about July 1 each year, and may be adjusted to reflect changing labor costs at our discretion at that time. Out of pocket expenses shall be reimbursed at cost plus 10%, unless other arrangements are made in advance, and are not included in the hourly fee for professional services. Out of pocket expenses include, but are not limited to, costs of: 1) reproduction of reports and graphics furnished or prepared in connection with the work of the contract, 2) long distance telephone and telegraph charges, 3) laboratory services, 4) automobile travel at 31 cents/mile, 5) truck travel at 46 cents/mile, 6) other travel, subsistence,vehicle rental, and lodging in connection with the work of the contract, 7) fees of specialized con- sultants retained with the approval of the client and 8) facsimile transmittals at one dollar per page. The total estimated amount of time and expenses noted in the Compensation and Terms section of this proposal will serve as a control on the services to be provided. The specified amount will not be exceeded without prior approval of the client. FREQUENCYOF BILLING Monthly invoices shall be submitted for progress payment based on work completed to date. Out of pocket expenses shall be billed on the same mon- thly invoice and shall be identified as a separate item. 10/15,96«L..\CORP\CONTRACT.PRO» • • LMAssodates,l= PAYMENT OPACCOUNTS Accounts are due and payable upon receipt of invoice. A service charge of 11/z% of the invoice amount (18% annual rate) may be applied to all accounts not paid within 30 days of invoice date. Any attorney's fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by the Client. TERMINATION OF SERVICES These services may be terminated upon ten days written notice for good reason by either party. In this event, payment for all services and expenses incurred prior to the date of termination shall be due and payable upon receipt of final invoice in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing section. REVOCATION If this Schedule of Standard Contract Provisions is attached to a proposal, said proposal shall be considered revoked if acceptance is not received within 90 days of the date thereof,unless otherwise specified in the proposal. 10a5/96(a:\CoRP\CONTRACxPao» 2 . • LMAssociates,Inc. HOURLY BILLING RATES - EFFECTIVE OCTOBER, 19961 Job Cl=siflcation Hourly Rate2 PRINCIPAL $100-165 ASSOCIATE/PROJECT MANAGER $ 65-120 ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER $ 50-75 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT SCIENTIST $ 45-75 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST/ASST.PLANNER/ASST. ENGINEER $ 40-60 FIELD DIRECTOR(ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY/BIOLOG-1) $ 35-50 RESEARCH ASSISTANT/rECHNICIAN $ 25-50 FIELD CREW $ 15-40 GRAPHICS $ 55 OFFICE ASSISTANT $ 35 WORD PROCESSING $ 50 1 Revised October, 1996 2 The hourly rate for work involving actual expenses in court, giving depositions or similar expert testimony,will be billed at$200 per hour regardless of job classification. 10/15i964<L:\C0RP\C0NTMCT.PR0» 3 ` SEW PORT • • . ; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 C"qC/FO F�\P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206 July 18, 1997 LSA Associates,Inc. 1 Park Plaza,Suite 500 Irvine CA 92714 Attn: Mr.Tony Petros Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Atkatz,applicant), at 3100 West Coast Highway Dear Mr.Petros: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department has received an application for the construction of a drive-through restaurant facility on a site located at 3100 West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach.The proposed facility would require a TRAFFIC STUDY to determine the impact of the subject proposal on the City's Traffic Circulation System. Pursuant to our conversationof July 14, 1997,the City invites you to submit a proposal to prepare a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for this project.If you are interested,at your earliest convenience, please submit a proposal to the City including project tasks,budget,and timing. A copy of the site plan and building plans have been included for your information and use. Pertinent information includes: Maximum allowable building 10,915 sq.ft. Site area,approximate 21,830 sq.ft. Proposed Buildings 1,200 sq.ft. Existing building unknown For City of Newport Beach Traffic Study Format Outline,traffic data or technical questions please contact,Janet Divan,in the City's Traffic Engineering Division at(714)644-3349.Should you have any other questions or need additional information regarding this project,please contact me. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Tony Petros ,July 18, 1997 Page two Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director By u ' u,:- avier S. Garda,AICP Senior Planner Attachment: Letter from the Applicant Describing the Proposed Operation FYI: Kittleson and Associates, Inc. Copy of Proposed Site Plan (forwarded previously) FAUSERS\PM3TRSTUDWS 112\TS 112RFP.DOC Jul-18-97 09: 15A TLA 206-545-9044 P-02 TLA RESTAURANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pzpiect Team Architect: BOORA Architects,Inc. -Portland,Oregon Architectural Consultant: Richard Hobbs, FAIA,-Washington,D.C. Landscape Architect: Walker&Macy-Portland,Oregon Traffic Consultant: Kittleson Associates-Portland,Oregon Specialty Lighting: Candela- Seattle, Washington Kitchen Design: Edward Don&Co. - Atlanta,Georgia Project Management: Domoto Company-Seattle,Washington The Proiect To build and operate a new kind of quick service restaurant based on principles of exceedingly high quality food, service,and an enhanced customer experience, The restaurant building and site has been designed to serve as public art and to convey a refined aesthetic sensibility to the customer and the surrounding community. The facility is engineered to operate with optimal efficiency while creating a refreshing environment. The menu consists of food and beverages of a quality,taste and sophistication not encountered to date in a drive-up format. Restaurant hours of operation will be 6:00 AM until 11:00 PM. Plgject Location 3100 West Coast Highway,Newport Beach,California. The Buildin¢ The restaurant consists of an elevated building of 1200 gross square feet,that allows the customer to drive underneath it. Prepared food is conveyed by an industry proven mechanical system from the upper level to ground level. The elevated building allows for three lanes for ordering and delivery.This building has been engineered with the site to permit an optimal amount of queuing as discussed below. There is no customer seating on-site nor is there any walk-up service provided. The buildings' lower level consists solely of an elevator and vestibule. The upper level program consists of: 600 sq. ft. Kitchen 100 sq. R. I?mployee Lounge 60 sq. ft. Rest Rooms 250 sq. R. Dry and Cold Storage A 200 sq. ft dry storage building at the rear of the site on Avon Street. Adjacent to the dry storage is an area for screened service functions such as dumpster, transformer, etc. Emnlove e Jul -18-97 O9: 15A TLA 206-545-9044 P .O3 parking is located west of the dry storage. There are eight employees per shift and the site plan provides for eight employee parking spaces. Traffic Eneineerin¢ The site plan is the product of an integrated approach to engineering,taking into consideration customer order,product preparation and delivery times with the use of the most current queuing models. The site has been designed to provide the maximum efficiency and to minimize amount of time a customer will have to spend on site. The site traffic circulation has been designed to accommodate the turning moments of the largest of non-commercial vehicles to specifically make moving through the site easier for the customer. The point of sale and food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. Maximum duration on site is projected at 8:00 minutes.This enables the facility to serve 120 cars per hour at peak periods with less than 20 cars queuing on site at peak periods(the site has queuing capacity for 30 cars). Turning radii have been engineered by Kittleson Associates for minimum impact at curb cuts. All employee parking and deliveries will access the site off of Avon Street. Design AR ri1°ate The design objective is to develop a lasting architectural image based on: • a building and site that together embody an intended functionality; • a refreshing,uplifting environment that stands in contrast to the typical road experience; • contextual approach to design intended to fit into a community's aesthetic,cultural, and environmental values(e.g.Mariner's Mile Comprehensive Plan); • a commercial building that will serve as public art. This project will reflect the maritime character of the Mariner's Mile District. The projects contextual integration into the Mariner's mile will be further enhanced by landscaping the utilizes indigenous plants such as palms and bougainvillea. Modem,tastefully executed signage and lighting,and construction will reinforce the design objectives. 7/16/97 2 KKITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGtTRAFFIC ENGINEERING 010 S W ALDER,SURE 700 - PORrUIND.OR 97205 - (503)229.5230 - FM(503)Z/U109 July 10, 1997 Project#: 1916.00 Ms.Janet Divan Public Works Department City of Newport Beach P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 RE: TLA Project Trip Generation Data and Fair Share Fee-Newport Beach, California Dear Ms.Divan: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation on Tuesday,July 8th,Kittelson&Associates,Inc.has prepared the trip generation data and Fair Share Fee for the proposed 1,400 square-foot fast-food drive-through restaurant located on Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California, The purpose of this letter is to provide the city and its contracted traffic engineering consultant with the appropriate data necessary to conduct the traffic impact analysis and calculate the Fair Share Fee for the TLA,Inc, development. Trip Generation For the purposes of conducting the traffic impact analysis, we propose that the trip generation for the development be based on the Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-Tkough Window ME Code 834) rates provided in the February 1995 Update to the Firth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (rM Trip Generation manual. These rates provide a conservative estimate of the trip generation of the proposed development for two primary reasons. First, these rates are based on trip generation information from nationally operated restaurant chains (e.g., McDonalds,Burger King,etc);however,this development serves a smaller segment of the fast-food market. In addition,these rates are based on restaurant facilities that provide sit-down service and recreational facilities for children;this development only offers drive-through service. Despite these di$erences, the proposed development more closely resembles these type of restaurants than any other land use with trip generation rates documented in the ITE manual. Therefore to provide a conservative estimate of the trip generation,it is recommended that the weekday am, and p.m peak hour and daily trips shown in Table 1 be used to conduct the traffic impact analysis for the proposed TLA fast-food drive-through restaurant. i;Z 'd 6080 'of{ WdZ9 :£ 061 '01 'Inf Ms.Janet Divan Project k: 19I6.t10 July 10, 1999 Paget Table 1 -TLA Fast Food Drive-Thron Restaurant Trip Generation S¢e 1TE Trip Rate/ Total YJ461/6* Pass by Nut New T Generation s Code 1000 sf Trios Twos Tri ng Weekday AM Peak Hour 1,400 834 55.87 78 35 43 Weekday PM Peak Hour 1,400 834 36.56 51 24 27 Daily1400 834 710.08 '994 457 537 Percentage of daily pass-by trips is based on a composite value of the weekday a.m.andm l�� p peak hour time As shown in Table 1,the proposed TLA,Inc.development will generate approximately 78 and 51 trips during the weekday a.m. and pm. peak hours, respectively, of which 43 and 27 will be considered new trips within the transportation system. The development will generate approximately 537 net new daily trips. It should be noted that the percentage of pass-by trips for this development is expected to be between 60 and 75 percent based on its' proximity to Pacific Coast Highway and exclusive drive-through service, However to remain conservative,the lower pass-by trip percentages documented in 1TE were used for the calculation shown above. Fair Share Fee Based on our review of the current Newport Beach Fair Share Fee ordinance, Kittelson & Associates,Inc.has calculated the fee for the proposed TLA,Inc.development. Table 2 illustrates the Fair Share Fee for the proposed ILA fast-food drive-through restaurant based on the current ordinance. Table 2-TLA Fast-Food Drive-Throuo Restaurant Fair Share Fee Fair Share Trip Total Fair"5127,67S9,575,25 re Use Sim Generation Rate Share Trips TLA Fast Food 1,400 sf 142.00/1,000 sf 198, 80.3 Restaurant Existing Auto Sales 0.50 acres 150.00/acre 75.0 ,25 Building(Credit) Fafr Sbare Fee SIS .55 As shown in Table 2,the calculated Fair Share Fee for the proposed TLA fast-food drive-through restaurant is$15,805.55 under the current ordinance. As indicated,this fee includes a$9,575.25 credit for the existing auto sales building on the proposed development site. )Futon&Associates,Inc. Portland Oregon K 'd 6000 'ON 1IM:£ L661 '01 'Inf Ms.Janet Divan Project Ik:1916.00 Ju�,10, 1997 Page 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., on behalf of TLA, Inc., requests written confirmation of the city's acceptance of the trip generation values for the traffic impact analysis presented within this letter for the proposed development. In addition,we request your verification of the calculated Fair Share Fee of$15,805.55 using the existing ordinance,and clarification on when a project is deemed vested under the current ordinance assuming that the new ordinance is adopted this.fall. I trust this'letter provides the city of Newport Beach with the trip generation data necessary to proceed with the traffic impact analysis for the proposed TLA Project on Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach,California. If you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to call either myself or Gary Katsion at(503)228-5230. Sincerely, K�trMLASON1 &&ASSOCIATES,INC. / 4,t6 H.R""" r l- Marc A.Butorac Engineering Associate Katsion,P.E. P c" CC: Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz,TLA,Inc. Brian Jackson,BOORA Architects, Marls VanderZanden,BOORA Architects Kitte&On&Associates,Inc. Portland Oregon fi/fi 'd 6080 'Old Yid£5:£ L661 '01 ]Rf B O O R A OLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A R C H I AN JUL 15 1997 PM T E C T S TRANSMITTAL %819110Ill112111218141510 ................ .. ............................ ................................A........................... ...... ................................... .. .. ..I .......................... Date: July 14, 1997 Project No.: 96003.07 To: Javier Garcia,Senior Planner AICP City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Ph 1-714-644-3206 From: Mark Vanderzanden Re: TLA-RESTAURANT PROJECT No. of Copies Dated Title 1 Site Plan on Survey Boundaries Remarks: For use permit start-up, ......... ....................................................... ..................... ............................. ..................................... .................................... . Fax O . .... .... (No, of pages including cover) Delivery O Mail O Overnight BOORA Architc ets, Inc. 720 sn Was Lingtoa Po r t Inn d, Oregon 9 7 2 0 5 - 3 5 1 0 [fel] 503 .226.1575 [fax] 5 0 3 .241 .7429 BOO RA D A R C H I T E C T S TRANSMITTAL .......................... ..... . ................................ ........................... ........................................ ............... ........................................... Date: July 10, 1996 Project No: 9600302 To: Javier Garcia,Senior Planner PLANNING DEPT. -COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Beach PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 From: Brian Jackson Re: TLA FAST FOOD RESTAURANT No, of Copies Dated Title 1 7/10/97 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. letter re: TLA Project Trip Generation Data and Fair Share Fee-Newport Beach,California Remarks: For your Information. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7JUL 15 1997 pM 18191MAX111212141516 A ..................................... .... ...............................:........ ....... ............................................... .. .. .. ........................................... Fax 0 .................. (No. of pages includingrcover) - Delivery 0 Mail O Overnight O ROORA Architects, Inc. 720 xw Washington Portland, Oregon 97205 . 3510 Itcl) 503.226.1575 [fax) 503 .241 .7429 KKITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1L�1 "� TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERINGC 610 SW ALDER,SUITE 700 • PORTLAND.OR 97205 • (503)228-5230 • FAX(503)273-8169 iz July 10, 1997 Project#: 1916.00 Ms. Janet Divan Public Works Department City of Newport Beach P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: TLA Project Trip Generation Data and Fair Share Fee-Newport Beach, California Dear Ms.Divan: , As a follow-up to our telephone conversation on Tuesday,July 8th,Kittelson&Associates,Inc. has prepared the trip generation data and Fair Share Fee for the proposed 1,400 square-foot fast-food drive-through restaurant located on Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this letter is to provide the city and its contracted traffic engineering consultant with the appropriate data necessary to conduct the traffic impact analysis and calculate the Fair Share Fee for the TLA,Inc. development. Trip Generation For the purposes of conducting the traffic impact analysis, we propose that the trip generation for the development be based on the Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-Tbrough Window (ITE Code 834) rates provided in the February 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. These rates provide a conservative estimate of the trip generation of the proposed development for two primary reasons. First, these rates are based on trip generation information from nationally operated restaurant chains (e.g., McDonalds,Burger King,etc.);however,this development serves a smaller segment of the fast-food market. In addition,these rates are based on restaurant facilities that provide sit-down service and recreational facilities for children;this development only offers drive-through service. Despite these differences, the proposed development more closely resembles these type of restaurants than any other land use with trip generation rates documented in the ITE manual. Therefore to provide a conservative estimate of the trip generation,it is recommended that the weekday a.m. and p.m peak hour and daily trips shown in Table 1 be used to conduct the traffic impact analysis for the proposed 'ILA fast-food drive-through restaurant. tw. lJ Ms.Janet Dtvan Project#. 1916.00 July 10, 1997 Page 2 Table 1 -TLA Fast Food Drive-Through Restaurant Trip Generation Size I ITE I Trip Rate/ Total %Pass-by Pass-by Net New Trip Generation s Code 1,000 sf Tri s Trips Trips Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour 1,400 834 55.87 78 45% 35 43 Weekday PM Peak Hour 1,400 834 36.56 51 47% 24 27 Daii L400 834 710.08 994 4604* 457 537 * Percentage of daily pass-by trips is based on a composite value of the weekday a.m.and p.m.peak hour time periods. As shown in Table 1, the proposed TLA,Inc. development will generate approximately_ 78 and 51 trips during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, of which 43 and 27 will be considered new trips within the transportation system. The development will generate approximately 537 net new daily trips. It should be noted that the percentage of pass-by trips for this development is expected to be between 60 and 75 percent based on its' proximity to Pacific Coast Highway and exclusive drive-through service. However to remain conservative, the lower pass-by trip percentages documented in ITE were used for the calculation shown above. Fair Share Fee Based on our review of the current Newport Beach Fair Share Fee ordinance, Kittelson & Associates, Inc,has calculated the fee for the proposed TLA,'Inc. development. Table 2 illustrates the Fair Share Fee for the proposed TLA fast-food drive-through restaurant based on the current ordinance. Table 2-TLA Fast-Food Drive-Through Restaurant Fair Share Fee Fair Share Trip Total Fair Fair Share Fair Share Use Size Generation Rate Share Trips Fee Per Tri Fee TLA Fast Food 1,400 sf 142.00/1,000 sf 198.8 $127.67 $25,380.8 Restaurant Existing Auto Sales 0.50 acres 150.00/acre 75.0 $127.67 $9,575.25 Building(Credit) Far Share Fee $15.805.55 As shown in Table 2,the calculated Fair Share Fee for the proposed TLA fast-food drive-through restaurant is $15,805.55 under the current ordinance. As indicated, this fee includes a$9,575.25 credit for the existing auto sales building on the proposed development site. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland, Oregon Ms.Janet Divan Project#. 1916.00 July 10, 1997 Page 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., on behalf of TLA, Inc., requests written confirmation of the city's acceptance of the trip generation values for the traffic impact analysis presented within this letter for the proposed development. In addition,we request your verification of the calculated Fair Share Fee of$15,805.55 using the existing ordinance,and clarification on when a.project is deemed vested under the current ordinance assuming that the new ordinance is adopted this fall. I bust this'letter provides the city of Newport Beach with the trip generation data necessary to proceed with the traffic impact analysis for the proposed TLA Project on Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. If you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to call either myself or Gary Katsion at(503)228-5230. KhTTESincerely,�/j — /LSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. lv " _ . 3 lDK Marc A. Butorac Engineering Associate P c' � � .Katston,P.E. al CC: Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz, TLA,Inc. Brian Jackson,BOORA Architects. Mark VanderZanden,BOORA Architects Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland, Oregon I C*Y OF NEWPORT BEA 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 S EP 0 9' 1997 (714) 644-3200 GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk-Recorder NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY t—i--DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Sacramento,CA 95814 `` ! C` (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange S EP 9 199 XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 GARY L.G ANV LLE,Clerk- ecorder gy EPUTY Public review period: September 8, 1997 to October 9, 1997 Name of Project: M Drive-through Restaurant(Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz, applicant) Project Location: 3100 West Coast Highway, located on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. Project Description: The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit includes a request to allow portions of the proposed building to exceed the permitted height and a modification to the Zoning Code to allow an architectural feature to exceed the height limit (a portion of which is 32 feet high). The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned at(714)644-3200. Date September 8, 1997 Javier.Garcia,AICP Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\1PLANCOM\PENDING\TLA-REST\NEGDEC.DOC CITY OF NEWPORT BEAR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: TLA Drive-Through Restaurant Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department (714) 644-3200 4. Project Location: 3100 West Coast Highway located on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Drive. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: TLA,Inc. (Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz) 4464 Fremont Avenue North Seattle,WA 98103 6. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial 7. Zoning: SP-5 (Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area,Retail and Service Commercial) 8. Description of Project: The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive-through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with a rooftop elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28-29 feet high), where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included with the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to .allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 1 r j 9. Surrounding Land Qs and Setting: Current The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly Development: occupied by an automobile sales facility. To the north is a commercial office building and restaurant. To the east: across Avon Street,are residential uses. To the south: is the Sterling Motors BMW Automobile Dealership. To the west: across West Coast Highway, is the Tower residential Condominium Complex,the Villa Nova Restaurant and other commercial uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Coastal Commission , the California Department of Transportation and the Orange County Health Department. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning Q ❑ Public Services Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Population& Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy& Mineral Q Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water Q Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 2 DETERMINATION (TAcompleted by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by-mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ September S. 1997 Sign tune N13 Date Javier S. Garcia Printed Name Form:F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IFORMS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC Document:F:\USERS\PLN\l PLANCOM\PENDING\TLA-RES7VDCKLIST.DOC TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 3 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 designation or zoning?(1,2) b) Conflict with applicable environ- ❑ ❑ ❑ CI mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or ❑ ❑ ❑ operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official ❑ ❑ ❑ Cd regional or local population projections?(1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 especially affordable housing? TLA Restaurant NDCUIST Page 4 t 1. Potentially Potent Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ❑ ❑ ❑ H b) Seismic ground shaking( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ H c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ H liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic ❑ ❑ ❑ H hazard?( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ H f) Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ H unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (3) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ H h) Expansive soils? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ H 1) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ H features?() IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ ❑ H drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ ❑ ❑ H water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ ❑ ❑ H other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ H water in any water body? ( ) TLA Restaufant NDCKLIST Page 5 a Potentially Potentia Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ ❑ ❑ El waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Cif 1) Substantial reduction in the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ Cd of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ C�J pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ C1 temperature, or cause any change in climate?( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ❑ ❑ C✓I ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ Q ❑ congestion? (4) TLARestaurant NDCKLIST Page 6 L low Potentially Potent Less than No Signiflcant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ ❑ Q ❑ features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment? (4) c) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q access to nearby uses? (4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or off-site? (4) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ Q supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail; waterborne or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q impacts?( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ❑ Q species or their habitats(including but not limited to plants,fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ Q heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q communities(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ Q and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ ❑ Q corridors? ( ) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 7 J, Potentially Potentidffr Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Vill. ENERGY& MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Q conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? (5) b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ Q ❑ ❑ potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q sources of potential health hazards? (5) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with p ❑ ❑ Q flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ p Q ❑ (6) TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 8 y Potentially Potentia Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 levels? (6) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ I� b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ C�7 d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XII. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Communications systems? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 9 4 Potentially Potential Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ Q ❑ aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q c) Affect historical resources? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ Q uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ Q opportunities? ( ) TLAReslaurant NDCKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentiall7w Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ p are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. There has been no previous analysis performed on the subject property or in the general vicinity which would be applicable to the proposed project. Form:F:\USERS\PLN\SI-TAREDIIFORMS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC Document:F:\USERSU'LN\IPLANCOM\PENDING\TLA-RES'VDCKLIST.DOC TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 11 • SOURCE LIST 1. Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan 2. Title 20,Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 3. City Excavation and Grading Code,Section 15.04.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 4. Traffic Study No. 112 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, EnviroPro Inc., dated July 10, 1997 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code TLA Restaurant NDCKLIST Page 12 y ENVIRON ANTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS TLA Drive-through Restaurant 3100 West Coast Highway Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 Proiect Description The project involves the approval of a negative declaration, use permit and a traffic study to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot, two-story drive- through restaurant, a 300 sq.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. Included with the use permit application is a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with an architectural facade element(32 feet high), where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet. A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and waiver of development standards specified by Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included in the use permit application. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested to allow an architectural feature (steel frame facade element, 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation. The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is SP-5 (Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area, Retail and Service Commercial). The proposed drive-through restaurant facility is a permitted use within this designation.This project is located within the Coastal Zone Boundary,therefore a Coastal Development Permit and Coastal Commission approval will be required. II. Population and Housing Population The proposed project is non-residential and therefore will not cause or induce,either directly or indirectly,any growth or reduction in the area's population. Housing No additional housing demand would result from the project since only a minor employment increase is anticipated and no displacementof existing affordable housing is anticipated. III. Geologic Problems(Earth) According to the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan,the project is located in an area of historic occurrence of liquefaction and seismic activity which may be subject to ground shaking, ground failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, landslides/mudflows,subsidence or expansive soils or erosion and unstable soils conditions.The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections) and the Uniform Building Code should adequately address the potential impacts of seismic activity. The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards(item no.IX). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificantlevel. Mitigation Measure No. 1 That erosion and siltation control measures of the construction operations shall comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. Water The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed and no appreciable change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and flow of surface runoff is anticipated. The discharge of storm water runoff during the constructionphase will be adequately addressed by erosion control measures specified by the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections), therefore no drainage impacts would be anticipated.The project is located outside the flood hazard area and is not located in an area which will affect the quality,rate and flow of existing ground water. V. Air Quality Construction Phase During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by The CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 2 ! City and Air Quality Management District regulations.Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project.No additional stationary equipment is proposed that could generate additional emission as part of the project. Operational Phase Odors associated with the preparation of food items during the regular operation of the restaurant facility are anticipated to be generated and will be noticeable to the surrounding area. Odors and their sources are not specifically regulated by the Air Quality Management District Regulations. However, should problems arise with regard to the generation of odors in the vicinity,conditions of approval have been included in the use permit which will require the installation of adequate hood equipment to alleviate such occurrences. VI. Transportation/Circulation/parking Traffic Impact The on-site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development.The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources,trip generation rate for the proposed expanded facility would generate an increase of approximately 850 trips per day. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic study was required since the traffic increase of the proposed development exceeds trip generation requirement(300 or more trips per day) of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Although the increase in the vehicular trips may be potentially significant, the traffic study did not identify any significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures have been recommended nor required in conjunctionwith the traffic study for the project. Site Access The existing single access driveway which will be relocated to the easterly side of the property. The study's analysis of the project access, identified no significant problems associated with the proposed facility and adequate emergency access to neighboring properties is maintained and not affected by the proposed facility. Hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists are adequately addressed by the compliance with City Standards related to sight distance requirements. CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 3 Parking The applicant proposes to provide 8 employee parking spaces for the facility and the project application includes a request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces.No adverse parking impact is anticipated since the proposal is for a"drive-through only" facility with no walk-up service. Additionally, inclusion of the automobile stacking within the drive-through lanes toward the parking requirement will further accommodate any increased parking demand of the facility. Transportation Impacts The project will not result in any conflict with adopted policies related to alternative transportation.The project is not located in an area which provides any rail,waterborne or air traffic transportation. VII. Biological Resources(Plant and Animal Life) Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. VIII. Energy and Mineral Natural Resources Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. IX. Hazards Construction Phase The proposal may include the removal of underground gasoline storage tanks or removal of contaminated soils which may expose construction employees to potential health risk, however, general construction practices will provided adequate protection to the employees and the remediation will reduce any future hazard to a level of insignificance. Remediation will be in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Health Department. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification by the Orange County CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 4 Health Department, acceptable to the City's Building Department, signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. Operational Phase The proposed project does not store or utilize hazardous materials on-site therefore no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. The property is not located in an area of increased fire hazard. X. Noise Construction Phase Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations(NBMC Chapter 10.28). Operational Phase Noise generated by the regular operation of the restaurant facility will be adequately addressed by conditions of approval of the use permit which will require compliance with provisions set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance. XI. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. XII. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility system and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system related to power,natural gas,communications,water treatment,storm water drainage, solid waste disposal or local or regional water supply is anticipated. XIII. Aesthetics The site is located in a commercial zone, and the proposed drive- through restaurant facility would not result in any significant CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 5 aesthetic impacts on any existing scenic vista or scenic highway than the other existing adjacent commercial uses. Negative Aesthetic Effect The increase height of portions of the proposed project has the, potential to pose a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the neighboring commercial and residential properties. However, the overall height of the project is not abrupt in scale with the commercial automobile sales facility located to the east of the subject property since it will be lower in height.The nearby residential uses will not be visually impacted to any significant degree by the proposed use,since the proposed use is located below the line of sight of the residential uses on the bluff overlooking the project. Light and Glare Exterior lighting of the project could produce light and, glare that would adversely affect the adjacent residential properties.Although the project is tucked into the base of the existing slope and will not readily visible to the neighboring residential properties located above and overlook the subject property, it is anticipated that some of the exterior lighting will be visible to the neighboring residential properties.Therefore the use permit will include standard conditions of approval to ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the greatest extent feasible. Mitigation Measure No. 3 That prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system is designed,directed,and will be maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the neighboring residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 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 determine substantial conformance with the intent of this condition of approval, the control of light and glare. XIV. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 6 XV. Recreation• Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis,the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Form:F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IFORMS\NEG-DEC\OIEXPLAN.DOC Document:F:\USERS\PLM I PLANCOM\PENDING\TLA-REST\EXPLAN.DOC CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 7 MITIGAAN MONITORING AND REPORTINAOGRAM TLA Drive-through Restaurant 3100 West Coast Highway Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, .implementing actions,and verifrcationprocedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval,a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies,standards,or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances,policies,standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements,and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal,the City will approve the report, request additional information,or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION TLA Drive-through Restaurant 3100 West Coast Highway Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No.112 September5, 1997 Implementation Method of Timingof Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date Ill. GEOLOGICPROBLEMS 1. The Applicantwill comply with the erosion and siltation Conditionof Plan Check Priorto the issuanceof Planning Department control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable approval any buildingpermit and Building Dept • local and State buildingcodes and seismicdesign guidelines. XI. HAZARDS. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant Conditionof Plan Check Priorto the issuanceof Public Works shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building approval any gradingor Department, and Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has buildingpermit BuildingDcpartment undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contaminationhas been cleared. XIII. AESTHETICS Lightand Glare Conditionof Building Permits Priorto the issuanceof Planning Department 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the approval Plan Check, Field any buildingpennit and Building Dept applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the Inspection as lightingsystem is designed,directed,and will be maintained in such necessary a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the neighboringresidential uses.The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a • letter from the engineerstating that,in his opinion,this requirement has been met.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 determine substantial conformance with the intent of this condition of approval,the control of lightand glare. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\l PLANCOM\PENDING\TLA-RFST\MIT-MSR.DOC Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of. TLA Restaurant(Jonathan Rodriguez-Atkatz,applicant)for Use Permit No.3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 on property located at 3100 West Coast Highway. The project involves the approval of a negative declaration use permit and a traffic study to-allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot two-story drive-through restaurant a 300 sg.ft. storage building and related off-street parking. The use permit application includes a request to allow portions of the proposed structure to exceed the permitted height with an elevator shaft parapet wall and mechanical screen fence (28 29 feet high) where the Municipal Code limits the height to a maximum of 26 feet.A request to waive a portion of the required off-street parking and development standards specified by Section 20 82 040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are also included in the use permit application A modification to the Zoning Code is requested to allow an architectural feature (steel- frame facade element 32 feet high at its peak) to exceed the permitted 31 foot maximum peak height limitation The on site buildings to be demolished are currently vacant and were formerly occupied by an automobile sales facility. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject developmentwill not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department,City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,California,92659-1768(714)644-3200. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 9th day of October 1997, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California,at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. For information call(714)644-3200. Thomas J.Ashley,Secretary,Planning Commission,City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. VICINITY MAP .Y . R �,/ ` rye + `♦� ✓J�� R ✓1dM p G� 1J y-f RY Mr *1 0 40�. qr rd � / �" t�\\` ! C' f�•A, O`S.( qy ,1 Jam. '�. owrx \ u a„ P�_ Qp2•pgr `,PaPgY A JL T \\ . ..a ., ., l . .. . ... ..... M t•M•1 IIl MW..1 IM:t.. N�A.� 9 tM r .YY sneer• �p \\ oAo n•n Aft .l%4-R& AriRl ++ \ \\ C• W.W.R)•7A f�r ev4C f10ATr NE41b" MIR OC fr.JAK Slfu. 10-te.15 \ Op.RS-iR RERORE SL JAKS GAVRCM /Ro1EATf FAdR 4i` RSG-N Te GEIF S-�.AS Use Permit No. 3612 and Traffic Study No. 112 LSA A"ocut",Inc. Emmmnmcntal Analyse Trantpun.mon Engmeenng LS-A BiolHabitat and tlands Hauat RrstorAonnon Retowrce Management Commnmty and Land Planning [.mdscape Architea"ne Archaeology and Paleontology August 15, 1997 JaneP•sncipafs Rob Balch Asso Divan DRAFT ShC4 Brady Associate Civil Engineer Les Card City of Newport Beach Da:nd Clore 3300 Newport Boulevard Stev.e Granholn, Newport Beach, CA92658 Ward Harfacher Rog"Harris Subject: Traffic Study for TLA Restaurant at 3100 West Coast Highway, An Homngbaaten Newport Beach Larry Kennings C.,rouyn Lobes Dear Ms. Divan: Bdt May" Rob McCann Rob Schonholiz LSAAssociates, Inc. (LSA)is pleased to provide the following traffic analysis for Malcolm J.Sproal the proposed TLA restaurant located along West Coast Highway in the CIty of Newport Beach. The analysis has been prepared at the request of City staff to {"°"a"' identify off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)analy- Deiorah Baer sis, to examine on-site circulation conditions to ensure-that the proposed ac- James Banm cesses provide adequate IngreWegress to the local street system, and that on- Connk Wm site storage areas are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project. Steoen W.Conklrng RM Dobbertecn Gary Dots- Sf1MMARYOFFINDEWS Rkbard Erickson Kesys Finch"ant Kellner1. The site was a car dealership, but is currently vacant. One full move- era Lai, went driveway provides access from the project parcel to West Coast Benson ue Highway. The project does not propose any new access driveways. Jduh H.Afalam"t Sab,iw Nicholls 2. West Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is a five lane arterial, M.W.-Biu-O'Connell three westbound and two eastbound. There are no committed,funded Anthony Perms projects to provide additional arterial capacity. Improvements to the Lynette Sunchina SR 55 (Newport Boulevard)/SR-1 (West Coast Highway) interchange will J'U Wilton Lt°yd B.A zoL enhance the operation of this intersection. 3. At the project driveway, approximately 850 vehicle trips per day are forecast to enter and exit the site,with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m, peak hour. an*974RAOM733\TPAMC.L9A0 One Park Plaza,Smile 500 Telephone Ili M-0666 other off im loured in Berkeley Irvine,Cahfomia 91614 Facsimile 714 35y-8076 Pt.Richmond,Riverside and Sa"amento E-mail lw_h v@Iznetmm.m,n 1_54 itvn/Jtb,Inc. Extensive studies have shown that much of drive through restaurant traffic generated at the project driveway is already on the street for DRAFT other purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips, and account for approximately 47 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveway. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 460 new project trips,37 new am.peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation net- work. 4. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance CM)analysis,no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new pro- ject trips to the circulation network. 5. Due to the current provision of a continuous left turn lane along West Coast Highway adjacent to the project(previously used by the car deal- ership)and the low volume of peak hour traffic forecast to turn left into and out of the project site, full movement access (i.e., left and right turns in and outbound) is considered acceptable for the project. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1,on-site storage area is available for approximately five vehicles at the menu board and approxi- mately seven vehicles at the ordering location. It is recommended that the fist menu boards be moved north approximately 35 feet to provide greater vehicular storage during the most time-consuming(menu selec- tion) phase of the operation. With this modification, no adverse im- pacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site at 3100 West Coast Highway was a car dealership, but is cur. rentlyvacant. The project location is illustrated in Figure 1. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 1,200 square foot elevated, drive through restaurant. The proposed site plan retains a single access driveway along West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be reconstructed and moved east to the easterly edge of the project site. The project does not propose any additional access drive- ways. Project Iirtp Generation Table A presents the total trip generation resulting from application of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) industry standard trip rates to the proposed 1,200 square foot drive through restaurant. The source of the trip rates is the February 1995 Update to the FJOb Edition of the ITE Trip Generatiom manual (Land Use Code 834: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window). The project is forecast to generate approximately 850 average daily trips (ADT),with 67 vehicle trips occurring during the am.peak hour and 44 vehicle trips occur- ring during the p.m.peak hour. tta07*L•k91B73A7RAFMLnt* 2 l7di Sr ! � e k HOSMAG cy RD PROJECT SITE v $o o� e'tYSlD pCtt Pb LEGEND: o O scnay Intersections 0 snm7(CNB733) 4�1 Figure 1 N DRAFT Lf Location Map and ��(�„ x°scaw Study Intersections r N I5SI.OS97 44 L osm N IS316328 IKA ,V 44 G a MC�Ef MCA M n � r QtElt / L40SM F WN I aim may.,♦�� t•�Mlfo�tM +oft IWi1_ t I•G �� / rCA%IWY lam Mu 4 + .�—E 44411.815 L + t Sal[ce: ca Alclliktti. �#r .l +�" .L �r+ E/W(CM33) Figure 2 N DRAFT LSANona. Site Plan rss,t95�raaA Inc Table A•Trip Generation DRAFT Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Units ADT in Out Total In Out Total Drive-Through Restaurant 1.20 TSF Trip Rate 1 710.08 28.49 27.38 55.87 19.01 17.55 36.56 Trip Generation 852 34 33 67 23 21 44 Pass-by Trips 0�.V2— 15 15 30 11 10 21 [Total New Trips 0V-- -460- 19 18 37 12 11 23 Notes: ' institute of Transportation Engineers,Update to the Fiftb Edition of Trip Generation,February 1995. T" Thousand Square Feet a/14N7(f.•t�B7331TR1PGFN.XlS) • • LSi AwKwtcs,Inc. For purposes of this project analysis, the average trip generation identified in Table A is used to determine traffic conditions on site and at the project drive. ways. Per the TTE Trip Generation manual, much of the restaurant traffic generated at the site driveway is already on the street for another purpose. DRAFT Based on logarithmic equations contained in the ITE Trip Generation manual, approximately 47 percent of the daily, am. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destina- tion. This factor is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways in Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approxi- mately 460 new project trips, 37 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 23 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. These"new project trips" are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. Project Trip I)Wdbution Figure 3 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project. The distribution plan is based on the trip distribution patterns identified for other recently approved fast food restaurants along West Coast Highway, and shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The proposed project trips are distributed equally east and west of the project site. Once on the arterial street system,the project traffic will disperse onto the Balboa Penin- sula and to other local destinations. The project trip assignment is based on the application of the project trip distribution to the trip generation. The total trip generation is identified at the project access. Based on the assignment plan,"new project trips"identified in Table A are assigned at the TPO study area Intersections. Figure 4 presents the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area Intersections. TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE(TPO)ANALYSIS Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Administrative Procedures for imple- menting the TPO analysis, trips are generated, distributed and assigned to the seven study area intersections presented in Figure 1. These Intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of intersections was reviewed and approved by the CIty Engineering staff. Existing traffic conditions for the intersections are based on winter/spring 1996 and 1997 counts. The Intersection at Newport Boulevard/Via Lido is based on a winter/spring 1994 traffic count. 8/107«1-VCMM\77UFML"tw 6 17Ah ST '9r� �O f0 HOSPITAL RD JQr pcy 5 PROJECT e`'e SITE Q� o � ♦e v 5 r0 PCII 1d Project BAyS�FOR Percentage Whom Proje O S/13097(CNB733) - - 4'�- Figure 3 N DRAFT LS/�� NoSale Project Trip Distribution 17th ST �Z / JP HOSPrrAL 1 Pt,y RD f �� <tr tr PROJECT `� �07� aJ P�,x ,✓ r� ~�j O 6 �c v PCy LEGEND, BAYSQtQ 1 AM/PM Peak Hour O ZI Project Traffic Volumes *SaDnae m mnftu pw-by trip m&=Om - fiem thmsb ogva t and add i=b tam moivmetw wMMIN pfcoct tiw O 8J13/97(CNB733) 4'�, Figure 4 N DRAFT LSA . No Scale Project Trip Assignment , Committed project traffic volumes at the study area intersections are taken from the Citys cumulative projects list prepared on August 4, 1997. Cumula- tive growth volumes, also included in this analysis, are based on City of New- port Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for street segments within the City of Newport Beach boundary. DRAFTone Percentr.Y{pc volume Analysis The"One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis"tests, as defined in the Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance No. 86-20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed projects peak period trip assignment for the four study area intersections in the City of Newport Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1999,one year after occupancy of the proposed project. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" worksheets are presented as an attachment The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are summarized in Table B. This table identifies the seven study area intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each approach leg of an intersection,the 1999 am.and p.m.peak period one percent test volumes,,the proposed projeces peak period trip assignment, and a comparison of,the peak period volumes are presented. Under the "Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes; those approach legs to an Intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes ace identified. As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the TPO,critical intersections are defined as those locations in which project generated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour period traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections in the committed plus project condition. As indicated in Table B, the intersection of West Coast Highway/hrstin Avenue will exceed one percent of the intersection approach volume during the am. peak hour. It should be noted that the 1999 one percent volume is one vehicle in the am. peak period. The project will add two vehicles In the am. peak period. As a result,intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis is required at West Coast Highway/11tstin Avenue during the am.peak hour. Intersecdon Capacity Utilization(ICI)Analysis The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volume/capacity(v/c)ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and their v/c ratios are then examined to determine the overall capacity utilization for each intersection in the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU is the percentage of an intersection's capacity needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles traveling through the inter- section. Hence, the higher the ICU, the higher the percentage of rapacity utilization,where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization,residual capacity will 8A07-L\C+B733\1aAFPrc.LMt* 9 LSAAMoel�MA 7�r. Table B-Traffic Phaains Ordinance(TPO)Intersection Analyals Summary 1%'rr87'ttiDWMa 1967MVOWME PROJECC PaAK PERIOD 11ups EXCEED 1%TPO EXCEED1%TPO No W/Projw ICU Dri1QlECI[ON AM PEAK PERIOD PM PEAK PERIOD AM TOTAL PM TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PMPGKHOUR CuI ICU CLap Na sa Ea 'ND N8 M II Iva IM 6s I Ea vs Na 68 1 BE VS IM 1 se 1 n wa Na 6a I Ra " AM I PM AM I PM AM I PM ewpo BMW ud QW01opkalRod Ww) 46 40 12 8 44 77 50 9 4 4 O 0 2 2 0 O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO wfpmt aou]eftdQmvr Lido%,") 31 27 O 9 33 50 0 a 6 6 0 0 4 4 O O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO a18L*W d-Aw.(MW-- tHiAfin7 32 12 106 26 33 25 dO 61 4 2 4 10 2 2 2 6 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Deiw Q(swC lHwm QT/17) 0 7 59 35 1 13 40 79 O 2 18 18 O 2 12 10 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO TUWAAM Q(6)C. "H*bN"Q1 0 1 56 42 O 2 52 66 0 2 16 16 O 2 10 10 NO VW NO No NO NO NO NO &92 Q92 a00 lr�Dr arrLor-Dr.QQ Wy KHWW&Y" 4 29 61 55 2 30 54 304 0 4 14 12 0 2 a 8 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO mil^llMW--a H+B-my M" 9 3 7i 47 13 4 75 76 2 0 12 10 2 0 a 6 NO NO NO No No No No No DRAFT • EV73i97(L•1oVD7.ii17fo(]ttcxLq prevail. The ICU calculations presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections,where DRAFT project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the am. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheet for Coast Highway/rustin Avenue is included as an attachment to this report. The ICU worksheet indicates that West Coast Highway/rustin Avenue operates below the 0.90 threshold today, but is forecast to operate with an ICU of 0.92 (LOS E) in the future cumulative condition. The addition of the project traffic does not affect this ICU value. The intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E (ICU of 0.92)with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, per the TPO analy- sis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new project trips to the circulation network. PROJECT SIM ACCEM As identified in the site plan presented in Figure 2,one driveway is proposed to provide access to West Coast Highway. The existing driveway will be relocated' further east to the easterly boundary of the project site. Currently, a continu- ous left turn lane is provided along West Coast Highway to allow left turns in and out of the project site as well as full movements to adjacent properties. Full access was provided via the continuous left turn lane to the previous car dealership on the site. The purpose of this on-site analysis is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the relocated existing access driveways,and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. Based on the trip assignment presented in Figure 4, approximately 17 left turn movements are forecast in and out of the project site during the peak morning commute period This is approximately one vehicle every three minutes on a random basis. Signalized intersections exist along West Coast Highway at Riverside Drive and southbound Newport Boulevard ramps to potentially platoon vehicles, providing some gaps in east and westbound through traffic. No obstructions to sight distance are evident in the vicinity of the project access location. As the continuous left turn lane currently exists and has provided full move- ment access to the previous land use and adjacent restaurant had uses, and as the left turn volume of traffic into and out of the site is relatively nominal, maintenance of full movement access is considered appropriate for the project site. NtU9�u:�xa�3\�tc.tt� it VEHICLE STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS According to the project description provided by the applicant, the site has been designed to minimize the of time a consumer will have to spend on site. The point of sale and the food preparation systems permit order times of less than 60 seconds and food delivery times of less than 50 seconds. One variable that cannot be quantified for this analysis is the time spent by the patron in reading the menu boards and making an order selection. But the applicant is projecting a maximum duration of 8:00 minutes per vehicle. According to the project trip assignment, approximately 34 vehicles per hour will arrive at the site during the am. peak hour, or almost one vehicle every two minutes based on random arrivals. Using the 8:00 minutes maximum duration estimate, four vehicles would arrive prior to the departure of the initial preceding vehicle. In this system, a total of 16 vehicles would be on site at a given time with a trip generation of approximately 34 vehicles per hour. The project description and site plan indicate a total queuing area available for 30 vehicles. Therefore, the site incorporates adequate vehicle storage for as much as twice the reported trip generation. Based on this analysis, adequate storage is provided on site. The location of the fast menu boards, however, may create limited queuing area during menu selection. Approximately five vehicles may queue up to the first menu boards. Given the trip generation estimates,the maximum duration and the uncertainty in time of patron menu selection, it is recommended that the first menu boards be moved approximately 35 feet north to provide an queuing area for five additional vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful in your planning needs. Should you have any questions,or if I can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to call me at(714) 553*666. Sincerely, LSAASSOCIATES, INC. DRAFT Anthony Petros Associate Attachments: 1%Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets CC: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner QJ1fH7«I:K�iB733\1BAFFIGL7R» 12 �NGwcpq O 1 % Traffic Volume An�ysis IIII8fS2CIl0A N;rMRT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 97 M Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved "acted 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Regional ProJecb Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4363 87 100 4550 46 4 Southbound 3599 72 367 4038 1 40 4 Eastbound 1140 0 50 1190 12 0 Westbound 759' 0 20 779 8 0 ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Pmjected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utinntion (I.C.U.) Analysis is required DATE: PROJECT: e towns 1 % Traffic Volume AnTysis Intersedon HEMRT BOULEVARD / HOSPITAL ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected DincUon Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Protect Volume Growth PEAK i 112 Hour Peak 2 1!2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 112 flour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4078 82 200 4360 44 2 Southbound 7371 147 203 7721 77 2 Eastbound 2874 0 144 3018 30 0 Westbound 898 0 0 898 9 0 Project Traf le Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Trsf c Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization El (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: GATE: a twauar i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _, AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lx of Protected peak Project o 01rectton Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak N Hour Peak 28 Hour Peak Zy Hour Volume Volume volume YOU" Yolume Volume Northbound 3075 0 10 3085 31 6 South bound 2707 0 0 2707 27 6 Eastbound 45 0 0 45 0 1 0 westbound 907 0 0 907 9 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE. PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pr ng _ PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2%Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2 He Volume Volume volume volume volume, volume Northbound 3270 0 4 3274 33 4 Southbound 4975 0 6 4981 50 4 I Eastbound 25 0 0 25 0 0 Westbound 823 0 0 823 8 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak A Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� .Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Mrsedon OUST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BLVD—SUPERIOR AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 - en ) Approach Existing Peek 2 112 Hour Approved "acted 1% of Projected Project Oirection Peak 2 112 Now Regional Projecte Volume Growth PEAK 2 Hour Peek 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peek 2 1R ur Volume Volumee Now Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3182 0 18 3200 32 4 ! Sorthbound 1151 0 18 1169 12 2 Eastbound 9699 194 670 10563 106 4 Westbound 2276 46 239 2561 26 10 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity UtinzaUon (I.C.U.) Anatysls Is r"ukd. DATE: PROJECT: Is urwtat } 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis u InlerseCU00 COAST UGHBAY/BALBOA BLVD. —SUPMOR AVE. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 — PH ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Repiond Projects Peak 2 112 How Peak 2 V2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume GrowUe PEAK 2 e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3234 0 32 3266 33 2 I Southbound 2499 0 10 2509 25 2 Eastbound 5544 111 350 6005 60 2 Westbound 5589 112 733 6434 64 6 a Project Traffic is estimated to be lass than 1% of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. ElProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysts Is required. DATE: PROJECT: o ntwrtal I % Traffic Volume Analysis �urow�J Intersedon COAST HIGHNAY / RIVERSIDE AVEM ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 AM j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Flour APproyed Projected 1% or Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 How Regional ProJecL Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Now Peak 2 112 Flour Volume Volumee Volume Crowd PEAK 2 Flow Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 12 19 10 0 I Sou(hbound 703 0 41 744 1 7 2 ' Eastbound 5069 101 762 5932 59 18 Westbound 2935 59 544 3538 35 18 a Project Traffic is estimated to be Ass than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Flow Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity UtilinUon (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 9 +wwa . ��cWao e • • I 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis II1I2fS8Ct1011 COAST aiGMAT / RIVERSIDE AVE= ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 97 PH Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Pea ur k 2 1/2 dour Peak 21r2 Ho Peak 2 ill Hour Volume Volumee Volume Growth PF�1K 2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Northbound 77 0 0 77 1 0 Southbound 1302 0 16 1318 13 2 Eastbound 5223 104 680 6007 60 12 Westbound 6896 138 904 7938 79 10 a Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. a Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 flour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity UtU6cation (I.C.U.) Analysis is required DATE: PROJECT: 2 +uvuim lEW�RT . • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersedon coesT HiGmA1/TOsTIN eyE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1996- A ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 Sorthbound 117 0 24 141 1 2 Eastbound 4620 92 852 5564 56 16 Westbound 3590 72 538 4200 42 16 ❑ Project Traffic A estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required. DATE: PROJECT: 9 nixgtty sP 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis ..roe. Intersection COAST HIGMAY/TUSTIN AVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1996 — PH ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Now Regional ProJecU Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 Southbound 208 0 8 216 2 2 Eastbound 4463 89 689 5241 52 10 Westbound 5654 113 986 6753 68 10 a Project Traffic is estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 How Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 9 Mwem .�Ngwvogr • 0 ° 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis IntersecGoo COAST HIGHWAY I DOVEER DRIVE — BAYSHORE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 AM Approach Existing Peak 2 V2 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Oirsctton Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Pects Peak 2 M Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK roj2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 352 0 0 352 4 0 Southbound 2609 0 266 2875 29 4 Eastbound 5077 102 952 6131 61 14 Westbound 4825 97 616 5538 55 12 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, inlersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: __.•--• 8 qnV.•'. r�wPo9T • • 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis U c'4'c"dam COAST 1111 / DOVER DRIVE — BATSHORE DRIVE Inl2(S2C�100 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 Ply ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 How Approved Projected i% of Projected Project Re tonal Projects Direction Peak 2 112 Hour g Peak 2 V2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 1R How Volume Volume i Volume Volume Volume Northbound 234 0 0 234 2 0 F;ZndF2813 0 166 2979 30 2 Eastbound 4638 93 704 5435 54 8 Westbound 9100 182 1148 I 10430 104 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be leas than 1% of Projected nx Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 How Traffic Volume. Intenection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: Sa tivp+ry 1 % Traffic Volume Ana is WfSt?Cfj00 COAST HIGHWAYMYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter Spring 19 96 - en ti roved Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Pro ects Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1f2 Hour Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume )(orihbound 873 0 29 902 9 2 Southbound 133 0 153 286 3 0 Eastbound 6440 129 722 7291 73 12 Westbound 4275 86 361 4722 47 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected X Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 9 fuw(x = _ 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis U }ram (I11 NCbon COAT EUQUAWBAYSIDE DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 19 96 - re1 ) Approach Usting Peek 2 112 Now Approved Projected 1% of Pro acted Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional ProI CU j Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume NoMbound 1258 0 15 1273 13 2 Southbound 137 0 249 386 4 0 Eastbound 6651 133 496 7280 73 8 Westbound 6732 135 751 7618 76 6 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis Is required DATE: PROJECT: ruwad CX2635AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST MIDWAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC V%LMES EASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC w1NTER/SPRING 1996 AN .......................................•..................................................... I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMITTEDI PROJECTED PROJECTIPROJECT (Movementl lanes I lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWN I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVotums I V/C I ICapacityleswityl votune I Ratio I Yot ma I Volume lw/o ►rojectl Ratio I I .•--•-----------•••----------•-"•-•_--------•-•--•----•------- --------- ------- ----- j I NL I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00-I I........) .-•".............) ...........-'-'--"--".........---............I i NT 16001 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.001 --------) .................. ...............................................I I MR I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I----.•----------------------------------•---•-------.---.-------•----•--------------------. I SL 1 1 38 1 0 1 8 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I........) .................. ............................................... I $1 1600 1 .1 2 0 .........................................................-'----....-'•---.....................I I SA 1 1 16 1 0 1 4 1 0.00 1 1 10.00 1 ..... .... ...... ...... ........... ...... ......... I EL 1 16M 1 1 42 1 0.03 1 1 1 1 1 0.03 1 1 10.03 1 I............................•-•--'-•---............................._..................._..I I ET 1 1 U40 147 1 426 1 0.88 1 7 1'0.881 --------) 3200 ..................) 0.73 e....................................---.......I I ER I I 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 1 I--------------------------------•------.-----------.-----------••.--•--.-..----•---.._----. I WL 1 I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 10.00 I .......--•---------•----------------•-••--•••-----•------•---.............. .. .._........... wr 1 4M 1 1 1555 1 0.32 131 1 267 I 0.39 18 10.39 -=---"---•-'....................•-'......................_................... -.......... I wit 1 16001 1 361 0.021 1 1 2 1 0.00 I O 10.00I 1- ----------------•------------•••-•---------•-.....-------................_......_...._. 1EXISTING 1 0.77 1 1------------------------•-----------•---.------.-•-------------- - ....... I 1EXIST + REG GROWN + CCMMITTED w/PROPOSED IMPROVEMEMTS I.C.U. 1 0.92 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.92 ..............................................:.............................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems taprovement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project iaprovements wail be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system faprovement: PROJECT FORM if CH2635AN A ENVIROPRO, INC. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Conducted at 3100 West pacific Coast Hwy Easterty Portion Newport Beach, CA Juty 10,1997 Enviropro, Inc. Project No.E0831 I Prepared for TLA Incorporated Go Mr.Joe Goveia Goveia A Associates 11 Blue Jay Drive Atiso Viejo, CA 92656 l7i5 Ble■ Are �ue CMstlnertb, CA 91311 • SIS-99ii-7197 • FAX 818•998.7256 ryUVY/ V1J 1.0 EXECUTNE SUAAINARY A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the property located at the easterly portion of 3100 West Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this work was to assess if potential environmental interests that might impact the properly may exist at the site or surrounding sites. 2.0 69M OF WORK • Conduct a visual inspection of the site to identify readily apparent potential sources or signs of contamination. This site inspection includes a thorough inspection of the property with attention to potential or present sources of environmental concern at the site. The visual Inspection also includes interviews with management, employees, and other readily available persons regarding site history, waste handling practices, current environmental concerns, and any other pertinent environmental concerns. Photographs,documenting the site visit are presented in Appendix A. • Review Historical aerial photographs, Sanborn Maps, and Munger Oil Maps, if readily available, to document the previous uses of the site. These materials help assess past site activities that may have an impact on the property today. • Commission a records search and report from an environmental regulatory database vendor for information pertaining to soil and/or groundwater contamination at the subject site and surrounding properties within a one- mile radius. • Contact the following agencies, if possible, to inquire as to whether they maintain any files on the subject property. The following is the minimum list of locat agencies to be contacted: The Fire Department The Department of Public Works The Regional Water Quality Control Board The Department of Health Services The Department of Toxic Substances Control(EPA) 1 • Interview current and previous site owners (if possible) for information on any chemicals that may have been used, and, knowledge of'arty spills and/or chemical leaks that may have occurred at the subject site or knowledge of potential or known environmental concerns. • Prepare an overview of the topographic, geological, and hydrogeological settings and information for the subject site and surrounding area from readily available geologic documentation, as related to environmental issues. • Review research literature on radon investigations performed for the State of Califomis. Analyzed pertinent data pertaining to the subject site and the possibility of a radon concern in the subject site area. • Perform a visual Inspection and sampling of suspect asbestos containing materials. Bulk samples were transferred to a state-certified laboratory, using the appropriate chain-of-custody, for analysis. Suspect asbestos samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy. • Prepare a report documenting the results of the Investigation. 3.0 SITE OVERVIE�N 3A LOCATION The subject site is located on the easterly portion of 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy (PCH) in Newport Beach. The site is situated on the north side of PCH, east of Newport Avenue. Please see Drawing 1 for the Site Location Map. 3.2 SITE DESCPJP71ON The subject site is currently oocupied by a vacant auto repair shop and showroom offices. The subject site is a portion of what used to be a larger automobile sales and repair facility, Newport Imports. The subject site contains a large, two-story showroom building, which also contains offices. This building fronts along PCH. The rear of the property contains an automobile repair shop with several repair bays and parking area. Please see Drawing 2 for the Site Plot Plan. 2 s Jam► - lop lop jj w _ ► . '� , ��� �.AIMr' � � j fj� '�,' ;i +►1 I ' 'i4 W 'may`. . r dip IV!FRO. t •.• ENVIROPRO, LOCATION 55-gallon Wheel Alignment drums Machines Generators North Repair torag Bay • � � � � oom Paint Booth I � O rI East Repair . 0 � Bay �, West Repair Hydraulic Oil AK)" Bay Reservoirs 0MW Fuel Pump MW Underground O MW Tanks W showroom & VW 0 MW Offices MW 0 Pacific Coast Highway Le end Drawing Not To Scale MW Monitoring Well oOm Hydraulic Lift Abandoned Hydraulic Lift C=== Aboveground Lift ❑ Aboveground New Oil Tank 0 55-gallon drum of waste Enviropro, Inc. Site Plot Plan Drawlna 2 9765 Eton Avenue Client Name: Chatsworth, CA 91311 Govela & Associates/TLA Inc. Date: Project Approved By: Site Address: July 1997 E0838001 A.O. 3100 W. PCH, Newport Beach, CA 3.3 ADJACENT PROPERTIES The subject site is situated in a mixed-use commerdaUresidential area. The adjacent sires are described below: north-a steep cliff is present at the northern border of the site. Atop this cliff are single family residential homes. south-across PCH from the subject site is a large hotel. There are also several restaurants and an office building south of the site. Further south is the Newport Bay and Pacific Ocean. east-adjacent to the east, along PCH is a BMW automobile dealership and repair shop. west-adjacent to the sde is the western portion of the former Newport Imports auto mobile dealership and repair shop. Further west is a Chills restaurant, and the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce. 4.0 $Jj.E HIMRY AND OPERATIONS 4.1 RESULTS OF SANBORN MAP REVIEW The Sanborn Map Company provided map coverage for this site. The following is a aummary of the available maps provided to Enviropro. ).9�1 The subject site appears to be vacant in this photograph. The front auto repair shop for the westerly portion of the former Newport imports facility,is present to the west. The Sanborn map indicates that this building is used for automobile repairs and painting. There is also a car wash facility associated with this westerly portion of 3100 PCH. Piles of lumber are stored in the rear of the repair bay building. East of the site is a motel. South of the site, across PCH is a used boat sales shop and storage area, a furniture retail store and associated manufacturing and painting. Southwest of the site is the Orange County Harbour Engineers. im The subject site appears similar to today with the showroom building and automobile repair shops. The westerly portion of 3100 PCH has also been further developed with another repair bay behind the original building. The surrounding sites appears the same as in the previous map. b �V.11r V!•J ' • 4.2 RESULTS OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW Six historical aerial photographs, the oldest of which dates back to 1922, were reviewed by an Enviropro, Inc. representative for the subject property at the UCLA Spence and Fairchild collections. These photographs were reviewed with attention to possible sources of environmental concern due to past activities on and around the property. Copies of the aerial photographs could not be obtained, and are therefore not included in this report The following is a description of each aerial photograph reviewed: 28174).4 1922 The subject site and surrounding sites are vacant and undeveloped. The marina is also not developed and PCH is not present. E-1979 4/1 r28 The subject site and sites to the north, south, and east are vacant PCH has been constructed. South of the site, across PCH is a commercial building. The building's use can not be determined from this photograph. E-014fi W7136 The subject site is stiff vacant and appears undeveloped. There is an advertising sign located on the subject site along PCH, but the ad could not be read in this photograph. North of the site, atop the cidr, is what appears to be one single family residential home. South of the site is the commercial building. West of fhe site is an industrial property, and east of the site Is vacant o4-F-13035 4r27147 The southern 3/4 of the subject site is being used for mobile home parking in this photograph. The northern 1/3 of the site appears to be used for materials storage for the Industrial sfte to the west. These materials appear to be stacks of wood, possibly for boat construction. A motel is present to the east, and additional residential homes are present to the north, atop the cliff. South of the site is a bait shop (a sign can be read on the budding) and what appears to be a bus and boat maintenance facility. E-1477 284 122/5§ The subject site appears similar to today. The properties adjacent to the north, east and west appear similar to the previous photograph. South of the site, across PCH, is a commercial property which appears to be associated with the marina, its use can not be determined from the photograph. 6 Q 4:3 213/66 The subject site and surrounding adjacent sites appear similar to the 1955 photograph. However, south of the site, across PCH is what appears to be a hotel and parking lot 4.3 RESULTS OF THE MUNGER OIL MAP REVIEW There are no former or present oil wells noted in the maps on or immediately adjacent to the subject site. Therefore there is little likelihood for conoem due to former or present oil wells on the subject site. There is an area of oil exploration south and southwest of the subject site, approximately 1000 feet from the subject site. These wells are a significant distance from the subject site so that they most likely do not pose an environmental concern to the subject site. &0 SITE SETTING &I TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING The subject site is situated at an elevation of 10 feet.above mean sea level and is located approximately 400 feet from the Newport Bay which connects to the Pacific Ocean. The elevation increases dramatically at the northem border of the subject site, where a cliff rises to 75 feet above mean sea level. 5.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject site is located along the shore of the Pacific Ocean and at the base of a 75-foot tall cliff. The soils at the subject site and immediate area can be expected to be sandy. 5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING Because this site is so dose to the Pacific Ocean, groundwater can be expected to be quite shallow. In addition, groundwater quardy can be expected to be poor due to salt water intrusion. The groundwater elevation can also be expected to be greatly influenced by the local tides. Some groundwater elevation information has been provided by a groundwater monitoring report prepared by MJA Consulting, Inc. who installed and has performed quarterly monitoring for eight groundwater monitoring wells on site. According to their information, groundwater is present at approximately 7 to 7.5 feet below ground surface. 7 • 1 f • 6.0 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIdATION Outlined below are the results from the visual inspection, regulatory agency search, computerized records search, radon review, and suspect asbestos inspections. 6.1 SITE VISUAL INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS A visual inspection of the site was conducted on June 26, 1997. It involved a walk- through of the subject property and the immediate vicinity by, Avital Oilveau, an Enviropro, Inc. representative, to identify possible sources of environmental concern. The site inspection was led by Mr. Joe Goveis, a representative for the buyer. There were a number of environmental concems noted at the subject site and in the western portion of 3100 PCH, which is not a portion of the property being purchased by Enviropro's client, but was part of the former automobile sales and repair shop known as Newport imports. The first item of environmental concern is the groundwater contamination which is apparenfty present as described in the MJA Consulting, Inc.'s "Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling and Gradient Assessment, Second Quarter 199r report Apparently, one or more underground tanks on site (which were replaced) baked. This report describes the latest round of groundwater sampling (from the daft of this Phase 1) conducted for the eight rranitoring wells on she. Of these eight wells, only one is located on the subject site. The remaining seven wells are located on the western portion of 3100 PCH. he groundwater underlying the subject site appears to be contaminated with gasoline and STEX (benzene, toluene, ethytybenzene, and total xylenes). Throughout the years of sampling (2J90.6197) concentrations of gasoline have ranged from nondetected to 61,000 ppm. The most recent round of groundwater sampling, collected on June 20, 1997 shows the'following results: 8 TABLE i Groundwater Analytical Resufts-Jun*1"T 3100 West PCH-Newport Beach, CA W ell No. TP B T E X MTSE MW 1 <50 <0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 21 MW_2 200 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 53 MW-3 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8.2 MW-4 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.6 MW_5 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 25 We 15,000 20 <4.3 4.3 2,620 11 MW 7 <50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 MW-81 <50 1 <0.5 I <0.5 <0.5 <Q.5 1.5 The historical analytical groundwater analyses show that the concentrations of gasoline and BTEX are steadily decreasing through time. Please note that the underground tanks present today are located on the western portion of 3100 PCH (not a part of the subject site), however, the fuel pump is located on the subject site. The second item of environmental concern noted onsite are the four double and six abandoned single hydraulic Iifts. Please see the Site Plot Plan for their locations. Each of these hydraulic fifts contains a small underground tank of hydraulic oAs. For the abandoned lifts, it is unknown if these lifts were decommissioned because of a leak which stopped the operation of the lift, or simply because it wasn't used. Please note, two of the double lifts apparently have aboveground tanks which contain their hydraulic oil. A third Rom of environmental concern noted on site are the 21 55-galon drums located at the northeast comer of the site. The drums were unlabelled and full. For safety reasons, the drums were not opened to assess their contents. The asphalt underlying this drum storage area was also etched with circular drum markings, which could indicate historical teaks. A fourth item of environmental concern noted on site are the numerous aboveground tanks and drums of new and used oti and filters. These tanks and drums are located throughout the subject site. Please see the Site Plot Plan for their locations as noted during the site inspection. A frfth item of environmental concern noted on site is the oil staining underlying a small generator near the northeast comer of the site, within a covered shed. It is apparent from the staining that oil has leaked from this generator onto the underlying asphalt. 9 F , 1 Another item of environmental concern to the subject she which is located on the westerly portion of 3100 PCH is the paint booth. The paint booth is located near the western and of the site; please see the Ske Plot Plan. Paint spills were noted near the paint booth and painting operation within a paint booth are known to pose a potential risk for solvents and other regulated compounds to have affected the underlying soil. There were two pole-mounted transformers observed near the northeast comer of the site, behind the property line. These transformers are owned by Southern California Edison, who has indicated in a written notification to Enviropro, Inc. that they no longer have PCB-contaWng transformers, and that their agency has never specified PCB-containing transformers in the past. Therefore, there is little concern due to PCBs from these transformers. 6.2 RESULTS OF REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS 8.2.1 Results of Rau Agency Direct Contacts A regulatory agency search was conducted for information pertaining to soil and/or groundwater contamination at the property located at 3100 West Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. The following is a list of the agencies contacted and responses received A. Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB): Records were found for the subject property according to Ms. Margie Quiroz B. Orange County Health Care Agency: Records were found for the subject property according to the tits clerk. C. Newport Beach Fire Department: Records were found for the subject property according to Ms. Nadine Meschusky. E. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC): No records were found for the subject property according to Ms. Julie Johnson of OTSC. 10 6.2.2 Results of Comnuted,ed Records Review A record search was conducted by Enviropro, Inc. through Vista EnWronmental's (Vista) database service for the subject site and surrounding sites within a one- mile radius. Please note that the statements made below are based on this database search. Enviropro, Inc. has no control over how current these listings are. Therefore, there Is a likelihood that they may not represent the entire sum of known or potential hazardous waste or contaminated sites. The accuracy of the Vista report is constrained by the limits of care and professional skill exercised by the subcontractor. The database report can be found in Appendix B. Newport Imports Is listed several times in the database report as having a leaking underground tank and as being under county oversight for groundwater dean-up. According to the database report,groundwater is contaminated by gasoline on site and further remedial investigation is required. The site is also Rated as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste. There are five other sitee within a 19 mile radius from the stla which are also listed as having a leaking UrKk ground tank. According to the database report, these five sites have received closure or have completed ronNdiation, and are therefore not considered to be an environmental concern to the subject site. The Harbor Club Marina, located at 3333 Pacific Coast Hwy, and Newport Cleaners, located at 106 Tustin, are listed in the database report as conducting a groundwater remedial investigation due to gasoline or other contamination. According the address, these sites are located downgradient from ther subject site and most likely does not pose an environmental concern. The upgradient sites listed in the database report are the Newport Beach City Landfill, the Newport City Corporate Yard, the A and G Garage, and Hughes Aircraft. The landfill is currently closed and was a solid waste disposal facility. The corporate yard is listed as requiring no further action by DTSC. it also had contamination related to a leaking underground tank, but the case has been dosed. These two sides are not considered to pose an environmental concern to the subject site. The garage and Hughes Aircraft are a significant distance from the site as not to pose an environmental concern to the subject site. The database report lists three unmapped sites. No locating information is available in the database report to quantity the sites' locations. These three sites are landfill sites. The aerial photograph review did not reveal a landfill within the immediate area of the subject site. Therefore. it is not expected that these sites will pose an environmental concern to the subject site. 11 6.3 RESULTS OF THE RADON REVIEW Radon is a colorless, odorless, tasteless radioactive gas that is produced as a natural decay product of uranium. Because uranium and radon occur in varying amounts in rock and soils, radon is present in all the air we breathe. Furthermore, due to its radioactivity, numerous studies have shown that at elevated levels, there is a link between radon and lung cancer. Concentrations of radon gas are expressed as piico Curies per liter of air (pCiA). Then:were no readings for the subject zip code 9286& Reading for the zip code 92627, approximately 3/4 mile north of the site are <1.0. Readings above 4 pCiA can be a source of concern according to the most recent report by the Department of Health Services "California Statewide Radon Survey interim Results" published in 1992. GA REVIEW OF SUSPECT ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS Due to the age of the building(s) on the subject site, suspected asbestos- containing materials were sampled. The following Table describes the samples collected and analytical results. TABLE 2 Analytical Results for Asbestos Sampling 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy-Newport Beach Sample Material Sample Asbestos No. Description Location Cotiterrt �G 1 taster I parts room wall 0 2 joint compound showroom wall 0 3 h ing ceiling tile showroom office, 2nd Floor 0 4 stucco outside parts office 0 5 1 brown vinyl floor file 12nd floor office 0 6 1 10x10 ceiling the I main show room calling 0 As rioted in the table, none of the suspected materials sampled tested positive for asbestos. Therefore,there appears to be no concern due to asbestos containing materials on site. The analytical laboratory report from the state-certified laboratory and chain-of- custody are presented in Appendix C. 12 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Envlropro, Inc. has perforrrned a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in minimum conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standards E 1527 for 3100 West Pacific Coast Hwy, in Newport Beach, CA. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 9.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with fhe property except for the following: Conclusion:There were a number of groundwater monitoring wells located on the westerly portion of 3100 West PCH and one well on the subject site. A report provided by WA Consulting, Inc. Indicates that groundwater contamination does exist on site and on the westerly portion of 3100 W PCH. in addition, the environmental database report indicates that the groundwater on site is affected by gasoline and addition remedial investigation is necessary. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that the Orange County Heatlh Care Agency files,Water Board files, and Fire Department files be reviewed to fully assess the environmental investigatory work conducted,on arm. A summary of fhe proposed additional remedial investigation and clean-up measures should be provided to the client Conclusion: There are two underground tanks registered on the was" portion of 3100 West PCH. These tanks will most likely not be used in the future and they do not meet current underground tank regulation requirements. to addition, the fuel pump for these tanks is located on the subject site. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that these tanks and the associated fuel pump be removed accor inngg to regulatory agwvy guidelines. Conclusion: According to the information provided by Mr. Joseph Goveia, representative for the4 yw, all the structures on site will be removed and the buildings will be demolished. This will require removing the underground hydraulic lifts. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that the underground hydraulic lifts be removed property with proper disposal of the hydraulic oil and property testing at the base of each hydraulic lift. Conclusion: There were several aboveground tanks and 55-gallon drums of new and waste oil and filters. in addition, there were 21 55-gallon drums of what is most likely waste materials at the northeast corner of the subject site. In addition, staining and etching were noted under the drums. 13 Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that these materials be properly removed and disposed from the site prior to demolition. Also a minimum of two soil samples should be collected in this area to assess the underlying soil for volatile organic compounds and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Conclusion: One paint booth and evidence of paint spills was located near the west end of the westerly portion of 3100 West PCH. Paint booths are commonly associated with solvent affected soil. The evidence of paint spills in the adjacent room indicates poor housekeeping and adds to the question of subsurface affected soli. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that a minimum of two soil gas borings be drilled on two sides adjacent to the paint booth to assess the underlying soil for volatile organic compounds. Conclusion: ON staining was observed under a generator near the northeast comer of the site. Recommendation: Enviropro, Inc. recommends that one soil sample be collected in the stained area. Soil samples should be collected at 2.5 and 5 feet bgs and analyzed for TRPH by EPA Method 418.1. 8.0 DiSC ATMER This report is limited to the observations possible based on visual inspection and on a records search at government agencies. Only the specific government records listed in Appendix B were searched. Additional government record sources may not have been included in this report, and no representations are made of the record's adequacy. Enviropro, Inc. is not responsible for any incomplete government records. in addition,government agencies do not fist all ales of environmental contamination. 9.0 LIMITS OF LIABILITY The information provided in this report is solely for the use of Mr. Joseph Goveia and TLA Incorporated. The information is valid only for the reason for which this report was produced, and for the time this report was produced, since environmental conditions may change with time. Any reliance on this information by third parties shall be at such parties'sole risk. Enviropro, Inc. liability is limited to the fee received for preparation of this report or$20K,whichever is less. 14 I ,..,n.l.. .-a r,t",a,�Mn1r,..,✓iwNyF W: '.x. . i i''.1.Y'PK. A' i_ ',1-t'�x.R„+.�n :.r.,y5rr �+..f4y., ♦ n„Sr� �I "oti. '/,1 Y'..,.y.... 1r,^.x jjyl .....•.(W� f ',. "\''`�•. (Y,,.. A,,'y�yqr dr* �, 't.,'�✓ ,.,+.� ''%.�.- µi .r� r�s " _�i�'"".1� 4¢ y �' � %J ?y !ry•r' I �,< I ,\ "''4,di. x� 7�'SI '� ,t, ,�:'p .r�; .1,.-!„'+•v.;yr, v,4 P�!'.r.at 1�,-'•'r a r ' ''�^'�:.4,,!rr n,b; , rr Ir )' . 'd��».�. nn�h o-�,tj�, ,�,�. ! `•x''s'';,4 �''. � � � � ;F'':'�0�t v��d'�t``�r,,�j$l4S#.� {- 4.1�'�*�.,� �•`•e`•'a+.��i.r.�,,: x lti,4 i ^,� �. 4 ,�, '.. �. ,� ;, i..,Y,\'� +a, .' .. 4i�•'\4, ^^i�''•"� r� '. ' j� r^bi Y 5� .•wr 'i' �` f f ;";�4'•,,,.•.{' {' � d'-� � . _'tsA � )`n..•.. : 4 � �'�.^ty�•', n,�n: � �I �� i�•dt 4 i '"'•` - ^-...... i Sn """:ay.,^r$:4 .` ,•�y,;��4{ ,'5, ,r�,ry"��. ,�I,I.}..i` .1.'rr Sf .� ''ai$i,t 1,�;�,1'/:1 wyrr; r �%tu' •,>• � ^ate '^'Gh°���"` 1 �t<.lrt',{t�';r,';' - 'C,,Y, n �.. . ti, �y ��, ,r�Il.t�'I ."�r 'rYy'�J�'�Y," i S.. '%•�+�L _ •' r J� ;+ �.- 1,v1, - "a '»••r,.:a" Ay '. ;tea , '... t �' f.:1N'A4'^ 'ryry 41 � t � ,�,ti. ) F ^ � -"rs`'`t',.V' - ,' , �!�iJ� .�. tt, �,}'��`•tP,�"{PYI�'!"i.lit T, � � -'�"M, `:'k♦�, ,'y♦� ` • i lu•'`^•��.` 'P ; 4..,,a w,r�rY't�'z`kit' r � L� :.1pe1•, „L'�' .r..�`.i � f'.r, ` ,i,,,Sl!!{,' yax 1��I rl rl. ' ✓ �'4. ..r l,'t��i;��R� ,'r y, ;y.,. -.; �`yKl. S� 4{,i..,t,.;` r'[t • , ,� of d' .�P F 3«<wl.: 1•�i,M'.W;:- 't J,,:;Sj e.{v'`'r,�, �y 'b `Jr^ •Yrf+•�.k'ri;:;^ �,<" Y"e �••� fit, -r,y. J+'dQ ,I,-� '•e, J:'y'��,»y4r k' }��r ! I� li7 Ilk^ /x., f♦{ 1 " ,'y�-'C `"r,' �x� ff,yY It 10 ' / � ;,� . 7,. "`_' •` fir;' . AS. �P "s.r!'!y� � � �4�� ., � ,,,r•F,\� ty f tK. I((��,t••�''.. f •l�f�,r�d +'i�. n _ `�?n�'' _. 1 v ✓^'/, , .'."'^-.u�-.,y� �fr. , "J• Yt ($ � ( �raCf-�, w� -., -` ,.�_ - -- -_'- ��_ JJJJ' r �• ,ti.2 'u'�„� , �° ' r' ',G,'�;'F�x'�C,,^IlSi�w•:`{.t• !'•�' '�' ` {.�•Pk+: ��_^�. �= � �' " JJJ t r'�k. :`3� 1' '7� Af r� f'� � ✓ 9� �i'��'" Y'�"`�,�.�,.s'�;''is "' '*"'";' '• ` '� - +�♦bw'k ri��+�`a t...,:"•� •-� `"'.. .�'�-`"`M+ � ley ..l'y )�'q" .{y ^•\T •• 'c•:'��... � "''Y.' �; Q e •'y'^V�'•,: .� 4r �-w.'h.:+. Y r'.`tir"'I•N /// '+1'r I��sw' 0 t's-Jri�'i'Iy*la s, ' ,r,'. k-:.,+ty •;•, 1f-. P' .,1 r\, 1, '. r 1 u}r ''y e'�'t � Z :".�K `'�ik,�+ .,� • , ' ram - �f�,r/s,`,n�' �w* '' �"4....,f,,.'��i 4 �,�a�'�fi�•,;d. a� f�t'4�'i�:�^ . ^f« _ '��yl�Akl•�, 5, � „N✓ y;, f"'yv Ssx+" 1r:M *igw'�vt7;. Y,l'. Y.., • , r,"{`_:,} X5 +A-,, p r:.f° .'\'1��•i:r.'..4 �`+g �y,..[ �_ ♦arf .r��'��!'-'>�♦i;a:i-••,,4!m:=�,s;^I�dwP.g9- �i�'t"�. / ' .7'c w��';T`';, l) - �',, 1x ') ..'.ie- __ ____ •,Fa,..L:rT - �� Y•..ty': }' .f. y' t _. � �` iyy / ,•, •.,f - � u y' t ".i��, ,� ^` i,�f�W,q lS'`, S�-+.`,ce ,r'?L^•5:7.. :7J.�1'.�� =`;y. � _ .�.-� .r •..y ,'vi ,� p�s'V1:�� '"r{P�a' .7;5e 4,! y'4.tintj`"cl�' .�:'p�'�"�h��..,i.�'�;.r.� ,s'�}h"4,`, ^il'7`, .i'•t'rl'a+4'��:��r•�'4���`nyhx�; � 4 '�, 4'a' .YS' - '4.°'. - W '"� ' „�2�,PJ:.,ii.r w>twc,�S�'l •s'v'iP .',i.' :'. +•4�'f`4".�r'�'i.,'yQ`.t.,_.:y.�,^':.r ',� ~>,i}'ti.: fr..ty' s."�,w„�. C"�7/1) r44 Y j �1 . ♦ � 1 , t A h`�:�r., f \^' y\-. 1 rnSw^y'lu`u•�TA, . '1. � ..,� r � p I � b..i;' ',��''il t'+r" y.N, '\`S " � r .'S.i,^;= '�';^ , .1.' k,-,y4( L..•� y.'i,\Y� -- � - �r'.♦^ '" : �''YYY '�r.�, �„t•(rP..�k � .�� �� \ i♦L Y' .� a.a�,.'•,�� � {-'� v tSr,.,' � �'�."�it :•-�rt`:i " s' ' -.wyY�'. 4y-1, �, 1."; , _ 5:^Y�. � rf{,r r ` { t •q':yy r^{',• .��'yr a +• I (:� •�' ecr �,s.' � ♦.;:.j"x.�i , .,:';'.;'„' •, •`4,e 3ti` <;.y,{✓!. l� - ,4 , F" r.'}i. �luf•$" ,4, { ,• ;i" ' �`i`/'r u<.:' ,v.'4ti.,!r`?M1h:f�" .'• ' y {,,;"Nra"�f,a,.�\'r�.,;,,;;'x`_ t; 6'1.��,'qP 't � .r�" ,,y. . t 'Pi Cray. C`. '_ •"51�•� 7 yr- � ��^ w3:a"i, , ��� 'k fin:.!"� iy�' "�^� 1 x �f a�' .r,:ti r' �\ '•,, '4,-_ � "<':�tl' '_}��;t•:"�;° �., ,•`. i;, �''a„ � .•(^ .,:� �' :r♦. - _ �rr, , t'y ,`.� n. I' .!? �~f'�i - t ,,i}Q�#•y�s.��."s rt.•„3'Y K, ., �.,-r"'r:l, ,s" ��;; r ,y, a « S' �` pY, i , ��,:,. k•�, ^[ f s.,. t=',' 4 4^' +3d'�:•ra' V='.F ;�. s .p. " ,`! •' ' 7 1`u 67 yS i w ' r ,x,+ +'i• }4,f,so Sf7. •.fa.Yt 1. '«r)1''l al+u-',�•, w,, Y �k l• �; `�_ ,4 �4 , ; „-"'lr.''' +^Irv. ler !4 ,/ ., r• .: - t r.- -- .,�4� ,t�,''kt*".^kN•i.{, yr y r,�,'♦: �ts'% ' Yy a" r)'�'y• f �'1.q'f ,♦I ,' �i'�'•'„ ,fk'!�, 'Y. r .! ^4, � ti�:♦(�� 1,.Y,a, f'{ {Jw ti1�j � it a Pf• Ai(I„ ^. 't.,lY.�:d'gi^`'N=q,p si' ik ''l }-. ;`u:' •Y.. , ,4-.. �, :!'{�4�J. .@' ''f4E ...r, '. '.-. �•If vo: �, iV � ,e1,.`. a d. -k I�.r ` ;}`. 1S4 •4""�,,.'':' �x' - ,'s: _ ,.w'. : a {W;U:.q�,. 'uir4 1, y ,.4h� r;�• r w.ti txf •, .,� .''Y'��'t�' '..kr,'r. ,C• r 9y " •'' F •may il`. .�f• ' 1H! :i ,^';'•.F♦�iN^,Ci`�pt�1 d 1t �lw, y- y• flr i�t q} /,fir/ J 4 '% - M 'r `�.'.: s�.� IS^*•' i. ;tr,, t ,fir k ..h �, ni +1 r �r, P �l/''"4« }l rig„ ' ,.. �vv.i: 4 R.:, 'R� ,'#�,t w'a•. r s:,� ; LYy!4 J' �'"' '` � � ';'.:f �+• ',c, i,'r i, � vw�ur�^lM. ^�jo- t L'ti""' a'f * ,ry+Z� -5'NT-•' r'�3 ;.�- ♦ynr �.7#1�.-1 Y X �iYh'�y s 't}�,�,M� ��+ �:r •r� .yt•', Pa•+ k"+R''r'�_'i+,"�..1; t'tirwdA'f�'�, +{; 't$ A,° tlJP 6 e;Nll.nl}'�;d""�" w i t ,a�; �as.,. � r,.. ;.�yt',L4ir ,A^ ;rj��^^�'",,' #� A„'��o�}4r�An�'{ a}� ��'"O'� �•� -�.. ,ts. y � x„' .�•wl '%r- -':',fl'.�r''"*a".. h� id5r.; � �", y 'd�yy:� 4l' w'j..•• �,.y,;dA,nN '}��il¢Ab.:iM`�� ki,# WIT 7 s.. Yf•.,Ir� ' yr �{,":���. '' C�l, �,8`w..'"•7 t�t' .�Y::" 5. 4tt � �M, °♦� '' - '. ' )^p f` (/�'�y�"�: t VinI z ppp,,,•F -Ng,.}r.',y,,_W.r.�;Y�M�r '��"'^�_�",. O�y��'».'�„4W '` • h ,, q ` /r1\ � :�.•I Epp C�\ 4 '���„eiy,��.^rMy�yl'n)•,. W ♦ Y r4 v3:y' fi'f', r �yy x Y' c� r a r� a I 5 � d A' U i .� r,' , 4 � �{•4��f' � �'��wn�'.w.•«"fY ' '(' � ,r .v, '�r, `y.1' i , tl 4 Im. raves' f,'{' ,�.� V',1 � r, � '•J'�''i' "�,'' i'rr.. ,IrY i.�,�1'� .� ` ' �` ^Y ' 1 , ri �{,...... ,i,,�,:.',•ty','.;,\�' ._...,_...�'.�. „( .�.,4.,,� �., . . '! �, �, 1'' � _ _—_ - v�'�11 ��.xy^f. ,� ,_!N _ _ ? ,.r '•.� r T .^.� •ir�6......�.. w.ar..r^.�.v...�...yc,..:.._J,. �....a�J?++:✓..v. ..^..v.i.«u,..�,^. nr'o' • ,f r ,Lw^w. 'Yy yx 1• ai� F ,..� ., ,< " �'1'...,, 9T t ,r,,, 1�'+'- �.Y ,i q,�w "r, 1j'n•?tZ+e^ _ r - "`..;,��;�5 i� ;'; '�,'"N:.,O r� 2. '."• .�o` ," `*" '�_r �• M`, 4w Nr 17 'k}`i �p "' 44 .• �`�•�.• �'� • : 'r `(�' ' a'' v 'vim• ��,1�/�'(y�1a,/n'�er�yK r r .t.[� :'•�",,?iwyv 4 �tiaVL, tt It ' FfIt IL � e Yob k i ,f. � ! r4yt`u axyw,;,. ,'vsM.y, '"•v?`aA+�1 •� ;i,.�." 1�, LF M16.". ' ' �al ��•`y � .fit ;,Ml 'µ. ..k.u,�" ""-,a ,.-e 'y�,r• w a *.N,.j,•..�,•(,� ':,(,M, ,�,�•: :",ty :�'.' . ' ,i1+.w,�'£'.:'�h''°:+.,`�`�y'•a, -'. ;_,�...,�;, i, y'^p;'?rt e r•<�:. +•. T •.."'k' r'!' t Y�'/'� ,,, r' v'H. C;{� ,+',-e`.' �. . - -^y6tr!, '"���- r '� �� s: �,'t- ���� ,LAY°�.;= *::,, .•a" `P„_.a• �,'' '.Xr��'«'�".,' - .y, - , — t, «•;;e��'y+.7�,. __ - •.','y iat,a � °`,. ,. _ : t',k �: M,•�'a : .• '��:. °;*rs +..r �1' r y � •�b^F �� ' e* u. •i'rrn, �,•�. ,.:nPrJ .•> < "'�`�1,•yF�^• A: .y. .c.p,"'.i11. � 'n. `Si 'F .` " ,f �•. "ram.•,',:.<c.,�_'. �' •";•' :, J'�,,:",;�Y y y. - . - it � • o J ,}��. x�.1 Y�.i..M' ,�'F•'�,,' ' ' �$"ii'C���M@•��4 i._ y'�`,, ' �1};V � 4,� �b1+fA'1.''V(� }�r-a.ie♦ 1 .♦ y 11. _ ,',�.�'`''i}'. :At'''b '^' ,y"` eFz °�`ya 7v:a ' ;is .TN�S t.',./ry<•"."„ "e f, sr_,k:'if:4 j, rl i�lY;rS4, 5 Y �. 1 +� ) ,. ,U'' mA r '1 " ii`� ';M'.' ' Y fi b u.y;: `e'•r: �,^,^^,y""TTy/. P• Y �$. ha": k �{ �� - t':Fi..y:n' sty'•� •,- , r'Y, -ii; {•i b ai' .f L` '� ''' f,.,,n ". Z'y •1 r� �'y,,iy,:• j'„ i „WEla ? � r:r •Q, oir` •JsjiRlr•. ���4 ,�1 � k'y,+ ' •� '�F�.✓.yx,, ' ' , . �'tiV - a. '^�.r:".,�ia.;.(;ay4 '. 'qQ, .ti ?�ir� r7: 7 'K',: > ,/ �.� �"dr '.1`� � `•T5" t - , •#. -,~k�1i'} ;-.:.]a1•+�'�'' �`Y+,� t\'�,,��_i tl;el'Sd•'114' �1 " "r\;''''. .F a.. M, yj � Wx'o yTT tf1' �{•,M. utw ;q :w.*' � .• '• ,.L ;i,� 'ina .,'�vntk;r��r X� '1 .. �`�1 !; '� ,si yl'.l� •'.xi.l4'y\.a�:�': r .f•i# r v .♦,�y�+' p.c ti>• r' "�9;•,"'� i a ~ ((,�. 'T i1F+'. {�f�r � •,,. , 5._, �. ` "7.. ., {,Y'k.,`".���,�y"F• .r..' � vT" ') 'r r ,( '' 'I = `7F,9 ,,'J, 11•:'�. .. "3%i•i .d- ,.i J; .,, ".4<' 5 _ ,y, 6 /1' rK ,,7M:'• �r .'M , ' r.,."•G'+?�9 b.,;�s ,t •+ .., ."�T f: .•{$ ��f. r ia�, r`,. 4. rk�,^l':HTt'f' �di!"L a, �< 01 ._V`y: F T .f,< f,� .Py/ .•V'R '" (A ib ..,,b � -e!..'�' jC5 } , )�r�^ 4 1 �1 7i�tb' "e t4{�'.^..�i'..� 'Ga• fig. 'et•y 1t�',Y ,j'�1( �( �u�•.,�; A1,11'l{��'✓r r , ...•* �.. 'Vi Ii 44e)^ r.,. a ,.�";it ;r,' •''�''A7 "/bLN�'�;'�'' +" ji �. � ���ry '!!� . ,�. i 1l. My �.r�,+4; <t l',1" yip V' . T•'.�i ti[ l f +t;,y.�,i1�•/ ,• I ,.,� ■ t Y,,y�,r $' "tr (NN" h'r��l(�♦° � �-l},`�.^y7'.LjT. .1.. ill M i r ' 71 o r 1 k 1 0. \ •.wf; P,.9 r•� 1, x$ t V• '9w ,� �� 4, 7F' .J• F .�°Y' ri ✓..j:-..A'' i} „`r µ ��� RrD fr" yL`, n <eryv .�. 7�f r<h�k k.i�., a' ;•++�'�''�?n,� .r,jkty"�,.r\�?" '�rt. �`Y.�' wvv C� -. , ,,, . ' - - .,r off' "w' - F.' a fa i t' --k rt�n•,' ',fa.a - e -(.• "t+ Y - ,L ' a ♦ . e Y _ �a ', r - .r•r- af— 7: - z - _ , }• - '.w•_ r �t. t A , .. _ >i '} 't' y y4 I s 3_ .'ems "...! .. .. .' ;, "•... ,: , `h - - - ., .. ,w -. .r ,r T .R �, , . .,,I , , .. - . - - 7.' k' ,. - - , .l .. _ _ •r, - `Y -i _ .. _ } — ,! _ , !- - , a .at .. _ - _ a _ - . . - e ( - _ �t - .. , " tf �w ,� _ k"' Y b y .,�: :V - _ - - :-I y ;• i y .r , . , , - . , .A , �;. , . �. : � .. .. - .k y it , . s.. , r R . a . _ , - , ., - +ry _ - ,4,. �iw w .. .- j wr . . 1 .. . - i . . _ - , •,Y t•-s" .. .. ', , - .:.f .. :-. •� "`r . . y.... - , - 1 _ + 4 • , - , - , .. �." /r: aY - - - - -i as :} {' - _ D Ma is t .. l C - •: ' , ._,,. , . .r 1. . .t . . r . . Y Y R 'Y �l 1/\l//u�- V Y Y ',; �;,- :.; - N 1598,5873 - a: t s... f F' E 4302.8353 V . . - _ , r. L�"�,.S�y,i / �,,� r:YJ. _ S -� 720 s * Iashington. Po`rt � and, Or •97'.205 �' .: N 1579,.1605 i �6 2$�pp, � �/' :, , te11 503 226 :•1575• '[[ arz � 503 . 24-1y74Z9 .�r,' `..- - N i551.0597 I - ' ''."y'- *ak ',' N — �0) E 4497,0649 yr;z ".. . / w I . ..' t,e}:'';�,• '{ '{t - - - ' . , , • .. % 1p� _ / I. - � .. _ ` -r,` �'' i rl.. . a' i •� � - _ . � �t• . _ - . t: '.ci . 1 ;ti, rly`. ^ f ': >_ o - •-,m4 v+',i` - _ �' r'' EM IGG t - - - _ ._ .. r .. ,. .,1��.. '��.a. . ., 1. — F - _ , .. , .ir ', _ n•. r" '.`<r . P NG / <' i }' y - ' - tl. eJ'- '. t - 1 n - a , I, LANDSCAPE BUILDIN —_ . - �, w; :,N�: W 20o N 1531,6328 . . a: i AREA , .. -{L , o . �, . E 4492.3112 �_ - v, t , . , . PROJECT _ t < ' RAMP `_,� NUMBER .9_,fi 0 0 3 x• �, ,.,\,'r,' w , .. , �l s' i > '.., 1 : ,;^.r .. . . . . . 1 . . '4:', t, , . 1 �� 1 LANOSC APE , T.T 1 Jr.[Z. �,~:. r 1 1 TRANSLUCENT FABRIC :,. .`t.. v ''� 1— CANOPY ABOVE. AREA 1 . - �.No,, , , . I�TEVVPORT BEACH ar , ,,:. -� > .y t% Q .i 4' , '� t ,., v a 1 , y'` tU 3100 PAanc COAST' HIf HAY - � ?e `(y', • " "� ' _ 1 .. . . , fhb , r - 1 KIOSK Q - . LL " I' 5 J ii -. .fay (�\\\ _ - ..i,.. .,''� -y' ' „ .. LANDSCAPE - .R . . • . ` ' ':�. :' , AREA _ / �.J. . o VAT -';; tea, • Z -,y`tr . �IACHIN o . ROON n I <. / /3y! , :co-• °r' `z !� - Ya k 1 - •�-►-J • . LINE OF . �� MENU _ - . . 2 • f KITCHEN LANDSCAPE - . �i , ... ABOVE /PICKUP AREA BOARD - , , • , , !'' STATIONS . , . �. -, �-__ - ___ _.; / / TRANSLUCEN ABRIC , t y �' \ CANOPY ABOVE. . . :'�_,, o " . 4 _ LANDSCAPE v f r N 1329,8149 - S - • ,_ E 3878.7436 N 1362,66 7 2 'S8• AREA' •v , / \, . , E.CI E 4245,1060 - _ - ' :; z 6Sp, 0' 2 ; t 'r h , ' Q ' 03•,'8'23, . ; � / = 20 .' / p 3, N 1330.8564 ' E 4443,1815 . . N I313,9331 / _� ,Ip002l ' ' / t 1 32 47'30` / 9 �.. f , r R — / \_ - k .;c. .+. - ; , ` 1600100' . .. ` / �\_ N 1646,2036 " _ ` .� . ' . - —.— . ' / E 5358,0737 F " .,' / N 1319,2003 . . , . �� ��`- j - ' . . ,, - / 1 ' G �µ °t,, . • 47p,78, I �� - , . r ,.,j 5, , / N 1270.5936 / - . .. ' q ^� ` J E 4428.4353 � 4i I�.' V ^� . ,` . U o . T ' .. ' �t:± �r _ \ +, S 7, • w O L, , O . i '�;: - . . - ' mil.% a '%' " ; . • ' ti .4) P a 61•QQ' /Z� a F e :r,M N 1132,8369 I-" E 4760,2737 NUMBER REVISION DATE ,': r� ,,�I „ . . B.C.' , . . •t``i,' ,,,, ' 1 . �� „ ,f" ,',, ;r,to . . . N looa,0000 , . - . . . E 5000.0000 . �y - ., , •F 1 SI PLA :� : TE N �" :3 . . ;k . t ',, SCAL . — _ , . . E• ,1 20 a - ',�.' . .. - SCAL�-E . 1 . 20 . ,• _ � . ,. _ r • . . . a • D R'A W N B'Y BC,F . , . . , - - . . , �� ,� - , , - - � fit. "r "-.-. ' .may, .. r I .. ' . , - , ''• , \f4'. .`{'�, '�; . . -. � . . . L S S-.0 E��D I JULY 14I 1997� �.,� ,.-,; . . .F,t , . , .. .. . ti .r Yf .. `Y' SHE T r , o0