Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPanini Cafe 2421 E. Coast HighwayCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 5, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 5 SUBJECT: Panini Cafe (PA2007 -063) 2421 E. Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 2007 -010 • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 • Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 • Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2008041099) APPLICANT: Collection Investments Corona del Mar, Inc. ( Panini Hospitality Group) PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rungq&city.newport- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant has submitted an amended application for Use Permit, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit, and Off -site Parking Agreement for the operation of a full - service restaurant, with a Type 41 ABC License for beer and wine, an outdoor dining area and an off -site parking agreement. The proposed project includes minor changes to the rear elevation of its building and to the valet parking configuration and the submittal of two technical studies that were not a part of the original application. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony and determine appropriate action. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the proposed amendment, a draft resolution of adoption is attached as Exhibit 1. On September 20, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing and voted (6 ayes and 1 no) to approve the following discretionary approvals to allow the applicant to operate a full - service restaurant at the subject property: 1. Use Permit No. 2007 -010 to operate a 3,820 square -foot, full- service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment with a net public area of 640 square feet, and to allow on -site of beer and wine sales with a Type "41" ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place). The Planning Commission determined that the applicant's request is consistent with the General Plan designation and Panini Cafe June 5, 2008 Page 2 of 5 the vision for the Corona del Mar area as it entails converting a former retail merchandise sales space into a neighborhood - serving eating and drinking establishment. 2. Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 to allow the construction and operation of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the proposed full - service restaurant. The Planning Commission further determined that the proposed outdoor patio dining area is consistent with the pedestrian - oriented environment envisioned along the Coast Highway street frontage. Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 to satisfy the off - street parking requirement for the proposed restaurant utilizing the off -site property located at 7 Corporate Plaza. The Planning Commission determined that the parking ratio of 1 space per 40 square feet of net public area is adequate for the proposed restaurant. With this parking ratio, the required number of parking spaces is 16 spaces. The Planning Commission approved a total 26 spaces: 16 spaces for patron parking within the property's existing parking garage with valet service and 10 spaces for employee parking located at 7 Corporate Plaza. The project was subsequently appeal to the City Council by Council Member Nancy Gardner. On November 27, 2007, the City Council granted the request for a four -month continuation to March 25, 2008, to allow the applicant additional time to reevaluate the on -site parking agreement and traffic circulation issues, and to address the additional concerns raised after the Planning Commission's approval. On March 25, 2008, the City Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission to consider a parking & internal circulation study and Negative Declaration as they were not a part of the original application that was considered by the Planning Commission. The applicant met with staff on many occasions to discuss alternatives overall project including the on -site parking agreement and vehicular from the restaurant site. The applicant proposed changes to the rear building and parking garage configuration and engaged consultants parking and internal circulation analysis and an Initial Study pursuant t Environmental Quality Act. This staff report focuses on the analys physical improvements and the technical reports. The full project desci the required findings stated in the previous staff report are attached. to improve the access to and elevation of its to conduct a the California s of proposed iption including Panini Cafe June 5, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Minor Changes The existing rear building elevation will be modified to reduce the overall building mass when viewed from the alley. The rebuilding of an existing staircase located at the rear of the building will improve the delivery/valet parking staging area. This stairway currently encroaches approximately four feet into the rear 10 -foot setback. The new stairway will conform to the rear yard setback requirement. The valet parking arrangement for the tuck -under garage has been revised (Page A -2 of submitted plans dated 5/28/08) to improve the vehicular maneuvering capability while keeping the 16 -space parking arrangement that was previously supported by the Planning Commission. The applicant indicated that the area for vehicle maneuvering, as revised, will not involve the use of the striped van access /landing area for turning. The changes are shown on the submitted plans. As a mitigation measure of the environmental document, the applicant is required to submit a final valet parking plan to be reviewed and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, prior to the issuance of building permit for the tenant improvements. Staff supports the proposed physical improvements to the project. Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis A parking and internal circulation analysis has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 3). The analysis considers the efficiency of the submitted parking/traffic management plan including its proposed parking layouts (Exhibit 3 of the September 20, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report) and the proposed revised layout marked as Figure 2 in the LSA's Study (Exhibit 3) relative to City criteria, and provides recommendations for improving parking supply /design and vehicular circulation in the area of the proposed restaurant. The study includes: an on- street parking survey on Coast Highway and the abutting residential streets, the assessment of proximity and accessibility of the off -site employee parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza, a review of the historical use of the existing parking garage at the subject site; the existing traffic pattern in the alley at the rear of the restaurant site; and, the examination of 4 different valet parking options. The analysis concludes with the following determinations/recommend ations: • The weekday parking survey revealed that the total number of on- street parking available along the nearby streets was reduced from 42 to 28 spaces, between the hour of 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 pm; however, there are at least 22 available on- street spaces in the vicinity of the subject site during the evening period. • The distance to the off -site parking location is not so great as to preclude use by restaurant employees; however, without the commitment of the applicant to Panini Cafe June 5, 2008 Page 4 of 5 ensure that the employees park in the off -site parking location, employees may be inclined to park on nearby residential streets. • There is a potential parking impact along the residential streets if the restaurant's employees park in these streets. The potential for a parking impact on residents underscores the necessity that the applicant must commit to enforcing the employee parking plan. • The parking plan as proposed (Figure 2 of LSA's Study) would not result in a significant departure from the existing traffic patterns in the alley behind the restaurant site. The continuation of valet parking in the existing garage, based a history use provided by the applicant, will not present any additional hazard. • The reconstruction of the existing stairway at the rear of the building will provide additional space for the valet parking service. • Valet Parking Option 1 stated in LSA's Study (Exhibit 3), as proposed by the applicant, is the preferred alternative. This study has been reviewed and accepted by the City Traffic Engineer. At the September 20, 2007, hearing, the Planning Commission acknowledged that the distance from the proposed restaurant to the off -site parking lot could be problematic if restaurant employees use closer, on- street parking. The Planning Commission noted that utilization of off -site employee parking spaces is critical to avoiding patron parking shortages and negative traffic and parking impacts on nearby residential streets. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility that the applicant could lose the off -site parking if the lease for these spaces is not continually renewed by the property owner. The importance of an efficient valet parking operation was noted as important in preventing traffic impacts in the adjacent alley during peak customer hours. Conditions of approval Number 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Resolution No. 1732 specifically address these issues. The September 20, 2007, Planning Commission Staff Report, minutes and Resolution No. 1732 are attached as Exhibit 2. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The MND (Exhibit 4) does not identify any project component that would result in "potential significant impact" per CEQA guidelines. The document, however, recommends the adoption of 2 mitigation measures under the Transportation /Circulation Section for the implementation and compliance with the valet parking and employee parking plans. These mitigation measures have been included as Exhibit B in the attached draft resolution for adoption. Panini Cafe June 5, 2008 Page 5 of 5 The WIND has been distributed for a 30-day comment period from April 18 to May 19, 2008. A 30-day public review period is required since the project is located within the coastal zone and subject to review by the Coastal Commission. Staff received comment letters from the Native American Heritage Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Staff also received comment letters from Joel D. Kuperberg of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Lila Crespin, MMorgan 13 RR, and Dennis Baker that contain comments /issues on the overall project, especially the parking and circulation issues. All comment letters are attached as Exhibit 5. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Rc alinh Ung, Associ to fanner Exhibits Submitted by: David Lepo, Pl"g Director 1. Draft Resolution No. 2008- 2. September 20, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report, No. 1732 3. Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis by LSA 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 5. MND Comment Letters 6. Summary of Revisions Letter 7. Revised Plans Minutes and Resolution EXHIBIT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION ki RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2007 -010, ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 2007 -001, AND OFF - SITE PARKING AGREEMENT NO. 2007 -001 AND ADOPTING MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008 - 041099) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2421 COAST HIGHWAY (PA2007 -063) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Collection Investments Corona del Mar, Inc. with respect to property located at 2421 Coast Highway, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 68, page 8 of Parcel Maps Records of Orange County, requesting an approval of Use Permit to allow the operation of a 3,820 square - foot full - service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment with a net public area of 640 square feet, and to allow alcohol beverage service of beer and wine with a Type "41" ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place), Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit approval to allow the construction and operation of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the proposed full - service restaurant, and Off -site Parking Agreement approval of 10 spaces to satisfy the off - street parking requirement for the proposed restaurant utilizing the off-site property located at 7 Corporate Plaza; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1732 to allow the operation of a full- service restaurant with alcoholic beverage service of beer and wine, and an outdoor dining area with an 10 -space off -site parking arrangement located at 7 Corporate Plaza. The project was subsequently appealed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, the City Council granted the request for a four -month continuation to March 25, 2008, to allow the applicant additional time to reevaluate the on -site parking arrangement and traffic circulation issues, and to address the additional concerns /issues subsequently raised after the Planning Commission's approval; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2008, the City Council referred the Panini Caf6 project back to the Planning Commission to consider the supplemental materials of an Initial Study /Negative Declaration and Parking and Internal Circulation Study as they were not a part of the original application that was considered by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2008, the Planning Commission held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing; and WHEREAS, a use permit for the proposed restaurant may be approved in accordance with Section 20.91.035 of the Municipal Code based on the following findings and facts in support of such findings: M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 13 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is located within the Retail Service Commercial (RSC) Zoning District, which is intended to provide the Corona del Mar area with commercial services for permanent residences and visitors of the area. Restaurant uses are permitted within this designation with the approval of a use permit. The operational characteristics and location of the proposed restaurant use are such that it is a community serving use with some pedestrian oriented traffic. The proposed restaurant is consistent with this designation. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, the location of the proposed Alcoholic Beverage Outlet was considered with respect to issues of public necessity and impacts to surrounding land uses. The use will provide a public convenience by offering food and beer and wine sales to restaurant patrons. The location of the use is considered appropriate given the fact that the site is not located in close proximity to day care centers, schools or places of religious assembly. In addition, the Police Department has reviewed the project and has no objections to the location. 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed restaurant is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. The restaurant has been conditioned in such a manner to meet the intent of the Zoning Code regulations, including any specific conditions required for the proposed restaurant and to require strict adherence to safety and noise regulations. The Planning Commission determined that the parking ratio of 1 space per 40 square feet of net public area is adequate for the proposed restaurant. With this parking ratio, the required number of parking spaces is 16 spaces. The applicant proposes a total of 22 spaces: 12 spaces for patron parking within the property's existing parking garage with valet service and 10 spaces for employee parking located at 7 Corporate Plaza. The utilization of off -site employee parking spaces is critical to avoiding patron parking shortages and negative traffic impact on nearby residential streets. The Planning Commission also supported the applicant's request to increase the number of parking spaces within the garage structure from 12 to 16 spaces based on testimony that the previous valet parking arrangement in the garage could accommodate up to 17 spaces. The efficiency of valet parking operation would prevent traffic impacts in the adjacent alley during peak customer hours. fa City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 13 In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, approval of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet is subject to the consideration of factors relating to over - concentration of alcohol licenses, crime rates including numbers of alcohol related crimes, and impacts to the surrounding community. Detailed analysis of the ABC application is discussed below under the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance Section. The Police Department has reviewed the project and has determined that the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the proposed restaurant will not result in an increase in alcohol - related crimes and will not result in an over - concentration of alcoholic beverage outlets since the request is to transfer the existing license from an existing restaurant to the subject location. The proposed restaurant, including beer and wine sales, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any speck condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Facts in Support of Finding: The request to allow the operation of a restaurant which includes the serving of alcoholic beverages on the premises and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, are consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The request is located within the existing building that is designated and zoned for this commercial activity. The use has been conditioned in such a manner to minimize the impacts associated with it. The plan, as conditioned, meets the design and development standards for eating and drinking establishments. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, the project has been conditioned to avoid potential negative impacts on the surrounding community. WHEREAS, an off -site parking agreement for the 10 parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza has been prepared in accordance with Section 20.66.080, Off - Street Parking based on the following facts and findings in support of such findings: 1. Finding: Such lot is so located to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site or sites. Facts in Support of Finding: The off-site lot is located on the north side of Coast Highway, west of Avocado Avenue. The applicant is proposing to utilize these spaces for employee parking. No valet parking will be provided. The restaurant employees will be given maps showing the location of the parking lot and will be instructed to park at the proper location. Pedestrian access is afforded at the signalized intersection at Avocado Avenue. 2. Finding: Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 4 of 13 Facts in Support of Finding: The use of off -site parking lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. The employees will be instructed to cross Coast Highway at the pedestrian crossing at Avocado Avenue to and from the off -site parking lot. 3. Parking is permanently available, marked, and maintained for the use it is intended to serve. Facts in Support of Finding: A 5 -year term parking agreement with a 5 -year renewal option has been secured with the property owner of the off -site parking lot. Documentation has been submitted by the property owner that the off -site parking spaces have not been leased to any other business than the applicant. The provision of 10 parking spaces in the off -site lot, and the recordation of the agreement with the County Recorder's office are required to ensure the availability of the spaces for the use. WHEREAS, the following findings are appropriate for approval of an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit pursuant to Section 20.82.050 (B) of the Zoning Code: Finding: That the proposed outdoor dining is accessory to the eating and drinking establishment. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed outdoor dining area is accessory to the proposed 3,820 square -foot restaurant. The restaurant's total net public area would be 640 square feet. The applicant proposes to have an outdoor dining area of 160 square feet which is 25 percent of the net public area of the proposed restaurant and thereby is consistent with Municipal Code Section 20.82.050 (A) that limits accessory outdoor dining areas to 25 percent of the restaurant's interior net public area, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. 2. Finding: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the accessory outdoor dining will not, under 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 or injurious to property or improvements in the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use is accessory to the proposed restaurant use which would be subject to conditions of approval that include limitations on hours of operation and number of seats for patrons. The proposed location of the outdoor dining area would not cause noise impacts to the nearby residential uses. 3. Finding: That the proposed accessory outdoor dining will not be located so as to result in reduction of existing parking spaces. 1� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 5 of 13 Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed outdoor dining area will be located in front of the existing building, adjacent to the public right -a -way along Coast Highway, and thereby will not result in a reduction of the existing parking spaces located in the parking garage. Section 20.82.050 (A) of the Municipal Code does not require additional parking for accessory outdoor dining areas. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3. The draft MND was circulated for public comment between April 18 and May 19, 2008. Comments were received from the Native American Heritage Commission, Department of Transportation, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Joel D. Kuperberg of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Lila Crespin, MMorgan 13 RR, and Dennis Baker. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in reviewing this project; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorney's fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008 - 041099, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A" and approves Use Permit No. 2007 -010, Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006, subject to Conditions of Approvals in Exhibit "B° attached hereto and made part hereof. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk V3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 13 in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF JUNE 2008. AYES: NOES: BY: Robert Hawkins, Chairman BY: Bradley Hillgren, Secretary 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" Panini Caft Mitigation Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration - SCH No. 2008-041099 t5 .--N MW o.leasui� -.varffi= esPM lbfity Traffic and Circulation Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall prepare the Final Valet Parking Plan based on Option I (Valet Stand in Two-Way Alley), which will be submitted for Public Works MM-1 review and approval by the City Traffic Plan Check Prior to Issuance of the Department( Engineer. The Final Valet Parking Building Permit CRY Traffic Plan shall reflect detailed striping Engineer plans for the proposed parking and also illustrate the manner in which the operational characteristics of the parking plan will occur. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the project applicant shall prepare an Employee Parking Plan and submit that plan for review and Public Works approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Prior to Issuance of the Department/ MM-2 The Employee Parking Plan shall Plan Check Building Permit City Traffic identify the manner in which Engineer enforcement will be carried out to ensure that employees do not parking in the nearby residential neighborhood. t5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paoe 8 of 13 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-010, OFF -SITE PARKING AGREEMENT NO. 2007 -001 & ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 2007 -006 Conditions in bold - italics are project specific conditions. All others are standards conditions. Plannina Department 1. The approval of this resolution supersedes Planning Commission Resolution No. 1732. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan and floor plan dated May 28, 2008. 3. The total net public area for the entire restaurant shall not exceed 640 square feet and 36 seats. 4. The accessory outdoor dining area shall be limited to 160 sq. ft and 12 seats. 5. The hours of operation of the restaurant including the outdoor dining area are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily. 6. The accessory outdoor dining area shall be used in conjunction with the proposed fullservice restaurant. No special events, promotional activities, private functions or private parties shall be allowed within the outdoor dining area. 7. No amplified music or entertainment is permitted in the outdoor dining area. No outside paging system, loudspeaker or other noise generating device shall be utilized in conjunction with this outdoor dining area. 8. Roof coverings over the outdoor dining area shall not have the effect of creating a permanent enclosure. The use of any other type of overhead covering shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director and may require an amendment to this permit . 9. A total of 22 parking spaces: 12 on -site and 10 off-site shall be provided at all times. 10. The 10 off -site parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza shall be designated and used for employee self - parking only. No patron parking shall be allowed at any given time. [(0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 13 11. An off-site parking agreement, subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney's office, shall be recorded The agreement shall guarantee a total of 10 off -street parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza for the use authorized on the subject property. 12. If, in the opinion of the Planning Director or City Traffic Engineer, the restaurant creates parking congestion at the sites, the applicant shag immediately resolve the congestion problem by reducing restaurant seating or increasing parking attendants or through other means until the parking congestion is eliminated and parking is properly managed. The Planning Director or City Traffic Engineer has the discretion to require the preparation of a revised valet operation /parking management plan. 13. The applicant or operator of the restaurant shall immediately notify the Planning Director of any termination of, or default relative to the agreement for offsite parking required as a condition of this approval. 14. Upon notification that the agreement for the required off -site parking has terminated or a reduction in the number of parking spaces provided thereunder, the Planning Director shall establish a reasonable time in which one of the following shall occur. a. Substitute parking is provided that is acceptable to the Director; or b. The size or capacity of the restaurant use is reduced in proportion to the number parking spaces lost 15. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted restaurant use. 16. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. 17. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the existing use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code. 18. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, accessory outdoor dining permit, off -site parking agreement or revoke these approvals upon a finding of failure to comply with the conditions set forth in Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code or other applicable conditions and regulations governing the food establishment. The Planning Commission may also revoke these permits and agreement upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. II City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 13 19. These approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. A new trash enclosure with masonry walls and a self- locking gate shall be constructed. All trash shall be stored within water -tight trash containers stored within the trash enclosure. The watertight trash containers shall have lids or tops that remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 21. The applicant shall maintain the watertight trash containers or receptacles so as to control odors, which may include the provision of fully self- contained containers or may include periodic steam cleaning of the containers, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 22. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage, and liter generated by the use. Employees of the premises shall pick up trash from the ground of the trash enclosure on a daily basis. 23. Ali deliveries shall be scheduled outside of peak operating hours of the use so that no access will not be blocked. No deliveries shall be permitted before 7.00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. 24. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on site or off -site, to advertise the proposed food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by both the Public Works Department and Caltrans in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement from each. 25. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and maintained and the area drain directly into the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an altemative drainage plan. Washing of refuse containers or restaurant equipment shall be prohibited in the parking lot and public alley. 26. The use of the rear entry door shall be prohibited between the hours of 11:OOpm and 6:00am. 27. Any change in operational characteristics and/or hours of operation of the restaurant, shall require amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 11 of 13 28. 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 agent. 29. No audible paging system or speaker system shall be utilized any where on the premises at any time. 30. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 31. Full menu food service shall be available for ordering at all times that the restaurant establishment is open for business. 32. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. If the operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances, the Planning Commission may review, modify or revoke this Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code. 33. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be a Type 41 in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 34. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 35. Any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the restaurant owner or his employees or representatives share in any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon (0. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paoe 12 of 13 money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks is prohibited. 36. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the license. 37. No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed except when served in conjunction with food ordered from the full service menu. 38. There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs that are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 39. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food and retail sales during the same period. The licensee shall maintain records that reflect separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand. 40. The use permit approval does not permit the premises to operate as a bar, tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub as defined by the Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves a use permit. 41. Petitioner shall not share any profits or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or the sales of drinks. 42. A noticed twelve -month review by the Planning Commission, from the date of commencement of the restaurant operation, shall be required. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to call for an earlier review if needed. Public Works Department 43. 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 providing periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. 44. The existing garage opening shall be maintained at 19'-91, to accommodate two -way traffic into and out of the garage. a,° City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 13 of 13 45. The clearance height shall be clear posted at the entrance to the parking area above the opening. 46. The valet parking shall be provided during all business hours. The valet operation shall be staffed in a manner to eliminate back up/storage of vehicles on public property. No more than 16 vehicles shall be parked on site at one time. 47. Valet signage shall not be placed within the public right -of -way. 48. Valet drop -off, pick -up, and deliveries shall occur via the alley within the subject property. Valet operations and deliveries shall not impact ingress and egress to the adjacent commercial and residential properties. 49. No portion of the accessory outdoor dining area including any patio cover /awning shall extend into the public right -of -way. 50. When cleaning the accessory outdoor dining area, debris shall not be swept, washed, or blown into the public right -of -way. Building Department 51. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. 52. A grease interceptor shall be provided. 53. Structural analysis for the change of occupancy shall be required. 54. A van - accessible handicap parking space with an eight foot accessible loading area shall be provided and maintained. The applicant shall coordinate with the Building Department for ADA compliance. Fire Department 55. A 5 -year certification shall be required for the fire sprinkler system. 56. A Type 1 Hood and Kitchen Suppression System shall be required. �k EXHIBIT 2 SEPT 20, 2007 PC STAFF REPORT, MINUTES AND RESOLUTION a3 A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 2007 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Panini Caf6 (PA2007 -063) 2421 E. Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 2007 -010 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 APPLICANT: Collection Investments Corona del Mar, Inc. ( Panini Hospitality Group) PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung acitv.newport- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The project consists of the operation of a full - service restaurant, with alcoholic beverage service of beer and wine, an outdoor dining area and an off -site parking agreement request. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: Use Permit approval to operate a 3,820 square -foot full - service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment with a net public area of 640 square feet, and to allow alcohol beverage service of beer and wine with a Type '41" ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place). 2. Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit approval to allow the construction and operation of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the proposed full - service restaurant. 3. Off -site Parking Agreement approval to satisfy the off - street parking requirement for the proposed restaurant utilizing the off -site property located at 7 Corporate Plaza. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony and determine appropriate action. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the project, a draft resolution of approval with the appropriate findings and conditions is attached as Exhibit 1. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny the project, a draft resolution for denial will be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at the following meeting for adoption. �t� "'y9, yls Existing 41"s Restaurant 743 , ' 741 Si Site -2333 M"177173 721 Ttl Y, A, �kmz I till t 521 SIG Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 2 of 18 dC 617 D4 613 D6 605 603, Ol 2 4F, f4z 6w GIG 61 2546 91(e, 904 aw 9" tic M 004 932 �1 59B OGG 1301 21 705 zap z Pro' used Restaurant 71 2888; Site -2421 /9 400 M I 61 2546 91(e, P 9 4 1 l3 eP' y Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 3 of 18 ZONING LOCATION I GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Corridor Commercial Retail Service Former carpet store - vacant CC 0.75 Commercial RSC General Commercial NORTH (CG) and Single Unit PC - 27(Point Del Mar) Shopping Center /MacArthur Blvd. /Single- Residential Detached family Residential SOUTH (RTI. EAST Corridor Commercial CC 0.75 WEST Corridor Commercial CC 0.75 Residential R -2 Single & Multiple -unit residential across alley Retail Service Retail commercial and office developments Commercial RSC Retail Service Retail commercial and office developr ants Commercial RSC a'k Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 4 of 18 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Project Settina .The subject property is located on the south side of Coast Highway, at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard in Corona del Mar and presently improved with an existing 3,651 square -foot building. The subject property is situated in the middle of a commercial retail block that is currently occupied by the Bungalow Restaurant, Golden Spoon Yogurt Shop: Rothschild's Restaurant and several other retail and office uses. Project Description The applicant is proposing to convert the existing retail space to a full - service restaurant by demolishing the existing 620 square -foot mezzanine and enclosing the existing deck area located to the rear of the main floor. The overall gross floor area of the building would be increased by 169 square feet, from 3,651 to 3,820 square feet. New kitchen facilities would be installed that include food preparation, storage areas, and walk -in coolers. Handicapped accessible restrooms and an elevator would also be provided. The proposed 160 square -foot outdoor dining area will be situated at the front of the restaurant, facing Coast Highway and covered by an awning. The proposed floor plan depicts a layout of a total of 48 seats for the proposed restaurant: 36 seats for the inside dining area and 12 seats for the outdoor dining area. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant states that there will be no dancing or live entertainment. The applicant indicates that the opening and closing shifts will utilize 5 employees and a maximum of 10 employees during the busiest hours. Delivery to the proposed restaurant will be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., according to the applicant. The overall project description is attached to the staff report as Exhibit 2. The proposed parking/traffic management plan is attached as Exhibit 3. The existing parking garage at the subject site has access to an alley located to the rear of the building. This existing alley serves the site and the neighboring retail commercial and residential properties. The applicant has submitted three tandem parking arrangement options within the existing parking garage (Exhibits B, C, and F attached to the Parking/Traffic Management Plan) for Planning Commission consideration. Exhibit B depicts a 12 -space arrangement; Exhibit C depicts a 16 -space arrangement; and Exhibit F depicts a 17 -space arrangement. The applicant also submitted a parking diagram showing the pre- existing parking arrangement of 17 spaces that was utilized by aq Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 5 of 18 the former retail tenants (Exhibits D & F). Exhibit G shows the off -site parking location, employee vehicle and pedestrian paths of travel. In addition to the on -site parking provision, the applicant proposes to provide 10 parking spaces located in a parking garage below the existing office building at 7 Corporate Plaza for employee parking. Complimentary valet parking for restaurant patrons during regular operating hours, and for off -site employee parking is proposed. The applicant also submitted a parking /traffic management plan to address required parking, traffic circulation, the valet parking operation, and delivery scheduling. Background The property is presently improved with a 3,651 square -foot, tri -level building which consists of a main floor, a mezzanine level above the main floor and an 11 -space parking garage below the main floor. The building has been occupied by a retail carpet store, "Orient Handel" for many years. The Bungalow Restaurant (formerly Hemingways Restaurant) had an off -site parking agreement with the former owner of the carpet store since 1981 for the use of the parking garage. This agreement expired August 2006 (Exhibit 4). The carpet store closed its business in July 2007. The building is now vacant under the applicant's ownership and free from any off -site parking obligations. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan — Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as Corridor Commercial (CC) with maximum floor area ratio of 0.75 (CC 0.75). The CC designation is intended to provide a range of neighborhood - serving retail and service uses along street frontages that are located and designed to foster pedestrian activity. The Land Use Element also calls for sustaining the Corona del Mar commercial corridor as a pedestrian - oriented retail village that serves surrounding neighborhoods. Restaurants are identified as one of the area's primary uses. The applicant's request is consistent with this designation and the vision for the area, as it entails converting a former retail space into an eating and drinking establishment that is neighborhood - serving. The conversion of tenant space from retail use to an eating and drinking establishment would result in a slight increase in the floor area by 169 square feet. The increase in floor area would not exceed the maximum 0.75 FAR or 3,967 square -foot allowance for the subject property as the proposed floor area is 3,820 square feet. The proposed outdoor patio dining area is consistent with the pedestrian- oriented environment envisioned along the Coast Highway street frontage. The proposed project is, therefore, consistent with these policies. _Al Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 6 of 18 General Plan — Circulation Element The City's Circulation Element encourages an efficiently operated parking system through the adoption of parking management programs for areas with inadequate parking, such as Corona del Mar. The development of public parking lots or structures, street parking permitting, valet programs, and similar techniques may be considered. In recognition of the need for additional parking in this area, and to comply with this policy, the City Economic Development Division is in the process of conducting a parking feasibility study with the assistance from a professional consultant firm. To satisfy the required parking for the proposed restaurant, the applicant is proposing a parking management program through the use of tandem parking with valet parking arrangement at the subject property, and off -site parking for their employees at the nearby office complex. Coastal Land Use Plan The City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the subject property as General Commercial General (CG) with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 to 0.75. The CG designation is intended to provide for a wide range of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve citywide or regional needs. The applicant's request to convert a former retail space into an eating and drinking establishment is consistent with this designation. The Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Coast Land Use Plan have similar policies relating to parting. As the applicant is requesting approvals for on -site tandem parking with valet services and off -site arrangement to satisfy the required parking for the proposed restaurant, policies relating to parking must also be considered. They are as follows: CE 7.1.1 Required Parking: Require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors. CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration: Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. CLUP 2.9.3 -1. Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. CLUP 2.9.3 -8. Continue to require properties with nonconforming parting to provide code- required off - street parking when new uses, alterations or additions result in increased parking demand. �jZ� , Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 7 of 18 These policies are discussed under the Parking /Circulation Section. Zoning Code Chapter 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants, bars, and cocktail lounges as outlined below to ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and streets. The development standards include specific requirements for site requirements, building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination, underground utilities, and supply and refuse storage. Section 20.82.040.D of the Municipal Code states that any of the above - mentioned development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if strict compliance with the standard is not necessary to achieve the purpose or intent of the standard. Development Standards Site: Site shall be of sufficient size and configuration to Does not Comply. The site is 5,289 square feet in size satisfy all requirements for off -street parking, and is improved with a 3,651 square foot W-lavel setbacks, curb cuts, walls, landscaping and refuse commercial building. The existing parking garage does storage as provided by Section 20.82.040 of the not meet the current parking configurations. Municipal Code. Setbacks. The City may establish more restrictive setbacks if it is Complies. The building complies with the current determined that it is necessary or desirable for the setback requirements. More restrictive setbacks are not protection of the public health, safety or welfare or to need to protect the public health, safety or welfare. insure the compatibility of uses on contiguous DroDerfies. Off -Sheet Off- street parking in accordance with the provisions of Complies. The site Is presently knproved with a parking Parking: Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code garage. A total of 16 parking spaces are required for the restaurant use. The applicant is proposing a tandem parking arrangement of 12 spaces, at a minimum, with a valet parking arrangement at the subject property and requesting an off-site parking agreement of 10 spaces for employee parking at 7 Corporate Plaza, for a total of 22 parking spaces to be used for the proposed restaurant. Circulation: Parking areas and driveways shall be arranged so that Complies. The existing on-she parking garage and off - a free flow of vehicular traffic and adequate site site lot have been reviewed and approved by the City clearances are permitted at all times. If the Traffic Traffic Engineer. Potential circulation problems during Engineer determines that there is a need to peak activity times may occur within the parking garage accommodate vehicles waiting for service, a reservoir and along the alley during peak business hours. An parking area for standing vehicles shag be provided In approved parking/traffic management plan should additional to the other required parking and driveway address this issue. area. Waits: A solid masonry wall 6 feet high shall be erected on ag Not Applicable. There are existing commercial buildings interior property fines of the subject properly. Walls 3 located on both Interior property fines so the requirement feet in height shall be erected between the on -site for walls at 6 feet in height is not necessary for this parking areas and the public right -of- -way. application. The parking garage is located below the main retail floor with an access opening to an existing stay. There is no need for a 3 -foot high separation wail between the on -site parking areas and the public right -of- wa . Landscaping: 10"/0 of entire site, 3 -foot wide landscape area shag be Not Applicable. The existing building was built within provided to screen the parking area from the public the allowable building setbacks with a parking garage right-of -way. A 3 -foot wide iandscape area adjacent structure beneath. Landscape screening of the parking to the interior property lines shag be on unded. area is not necessary. �1 Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 8 of 18 Parking /Circulation The parking standard for restaurants specified by the Municipal Code is 1 parking space for each 30 to 50 square feet of net public area. Net public area is defined as the total area of eating and drinking establishment, excluding kitchens, restrooms, offices pertaining to the use only, and storage areas. The specific ratio applied is based on the operational characteristics of the establishment. Given the restaurant's operational characteristics as a full - service, high turnover establishment, serving primarily sandwiches, soups, and salads without live entertainment or dancing, a shorter dining experience and high patron turnover is expected. Staff believes a parking ratio of 1 space per 40 square feet of net public area is appropriate. Using this calculation, the required number of parking spaces required for the restaurant is 16 spaces (640 sq, ft. of net public area i 40). The applicant proposes a total of 22 spaces as follow: On -site Parking The existing parking garage is proposed to be valet - parked for the restaurant patrons in a tandem configuration. As mentioned earlier, the applicant is proposing several different parking arrangements to yield as much on -site parking as possible. Because of the pre- existing nonconforming condition of the subject property, the use of tandem parking is the only way to maximize the number of off - street parking spaces within the existing parking garage structure. Exhibit B yields a total of 12 spaces. This parking arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as it complies with the handicapped parking and access requirements and complies with the Traffic Engineer Division's parking policy of "move one car to get one car ". The Traffic Engineer could not support the other parking arrangements as shown on Exhibits C nor F because these plans show vehicles parked parallel along the wall across from the striped stalls. These parking arrangements do not allow a sufficient turning radius for vehicles exiting the parking stalls. Exhibit C shows a vehicular turn- around area within the handicapped loading zone. With regard to Exhibits D and E, which are described as a "Pre- Existing Valet Management Plan ", it should be noted that this "valet" operation was not approved by the City. While the parking shown in Exhibit E may have occurred in the past, the parking layout cannot be approved for the previously stated reasons. Also, according to Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 9 of 18 Exhibit D, there is no handicapped stall provided in the pre- existing plan. Staff, therefore, could only support the valet parking arrangement of 12 spaces as shown on Exhibit B. Off -site Parking The applicant has secured 10 off -site parking spaces, located at 7 Corporate Plaza to be designated as employee parking. No patron parking with or without valet service would be allowed at this off -site location. This provision is to alleviate potential on -srie patron parking shortage and negative traffic impact to the subject property, and providing reassurance that their employees would park their vehicles in a designated area and not along the nearby residential streets. The applicant proposes to provide complimentary parking to its employees. This request could not be supported by the City Traffic Engineer due to the safety concerns of having parking attendants and vehicles moving back and forth across the busy Coast Highway. Furthermore, the provision of valet parking at an off -site location may create an enforcement issue in the future should the applicant use this off -site location for patron parking instead. Circulation Vehicular access to and from the restaurant's parking garage is from the existing alley located in the rear of the subject property. The proposed location of valet drop -off and pick -up will be located near the entrance to the existing parking garage. Staff has concerns with the functionality of the proposed valet parking operation due to close proximity to the garage entry way. Traffic entering and exiting the parking garage by the patrons could result in cars queuing along the alley, while waiting for valet parking services. The circulation conflicts may happen during peak activity times along the alley that is already impacted by the nearby businesses. This can create a traffic hazard and negatively impact traffic movement along the alley. The applicant has submitted a parkingAraffic management plan describing the functional characteristics of the valet operation and traffic circulation to mitigate these concerns. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the plan with conditions. In summary, the provisions of a 12 -space tandem parking arrangement in the existing garage for the restaurant patrons marked as Exhibit B with valet services and 10 off-site parking spaces for employee self -park are most realistic and the most efficient arrangements compared with other proposals. Staff Concerns The submitted application and plans have illustrated that there will be adequate parking for the proposed restaurant. Staff, however, is concerned that the subject site does not have the required number of on -site parking for the proposed restaurant. Because of this shortage, different parking variations are being proposed which may be problematic, compounded by the fact that vehicular access to and from the restaurant is Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 10 of 18 through an already congested alley. The level of traffic sent to the alley from the restaurant patrons and associated deliveries coupled with the proposed valet service next to the garage entrance is also a concern. The nearby residents have expressed on -going concerns of the encroachment of commercial parking within the residential areas. The off -site parking arrangement may become an issue in the later years when the terms expire and these parking spaces are no longer available. The finding of an alternative off -site parking location may become a difficult task as the parking availability in the Corona del Mar area is very limited. The Planning Commission must make a determination whether the subject application is consistent with the latest General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to the parking provisions. These policies specifically require all new development to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors; and to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. These policies require properties with nonconforming parking to provide code - required off - street parking when new uses, alterations or additions result in increased parking demand. The parking management plan for the proposed restaurant may be proven to be viable at this time but it may be difficult to maintain and enforce. Other similar restaurant establishments within the Corona del Mar have similar valet and/or off -site parking arrangements. The Zinc Cafe is the most recent application that the Planning Commission considered and approved within the Corona del Mar area. Zinc Cafe has adhered to their conditions of approval; the restaurant has provided adequate parking both on -site parking for their patrons and off -site parking for their employees, orderly traffic movement to and from the restaurant and have not become a nuisance to the neighborhood. On the other hand, the Commission recently reviewed a status report for the Corona del Mar Albertson's regarding complaints about employee parking on residential streets and deliveries at times not permitted by the use permit. General Use Permit Findings Section 20.91.035(A) of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings for the approval of a use permit. These findings are listed and discussed below. 7. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The subject property is located within the Retail Service Commercial (RSC) Zoning District, which is intended to provide the Corona del Mar area with commercial services for permanent residences and visitors of the area. Restaurant uses are permitted within this designation with the approval of a use permit. The operational characteristics and location of the proposed restaurant use are such that it is a community serving use with some pedestrian oriented traffic. The proposed restaurant is consistent with this designation. Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 11 of 18 In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, the location of the proposed Alcoholic Beverage Outlet was considered with respect to issues of public necessity and impacts to surrounding land uses. The use will provide a public convenience by offering beer and wine sales to restaurant patrons. The location of the use is considered appropriate given the fact that the site is not located in close proximity to day care centers, schools or places of religious assembly. In addition, the Police Department has reviewed the project and has no objections to the location. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located,- will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. All development regulations of the RSC Zoning District would be met, including building setbacks, structure height limitations and development limits. The restaurant has been conditioned in such a manner to meet the intent of the Zoning Code regulations, including any specific conditions required for the proposed restaurant and to require strict adherence to safety and noise regulations. Should the proposed restaurant operate within the parameters of the conditions of approval, maintaining the off -site parking lease agreement, and strictly enforcing and monitoring the valet parking arrangement, negative impacts associated with the application discussed within this report should be minimal. The proposed restaurant, therefore, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City with the following: • The operation of the restaurant will be restricted to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. • The total "net public area" of the interior dining areas will not exceed 640 square feet. • The outdoor dining area will not exceed 160 square feet. • The valet parking for patrons will be provided during the business hours. The valet operation would be professionally managed in a manner to eliminate back up /storage of vehicles onto the public right -of -way. • Valet drop -off, pick -up, and deliveries will occur only on the subject property. Valet operation and delivery will not impact ingress and egress to adjacent properties. 35 Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 12 of 18 • Deliveries will be scheduled outside of peak operating hours of the use so that all access will not be blocked. No deliveries will be permitted before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. • No dancing or live entertainment will be provided on the premises. • New trash enclosure will be constructed and maintained properly to eliminate odor and prevent illegal dumping. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, approval of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet is subject to the consideration of factors relating to over - concentration of alcohol licenses, crime rates including numbers of alcohol related crimes, and impacts to the surrounding community. Detailed analysis of the ABC application is discussed below under the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance Section. The Police Department has reviewed the project and has determined that the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the proposed restaurant will not result in an increase in alcohol - related crimes and will not result in an over - concentration of alcoholic beverage outlets since the request is to transfer the existing license from the existing restaurant to the subject location. The proposed restaurant, including beer and wine sales, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The request to allow the operation of a restaurant which includes the serving of alcoholic beverages on the premises and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, are consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The request is located within the existing building that is designated and zoned for this commercial activity. The use has been conditioned in such a manner to minimize the impacts associated with it. The plan, as conditioned, meets the design and development standards for eating and drinking establishments. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, the project has been conditioned to avoid potential negative impacts on the surrounding community. Upon approval of the use permit, the Police Department will condition the ABC license as necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the community. M Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 13 of 18 Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance Findings In conjunction with the proposed restaurant, the applicant also requests approval of a use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption by transferring their existing license from their existing store located at 2333 Coast Highway. There would be no net increase in the number of ABC licenses within the subject area as the request is a transfer of the existing ABC license to the proposed location. Sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption requires the issuance of a Type 41 License from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. In accordance with Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) of the Municipal Code, approval of a use permit is required for a new Type 41 license at the subject site. Chapter 20.89 requires the Planning Commission to consider the following: 1. Whether the use serves public convenience or necessity. 2. The crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as compared to other areas in the City. 3. The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts as compared to the countywide average. 4. The numbers of alcohol - related calls for service, crimes or arrests in the reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts. 5. The proximity of the alcoholic beverage outlet to residential districts, day care centers, parts and recreation facilities, places of religious assembly, and schools. The City of Newport Beach Police Department submitted a memorandum (Exhibit 5) providing the necessary information and data for the following analysis: 1. Public Convenience or Necessity The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) is in conjunction with a full - service, high turnover restaurant. Beer and wine sales for on -site consumption are common in conjunction with this type of establishment and are expected by customers. The sale of beer and wine will provide an added convenience for the restaurant patrons. 2. Crime Rate Citywide, there were 6,676 crimes reported during calendar year 2006, of which 3,075 were Part One Crimes (se(ous offenses). The remaining 3,061 were Part Two Crimes that include alcohol - related arrests. The project site is located within Police Reporting District No. 44 (RD 44). During 2006, the reporting district had a total of 379 reported crimes (184 Part One, 195 Part 2) compared to a citywide reporting district average of 174 reported crimes,. RD 44 is 205 crimes or 117.72 percent above the citywide reporting district average. The subject site is within an area where the number of crimes �1 Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 14 of 18 is at least 75 percent higher that the average of all reporting districts in the City as outlined in the City Council "K -7" policy. During 2006, the total number of crimes in adjacent reporting districts RD 43 and RD 39 was 74 and 631, respectively. The number of total crimes reported within RD 44 is higher compared to RD 43 but lower than RD 39. 3. Over- Concentration There are 25 active alcoholic beverage licenses in police RD 44 which constitutes a per capita ratio of one license per 223 residents. The applicant is requesting to transfer the existing Type "41" ABC License from the existing restaurant located at 2333 Coast Highway to the subject property. There would not be an increase in ABC license within RD 44. 4. Alcohol - Related Crimes The Police Department has provided statistics for driving- under - the - influence (DUI) and plain drunk arrests. There were 32 DUI arrests and 33 plain drunk arrests within RD 44 (65 total DUI /Drunk arrests) during this period as compared to 1,285 for the entire City. This RD accounts for 5.06 percent of the DUI/Drunk arrests made in the City. Adjacent reporting districts RD 43 and RD 39 had 53 and 236 DUI /Drunk arrests, respectively. The number of alcohol - related crimes reported in RD 44 is higher when compared with RD 43 but much lower compared with RD 39. The proposed sale of beer and wine is in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. The Police Department has reviewed the project and is not in opposition; however, they have provided recommended conditions of approval to minimize the potential for an increase of alcohol related crimes. 5. Adjacent Uses There are no schools, day care centers or places of religious worship near the subject property. The establishment is located within a commercial area adjacent to a major street and is surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. Given that the proposed alcoholic beverage sales is for on -site consumption only and associated with the proposed restaurant, the Police Department does not have objections to the operation as proposed by the applicant. Additionally, the Police Department has reviewed the use permit application and has submitted recommended conditions of approval. The Police Department recommends the standard conditions of approval related to the sale of alcohol for on -site consumption to ensure compatibility of the use with its environs. These conditions are routinely required of alcoholic beverage outlets. Should the project be approved, the Police Department will transmit the conditions of approval related to the sale of alcohol to the State Department of Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 15 of 18 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The Police Department does not oppose these hours and planning staff believes these hours are acceptable for this location. Finally, the location of this establishment is acceptable since no sensitive land uses are located nearby. Off -site Parking Agreement Findings The applicant has entered into a parking agreement with the property owner of 7 Corporate Plaza, OCRC -GE Corporation, (Exhibit 6) for the use of 10 parking spaces. The term of this parking agreement is for 5 years, commencing on the date that restaurant obtains a certificate of occupancy along with a 5 -year renewal option. These spaces are available to the restaurant employees during the restaurant hours of operation. Pursuant to Section 20.66.080, Off - Street Parking, the Planning Commission shall not approve off - street parking on a separate lot from the site or sites unless: 1. Such lot is so located to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site or sites. The 10 off -site spaces is in a parking garage of the office complex located on the north side of Coast Highway, west of Avocado Avenue, at 7 Corporate Plaza. The applicant is proposing to utilize these spaces for employee parking. No patron parking would be allowed. 2. Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. The use of off -site parking lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. The employees will be instructed to cross Coast Highway at the pedestrian crossing at Avocado Avenue to and from the off -site parking lot. 3. Parking is permanently available, marked, and maintained for the use it is intended to serve. The applicant has secured a 5 -year term parking agreement and a 5 -year renewal options with the property owner of the off -site parking lot. The applicant has submitted documentation from the property owner that the off -site parking spaces have not been leased to any business other than the applicant. Should the application be approved, a condition of approval is included in the draft resolution, requiring the provision of 10 parking spaces in the off -site lot, and the recordation of the agreement with the County Recorder's office ensuring the availability of the spaces for the use. Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 16 of 18 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit That the proposed outdoor dining is accessory to the eating and drinking establishment. The proposed outdoor dining area is accessory to the proposed 3,820 square -foot restaurant. The restaurant's total net public area would be 640 square feet. The applicant proposes to have an outdoor dining area of 160 square feet which is 25 percent of the net public area of the proposed restaurant and thereby is consistent with Municipal Code Section 20.82.050 (A) that limits accessory outdoor dining areas to 25 percent of the restaurant's interior net public area, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. 2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the accessory outdoor dining will not, under 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 or injurious to property or improvements in the area. The use is accessory to the proposed restaurant use which would be subject to conditions of approval that include limitations on hours of operation and number of seating. The proposed location of the outdoor dining area would not cause potential noise impacts to the nearby residential uses. 3. That the proposed accessory outdoor dining will not be located so as to result in reduction of existing parking spaces. The proposed outdoor dining area will be located in front of the existing building, adjacent to the public right -a -way along Coast Highway, and thereby will not result in a reduction of the existing parking spaces located in the parking garage. Section 20.82.050 (A) of the Municipal Code does not require additional parking for accessory outdoor dining areas. Summary Staff is concerned with the proposed parking management plan in that it may be difficult to maintain and enforce. Should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed parking management plan is consistent with the polices of General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and the findings for approval of a use permit for the restaurant and Alcoholic Beverage Outlet ordinance can be made in that the restaurant operation will not prove detrimental to the community through strict compliance of conditions of approval, a draft resolution for approval is attached for adoption. The proposed on -site sale of beer and wine has also been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 20.89. In reviewing the proposed use, factors relating to public convenience, crime rates, over- concentration of alcohol licenses, and proximity to sensitive land uses were considered. Planning Staff and the Police Department have qb 9 Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 17 of 18 reviewed the project relative to these considerations and find the location of the proposed Alcoholic Beverage Outlet to be acceptable, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached resolution. The accessory outdoor dining permit request meets the findings for approval as it will be accessory to the proposed restaurant, has the same operating hours as the proposed restaurant with limited seating, and will not result in a reduction of the required parking spaces for the restaurant. The proposed off -site parking agreement complies with the criteria set forth in Section 20.66.080, in that it has proven to be viable and will ensure that the required number of parking spaces for the restaurant use will be provided and maintained at all times. Alternatives 1. If the Planning Commission determines that not all the facts in support of the findings can be made for the applicant's requests, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare findings and a resolution denying the requests and return at the next available Planning Commission meeting date with such resolution for adoption; or 2. The Planning Commission may suggest specific project modifications that are needed for approval. If this is done, the item should be continued if the changes are reasonable and easy to incorporate. If substantial changes are directed, the item should be removed from calendar to allow redesign of the project. Concerns from Residents The Planning Department received several letters via electronic mail from the nearby residents during the application review process. They collectively expressed their opposition to the proposed restaurant that would be contributing to the existing congested traffic patterns, area business patrons using the residential alleys as thoroughfares, increased noise levels and increased number of service trucks and garbage dumpsters intruding their already crowded neighborhood (Exhibit 7). Staff also received numerous letters in support of the application from the nearby residents and restaurant patrons (Exhibit 8). Environmental Review This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The proposed interior improvements to accommodate the new restaurant are minor in nature and are within the tenant space formerly occupied by a retail commercial use. C Panini Cafe September 20, 2007 Page 18 of 18 Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Mall and on the city website. Prepared by: Exhihits Submitted by: ev„' :r David Lepo, an g Director I 2. Project Description 3. Parking/Traffic Management Plan 1 5. Police Department Memorandum 6. Parking (Use) Agreement with OCRC -GE 9. Submitted Plans dated July 27, 2007 qx Sept 20th PC Staff Report Exhibit 2 Project Description q3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT: Panini Cafe — Corona del Mar, CA 2421 East Coast Hwy (Vacant retail shop formerly `Orient Handel') PROJECT REQUEST: A request for approval of Use Permit to allow the operation of a 3,820 square - foot full - service restaurant with a net public area of 640 square feet and to allow alcoholic beverage service of Type "41 "ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place). Also requested are a consideration of Accessory Dining Permit to allow the operation of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the proposed restaurant and an approval of Off -Site Parking Agreement to accommodate off -street Employee Parking, utilizing the nearby property located at 7 Corporate Plaza. APPLICANT: Collection Investments Corona del Mar, inc., a Nevada Corporation Mr. Mike Rafipoor, President 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: Coast M Investments, Inc., a Nevada Corporation Mr. Mike Rafipoor, President 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: PLANET DESIGN 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 949.440.2024 p aINGa per N�lypo�rB �9Cy 0 PLANET PWG?. a1 xus; rya 2435 East Coast Highway, Suite 7 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.721.5500 %i William R. Edwards, Principal Architect 2435 East Coast Hwy, Suite 7 C Corona del Mar, CA 92625 /%J BUSINESS HOURS: 7:00am- 10:00pm, seven days a week DELIVERY HOURS: 9:00am- 11:00am & 2:00pm- 4 :00pm 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 949.440.2024 p aINGa per N�lypo�rB �9Cy 0 PLANET PWG?. a1 xus; rya 2435 East Coast Highway, Suite 7 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.721.5500 %i TYPE "41" LICENSE: The request for a Type "41" License would allow the restaurant to serve beer and wine with meals as is currently being served at the 2333 East Coast Highway location. PARKING SUMMARY: PATRON PARKING: REQUIRED: Sixteen (16) Spaces PROPOSED: Sixteen (16) Spaces per Exhibit XX ON -SITE: Sixteen (16) Spaces - Valet OFF -SITE: TBD (None specified) EMPLOYEE PARKING: OFF -SITE PROPOSED: TEN (10) Spaces (7 Corporate Plaza, Ref. Exhibit) IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING: INTERIOR: Complete Renovation and Structural Rehabilitation, with full ADA Compliance EXTERIOR: Complete Renovation to Italianate Traditional Theme 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 949.440.2024 0 PLANEr PFgG l '.`HId0.ITu a 2435 East Coast Highway, Suite 7 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.721.5500 1 A , e . I Zia 4L LIU z o k L P y o q IRE I v � u g P N 41 P P �. LI v 4g q A C� wW o �u d� �� wHm" w� o WUV av o o a a -" F» Hi [9 69 fg 69 69 Hi Eq f9 s9 6q �i 1 o U `° d � 2 N w�� � �� �� p � m vs a H PC, •� V v a y�t Cfl P P P N P P a .. c9 � P P P p P yFR da fA E'""g ?i N N N P P Y3 69 G9 xy � � x _ m m� F z gyy+j N d` A A F p @. C xy M1�i Sept 20th PC Staff Report Exhibit 3 Parking /Traffic Management Plan q1� PARKING / TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN PANINI CAFE - CORONA DEL MAR, CA OVERVIEW Panini Cafe (Applicant) proposes to provide complimentary valet parking for its customers during regular operating hours, as well as off -site employee parking (see attached executed Lease Agreement, Exhibit A). Additional attached exhibits present the Valet Parking Management Plan for the site. Signs will be erected at street level at the site entrance, within private property lines, to adequately direct patron traffic to the valet drop -off area. The drop - off and pick -up areas will be located at the rear of the building, just outside the entrance to the parking garage, within the boundaries of the property lines. ON -SITE VALET PARKING OPERATIONS Patrons will drive their vehicles N/B up the alley from Fourth Avenue and pull forward to the valet queuing location. Patrons will then exit the vehicle and receive a valet ticket which must be validated by their Panini server in order to reclaim their vehicle after dining. An elevator is available adjacent to the valet drop -off for customer convenience and direct access to street level dining. Valet attendants will then drive the vehicles in the parking garage and park vehicles according to the plan provided. The valet attendant(s) will direct departing restaurant patrons to carefully exit straight ahead down the alley to Fourth Avenue, and either to turn left to Dahlia, to proceed South on Pacific Coast Highway, or to turn right to Avocado, to proceed North (or South) on Pacific Coast Highway. The patrons will be instructed by the valet attendant(s) not to turn right at the alley and use Begonia Avenue, a nearby residential block. The Applicant's original traffic engineer provided two (2) exhibits for valet parking scenarios in the existing parking garage. The first on -site valet exhibit, `Exhibit B,' depicts twelve (12) spaces including one (1) handicapped space, nine (9) standard spaces and three (3) tandem spaces. This exhibit was previously reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer at CNB. The second exhibit, 'Exhibit C,' depicts the same arrangement as above with an additional four (4) tandem spaces, totaling sixteen (16). This valet - managed parking scenario was reviewed by CNB Traffic Dept. and is submitted, as an as an alternate option, for review and approval by the Planning Commission. This option is supported by the fact that historically this parking garage location has been observed and documented to accommodate eighteen 0 PLANET PEtGI�. ., ruc r•a 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 2435 East Coast Highway, Suite 7 Irvine, CA 92614 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 i 949.440.2024 949.721.5500 (18) or more vehicles at a time when managed by the professional valet service. (See attached Exhibits D, E, & F.) Observations have also shown that this eighteen (18) space scenario as supports TrafFds recommendation that only one (1) car be moved to access any other parked vehicle. HOURS OF OPERATION: Panini Caf6 will provide a minimum of one (1) parking attendant and two (2) during peak business hours (11:30am- 2:30pm M -F, and 9:00am- 2:00pm Sat & Sun) in order to prevent any stacking of vehicles on public property (i.e. alley). Valet operations shall not impact adjacent property across alley. The existing partial subterranean parking garage at the new Panini Cafe location is to be utilized as a valet parking facility as it has in the past by a professionally managed parking company. EMPLOYEE PARKING (OFF -SITE AT 7 CORPORATE PLAZA, NEWPORT BEACH) The opening and closing shifts at the current establishment located at 2333 East Coast Highway utilize four (4) employees and a maximum of eight (8) employees during the busiest hours during the regular shifts. With the proposed establishment, five (5) employees and a maximum of ten (10) employees during the busiest hours during the regular are anticipated by the Applicant from their experiences at the existing Panini Cafe La Jolla and Beverly Hills locations. The Applicant has secured ten (10) off -site parking spaces, located at nearby 7 Corporate Plaza to be designated as Employee Parking for Panini Cafe. A notarized Lease Agreement between Panini Cafe owner Mike Rafipoor, Applicant of off -site employee parking and OCRG -GE Corporation, owner of subject property at 7 Corporate Plaza has been fully executed. The term of the lease is five (5) years including an option to lease for an additional five (5) years. A copy of this executed Lease Agreement is attached as Exhibit A. OFF -SITE MANAGEMENT: The Panini Hospitality Group is willing to provide both technical and management enforcement techniques relative to Employee Parking, such as an electronic device at the garage to verify employee usage of this off -site location, together with a sticker for the employee vehicle (1 per car) — for purposes of verification of daily usage. This can then be confirmed when the employee walks from the designated parking location to the restaurant, together with the time -clock stamped ticket in hand upon reporting for work and then placed in the slot with time stamped employee card. Upon hiring, employees will sign a binding Agreement for use of Designated Employee Parking at 7 Corporate Plaza, with the written understanding that they would face termination if not compliant. A handout will be provided for employee reference which includes a map of the location and conditions of usage. PL4NEr PSG' ' S Ng 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 2435 East Coast Highway, Suite 7 Irvine, CA 92614 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.440.2024 949.721.5500 DELIVERY VEHICLES AND SCHEDULING Delivery vehicles bringing produce and other supplies to the new Panini location will be limited to hours of 9:00am to 11:00am in the morning and 2:00pm to 4:00 pm in the afternoon. Applicant is currently exploring options to enable delivery trucks to unload at an adjacent location without blocking the alley, although local code allows them to utilize this right -of -way. CONCLUSION The decision for this plan for employee parking plan evolved from originally considering annual parking permits via the blue metered spaces at the nearby'Old School Park' public parking lot at Fourth Avenue and Dahlia. Former plans for other project(s) have been difficult to monitor whether by City or employers. Incentive for the employees is to have designated parking that they can count on instead having to contend with generally sparse curbside parking. This relative convenience and the security of the underground garage located at 7 Corporate Plaza location, together with the above described enforcement, should contribute to 'incentivizing' employees to utilize this location. .J PLANET PWGI? CV41 ° . 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 2435 East Coast Highway, Suite 7 Irvine, CA 92614 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ed j 949.440.2024 949.721.5500 1 08/21/2007 12:07 949-719 -7210 JULIEAAULT PAGE 01/02 USE AGRF,EMF.NT This Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into as of August 1, 2007 by and between OCRC. OF. CORP (hereafter "OCRC -GE ") , a Nevada Corporation and Coast M Investments, Inc„ dba Panini Cafd, a Nevada corporation (hereafter Panini Caf!). 1.Premises. OCRC -GE grants to Panini Caf! and upon all of the conditions set forth in this Agreement, a limited right to use a portion of the real property located at 7 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, California 92660, consisting of four (4) un- designated parking spaces located on the premises. (the "Premises „). 2.Term. The term (the "Term”) of this Agreement shall he for a period of five (5) years commencing on upon the date Panini Caf! obtains a certificate of occupancy to occupy and operate its restaurant business 2421 Fast Pacific Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California and ending sixty months after commencement, along with a Sixty month (Option Term) option to renew this Use Agreement provided Panini Cafe is not them in default of any term of this Agreement and gives notice in writing to OCRC -GC of its intention to exercise its option not later than three months nor earlier than sixth months before the time the option period is to commence. 3.117ee. Panini Cafe shall pay to OCRC -GC a fee (the "Fee ") for the use of the Premises in the amount S 1,000 pet month in advance, on the i st day of each month during the Term and during the Option Term. 4.Use. Cafd Panini shall use the Premises only for parking related to the conduct of its restaurant business located at 2421 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California. S.Conditinn of Premises. Cafe Panini accepts the Premises in the condition existing; as of the date of this Agreement, subject to all applicable zoning, municipal, county and state laws, ordinances and regulations governing and regulating the use of the Premises, including any and all applicable business and park association rules. 6 Liability Insurance. Cafe Panini and any contractor of Caf! Panini utilizing the Premises including, without limitation, any valet service employed by Caf! Panini shall, at their own expense, obtain and keep in force during the Term a policy of Combined Single Uunit Bodily lgjury and Property Damage insurance insuring Caft Panini against any liability arising out of the use of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto by Cart Panini or any of its contractors. Such insurance shall be a combined single limit policy in an amount not less than $2,000,000 and shall name OCRC -GE, Inc. as additional named insured. 7. indemnity. CaR Panini shall indemnify and hold harmless OCRC -GE from and against any and all claims arising in whole or pan:, from Cafd Panini's use of the Premises, or from the conduct of Caft Panini's business or from any activity, work or things done, permitted or suffered by Caf! Panint in of about the Premises or elsewhere. 8. Defaults. The occurrence of any one or more of the following evens shall constitute a material default and breach of this Agreement: (a)'rhe failure by Caft Panini to pay the Fee or any other payment required to be made by CaR Panini, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period often (10) days after written notice from OCRC -GE to Caf! Panini; (b) The failure by Caft Panini to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Agreement to be observed or performed by Cafd Panini , other than described in paragraph (a) above, where such failure shall continue for a period of ten (10) days after written notice from OCRC -GE to Card Panini, provided, however, that if the nature of the default is such that more than ten (10) days, are reasonably required for its cure, then Caft Panini shall not be deemed to be in default If Caft Panini commenced such cure within said 10 -day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. _t 08/21/2007 12:07 949-719 -7210 JLLIEAALLT PAGE 02/02 9. Remedies. In the event of any such material default or breach OCRC -GE may, at any time hereafter, with or without notice or demand terminate Partin! Cafe's right to use the Premises by any lawful means, in which case this Agreement shall terminate without prejudice to its right to collect from Panini Caft any Use Fee earned to the point of termination or enforce any other right or claim hereunder. Paragraph 7: Indemnity shall survive any such termination hereunder. August 1, 2007 Coast M investments, Inc., a Nevada carporatiOA P ini AN Q�� 5 hy: Mike Rafipoor,its President OCRC -GE, Inc., a Nevada 01er.uCo4 �+res cue. 53 't J ADDENDUM TO USE AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 1, 2007 This Addendum to the Use Agreement, executed as of August 1, 2007 by and between Coast M. Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation, dba Panini Cafe and OCRC -GE, Inc., a Nevada corporation is made this September 6, 2007, in order to amend the number of parking spaces reserved for use by Coast M Investments, Inc, under the terms of this agreement by increasing the number from 4 (four) spaces to 10 (ten) spaces. All other terms and conditions of the Use Agreement which is attached to this Addendum as Exhibit "A" remain unaltered and in full force and effect. OCRC -GE, Inc. hereby certifies it has the right and authority to enter into this Use Agreement and Addendum without the necessity of the approval of any other parties. Dated: September 7, 2007 Coast M Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation, db ini Cafe �Ea by: Mik to ore , its President OCRC -GE, Inc., a Nevada corporation by: � F1 � e �-e e j4 (� § £§ § §u , / {$� 5/ I • i li iii o I !n n! I i Q —Jlu ul� li I J II I •n a it !i lip O 101 O I o A ZVI OI Mon ED -I6 z& Y Al 0 V LL, 4 V ZZ_ Q d Ci ,,3-nd 5-1 � on z =F ,,3-nd 5-1 f } t lY ; E f 4K t. Y "0 S µ S i 1 OFF A 3, g f � Sd L •' CL LLI 0. oN rro 0 W y+ ,/ f Uc ,,�'� 'C Y W E a fj fsJ \� ,l 0 rn m o ca CL d W~ a ©daa� t v. ' v t i `F� /�y 00 ®��y10 0 W y+ ,/ f Uc ,,�'� 'C Y W E a fj fsJ \� ,l 0 rn Sept 20th PC Staff Report Exhibit 5 Police Department Memorandum l City of Newport Beach Police Department Memorandum July 17, 2007 TO: Rosalinh Ung — Staff Planner FROM: Detective Doug Jones SUBJECT: UP2007 -010 The Police Department has reviewed the Project Review Request for the Panini Cafe located at 2421 East Coast Highway, which is a current retail shop called Orient Handel. Per the plans submitted by Planet Designs Incorporated and the Project Description submitted by representatives of Panini Cafe, the Cafe will have a total interior area of approximately 3,712 square feet with a net dining area of approximately 800 square feet (including an outdoor patio of approximately 160 square feet). The total seating for the public dining areas will be approximately 48 seats. There will be no dancing or live entertainment. The applicant has supplied information regarding his intent to apply for a Type 41 license (On -Sale Beer & Wine Eating Place) with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. On July 17, 2007, 1 contacted Roxie Cooley, a representative for Panini Cafe. They intend on transferring their existing Type 41 license, which will include all the conditions previously approved, to the new location. We have included a report by Crime Analyst Paul Salenko that provides detailed statistical information related to calls for service in and around the applicant's place of business. This report indicates that this new location is within an area where the number of crimes is at least 75% higher than the average of all reporting districts in the City as outlined in the City Council per capita average of ABC licenses. Applicant History Per the Project Description report supplied by the applicant, and conversations with Roxie Cooley, Panini Cafe is a full - service, high tumover eating and drinking establishment that also offers retail items. They specialize in European and Mediterranean cuisine. 85% of the business revenue is generated from food service, while 15% of the business revenue Is generated from the sale of beverages, alcoholic and non - alcoholic. Panini Cafe is currently located at 2333 East Coast Highway and is looking to relocate to a larger building that can better accommodate their catering business. Panini Cafes are located in La Jolla and Beverly Hills. �a Panini Cafe UP2007 -010 Page 2 of 3 Slans and Displays Any signs or displays would need to conform to City requirements. There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs, which are clearly visible to the exterior, shall constitute a violation of this condition. Hours of Operation The proposed hours of operation will be from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm Sunday thru Wednesday, and 7:00 am to 10:00 pm Thursday thru Saturday. Security Due to the location of the cafe being in an area where the number of crimes is 75% more than the average of all reporting districts in the City, the Police Department would like the applicant to develop a security plan designed to ensure compliance with applicable state and local laws, the conditions of the ABC license, the use permit, and other such permits issued by the City. This plan must be approved by the Police Department priorto final approval. Employee Trainin Require all owners, managers and employees serving and/or selling alcoholic beverages to undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. Additional Comments The Police Department has no objection to the operation as described by the applicants. For the purposes of this application, staff may also want to consider establishing conditions that would require a Special Event Permit. A Special Event Permit may be required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the proposed operation. For example, events likely to attract large crowds, events for which an admission fee is charged, events that include any form of contract promoters, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. It may also be appropriate to establish conditions that would address possible future uses in the event this business evolves towards a traditional bar -type establishment. In addition, the Police Department believes the following conditions would be appropriate for the Conditional Use Permit for the business: U3 Panini Cafe UP2007 -010 Page 3of3 1. Approval does not permit the premises to operate as a bar, tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub as defined by the Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves a Use Permit. 2. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 3. No "happy hour" t;!pe of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed except when served in conjunction with food ordered from the full service menu. 4. Petitioner shall not share any profits or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or the sale of drinks. 5. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records, which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. These records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Police Department on demand. 6. There shall be no on -site radio, television, video, film or other electronic media broadcasts, including recordings to be broadcasted at a later time, which include the service of alcoholic beverages, without first obtaining an approved Special Event Permit issued by the City of Newport Beach. 7. There shall be no dancing or live entertainment allowed on the premises. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 644 -3709. Detective Doug Jones Vice and Intelligence Unit tP 4 City of Newport Beac11 Police Department Memorandum July 17, 2007 TO: Rosalinh Ung, Staff Planner FROM: Paul Salenko, Crime Analyst SUBJECT: Alcohol Related Statistics At your request, our office has reviewed police services data for the Panini Hospitality Group at 2421 East Coast Hwy. This area encompasses our reporting district (RD) number 44 as well as part of Census Tract 627.01. This report reflects City of Newport Beach crime data for calendar year 2006, which is the most current data available. Calls for Service Information City wide there was 65,876 calls for police services during this time, of which 4,545 were in RD 44. A "call for service" is, any contact of the police department by a citizen which results in the dispatching of a unit or causes the contacted employee to take some sort of action, such as criminal investigations, alarm responses, traffic accidents, parking problems, and animal control calls, etc. Crime Information There were 6,676 crimes reported to the Newport Beach Police Department during this period. Of this total, 3,075 were Part One Crimes. Part One crimes are the eight most serious crimes (Homicide, forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny - theft, Auto Theft and Arson) as defined by the FBI in the Uniform Crime Reports. The remaining 3,601 were Part Two crimes. The Part One crime rate for the entire city during this same period was 3,803.22 per 100,000 people. The national Part One crime rate was 4,063.4* per 100,000 people. Crimes RD 44 Newport Beach California* National* Part 1 184 3,075 1,390,709 11,556,854 Part 2 195 3,601 N/A N/A Part 1Crime Rate 3,293.95 3,803.22 3,848.95 3,898.94 The number of active ABC licenses in this RD is 25 ** Per capita ratio 1 license for every 223 residents. This reporting district had a total of 379 reported crimes ds compared to a City wide reporting district average of 174 reported crimes. This reporting district is 205 crimes or 117.72% above the City wide reporting district average. This location is within an area where the number of crimes is at least 75% higher than the average of all reporting districts in the City as outlined in the City Council "K -7" policy. This location is within an RD that is over the Orange County per capita average of ABC licenses * *. Arrest Information There were 32 DUI arrests and 33 Plain Drunk arrest in this area during this same period as compared to 1,285 for the entire city. This RD amounts to 5.06% of the DUI /Drunk arrests made in the entire City. According to a recent national study by the Department of Justice, more than 36% of adult offenders convicted of crimes in 1996 had been drinking at the time of their arrest. Arrests RD 44 Newport Beach (DUI /Drunk) 65 1,285 Total Arrests 179 3,456 California* National* N/A N/A 1,457,151 9,579,611 Additional Information The Alcoholic Beverage Outlets ordnance states that the Planning Commission shall consider the crime rate in the adjacent reporting districts. The two adjacent reporting districts you requested are RDJeand RD'3q 1F3 Crimes RD 43 RD 39 Part 1 33 301 Part 2 41 330 Crime Rate 3,095.68 34,677.42 Arrests (DUI/Drunk) 15 82 Total Arrests 53 236 Calls For Service 1,054 4,677 Number of active ABC licenses 7 ** 38 ** Per capita ratiol license for every 152 ** 23* residents. Note: It is important to remember that when dealing with small numbers any change greatly affects any percentage changes. The population figure used for the Crime Rate was 80,800. *These numbers are from the 2005 Uniform Crime Reports, which is the most recent edition. * *The number of active ABC licenses is the total of all types of licenses known to the police department as of the date of this document. As of May 1, 2003 the Orange County average of active, retail ABC licenses was 1 license for every 592 residents. (4,805 licenses and a population of 2,846,289) If you are in need of any further assistance, ple ise contact me at (949) 644 -3791. Paul Salenko Crime Analysis Unit �V, q9�, RE -0ioan } CY 5 o CC Ct4 *pYQ 3 MaaAR7F1UR tin 1J.yy� @� a� X0 N S'b Cl* e M ,O cm X'k r ci N noa ar C14 yi m QQ N e yyppu A n Z CM M 1 0119, .e i Y� a0 m wz Y UQ �a MAN oa J 1 a�u w V • N w° H 3 LO e o ip ` Sept 20th PC Staff Report Exhibit 6 Parking (Use) Agreement with OCRC -GE li q RECEN D BY PLANNIN49 DEPARTMENT USEAGREEMENT AUG 24 2007 This Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into as of August 1, 20.,n tl �a�t t$�ACH OE CORP (hereafter "OCRC•OE ") , a Nevada Corporation and Coast M Investmen`�s, Inc„ dba anmi Cafd, a Nevada corporation (hereafter Panini Cafd). l.Premises. OCRC -OE grants to Panini Cafe and upon all of the conditions set forth in this Agreement, a limited right to use a portion of the real property located at 7 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, California 92660, consisting of four (4) un- designated parking spaces located on the premises. (the "Premises "). 2.Term. The term (the "Term ") of this Agreement shall be for a period of five (5) years commencing on upon the date Panini Cafd obtains a certificate of occupancy to occupy and operate Its restaurant business 2421 East Pacific Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California and ending sixty months after commencement, along with a sixty month (Option Term) option to renew this Use Agreement provided Panini Cafe is not then in default of any term of this Agreement and gives notice in writing to OCRC -GE of its intention to exercise its option not later than three months nor earlier than sixth months before the time the option period is to commence. 3.iree. Panini Cafe shall pay to OCRC•GE a fee (the "Fee ") for the use of the Premises in the amount $1,000 per month in advance, on the I st day of each month during the Term and during the Option Term. 4.Use, Cafe Parini shall use the Premises only for parking related to the conduct of its restaurant business located at 242) E. Pacific Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California. S.Conditinn of Premises. Cafe Panini accepts the Premises in the condition existing as of the date of this Agreement, subject to all applicable zoning, municipal, county and state laws, ordinances and regulations governing and regulating the use of the Premises, including any and all applicable business and park association rules. 6 Liability Insurance. Cafe Panini and any contractor of Caf'6 Panini utilizing the Premises including, without limitation, any valet service employed by Cafd Panini shall, at their own expense, obtain and keep in force during the Term a policy of Combined Single Unit Bodily Injury and .Property Damage insurance insuring Cafd Panini against any liability arising out of the use of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto by Cafe Panini or any of its contractors. Such insurance shall be a combined single limit policy in an amount not less than $2,000,000 and shall name OCRC -GE, Inc. as additional named insured. 7. Indemnity, Cale Panini shall indemnify and hold harmless OCRC -QE Prom and against any and all claims arising In whole or part, from Cafd Panini's use of the Premises, or from the conduct of Cafd Panini's business or from any activity, work or things done, permitted or suffered by Cafd Panini In or about the Premises or elsewhere. S. Defaults. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a material default and breach of this Agreement; (a) The failure by Cafd Panini to pay the Fee or any other payment required to be made by Cafd Panini, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of ten () 0) days after written notice f%om OCRC -OE to Caf6 Panini; (b) The failure by Cafd Panini to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Agreement to be observed or performed by Cafe Panini , other than described in paragraph (a) above, where such failure shall continue for a period often ()0) days after written notice from OCRC -GE to Cafd Panini, provided, however, that if the nature of the default is such that more than ten (10) days are reasonably required for its cure, then Cafd Panini shall not be deemed to be in default if Cafd Panini commenced such cure within said 10 -day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion, k,9 I/ 07 9. Remedies. In the event of any such materia) default or breach OCRC -GE may, at any time hereafter, with or without notice or demand terminate Panini Cafe's right to use the Premises by any lawful Means, in which case this Agreement shall terminate without prejudice to its right to collect from Panini Caft any Use Pee earned to the point of termination or enforce any other tight or claim hereunder. Paragraph 7: Indemnity shall survive any such termination hereunder. August 1, 2007 Coast M investments, Inc., a Nevada corporot P ini aN 7VMQPE: 5 by:' Mike Rafipoor, its Prosident OCRC -CE, Inc., a Nevada 0 1e.Awc44 t U DECLARATION OF IGOR OLENICOFF RE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PARKING USE AGREEMENT 1, Igor Olenicoff, declare as follows: 1. 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and I know the facts I state below of my own first hand knowledge. If called and sworn as a witness I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. I am the principal officer of OCRC -GE CORP., a Nevada corporation, which owns that certain real property commonly known as 7 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, California, and I am authorized to make this declaration in its behalf. 3. OCRC -GE CORP, has duly authorized the use of four (4) of its owned parking spaces at 7 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, California, by Coast M Investments, Inc., dba Panini Cafd, pursuant to that certain Use Agreement, dated August 1, 2007, by and between these parties. A copy of said agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". 4. OCRC -GE CORP is the owner in fee of the parking spaces it has contracted for use to Panini C66 and may do so free of the rights and claims of any third party. The spaces OCRC- GE CORP is licensing to Panini Cafe under its Use Agreement are exclusive to Panini Cafe and have not been leased or their usage promised to any other party. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that 1 have executed this declaration in Newport BeacWa rnia on g-RA VR 2�, 2007. Igor Ole /1, u- ADDENDUM TO USE AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 1, 2007 This Addendum to the Use Agreement, executed as of August 1, 2007 by and between Coast M. Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation, dba Panini Cafb and OCRC -GE, Inc., a Nevada corporation is made this September 6, 2007, in order to amend the number of parking spaces reserved for use by Coast M Investments, Inc. under the terms of this agreement by increasing the number from 4 (four) spaces to 10 (ten) spaces. All other terms and conditions of the Use Agreement which is attached to this Addendum as Exhibit "A" remain unaltered and in full force and effect. OCRC -GE, Inc. hereby certifies it has the right and authority to enter into this Use Agreement and Addendum without the necessity of the approval of any other parties. Dated: September 7, 2007 Coast M Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation, db mini Cafe fit? - C by: Mikd"RiiWoor, its President OCRC -GE, Inc., a Nevada 1 #. Sept 20th PC Staff Report Exhibit 9 Submitted Plans dated July 27, 2007 I3 wav oro es e:,0: O9 6'L �ILC wv tuns '3nx3ne a�n of c.i � 3assennn,s Mnµ vo3.in ux IJ3�lOJ arzn Q? 6 V ca w ;� C ST V b b� ^i N N J N Q ri pLL K F WW T9, pW 3ay� "ip{p p $ p g e,R _ i `h ^L &AA& .RF z WQ� U i Tf LLI a z 0 a° t 7 9 � !I �r' 6 V ca w ;� C ST V t 7 9 � !I �r' D ti n: Ofs ese ��` °'��`�� f 926 eJ 3NVWI � •.Ltl}INNJ OOIaad '9 lZbZ �° adva ININV(l IMF ps W�msaaa awmna gun dry s,x,rvisa+xi .,aiJmo� � mJrv^!amds9/�!W^ ^wdloa>,�yU P?��JmA+KIV aG_ '. � TvIU071u+ >1M1' -Pmd 3Ls �E �17bM�,0IS Jl78nd d p aN F I �Z I UP• t� "p I � I zap 3 I a' W Ina I G I � I r I i Q ^I _� p[ [5 ?ii�SYS g�Y iP�gg 11;;1 I 34<7 III ;,II Iwl ;� w g j 2 x i _ �, Is", 9 I I = w � Y _� z ILj y i I(I4L1'L —�,I IIu�1I' Q v I, _ _ J 3w, ua3aoea ro'u I i A311V u AtllANtlp W I 1 (3) uer,w 33N3t1Sftl kplS-2 (3) 1 l� • I i r K >H- \_ :- - - - - -/ «-- - -1 - -� - - — - — - — - — - ---- - - - - -- § a \ ! ) ) | � - = -- § § § � |, !� !,. ! )t §| ? }yg - - ,! s is t 9 $ <e\; x \ v . e \ � 2 ! e i >, e \ M ) ) || ! « ! <� - - - -- _ \� -- � \- # - - — - — - — --- - - - - -- . /�ƒ )� /§ % }\ |! 4(! � K >H- \_ :- - - - - -/ «-- - -1 - -� - - — - — - — - — - ---- - - - - -- § a \ ! ) ) | � - = -- § § § � |, !� !,. ! )t §| ? }yg - - ,! s is t 9 $ <e\; x \ v . e \ � 2 ! e i >, e \ M ) ) || ! « ! <� - - - -- _ \� -- � \- # - - — - — - — --- - - - - -- . E V6: wwJ F ZV E: �� •IFS IiVi vUryE Ez � �p��„w d�mm�J awm� v � 5 _ �' i� rrvu eooe f r I I Fs I Fg g I I f I I S` I a I - I 1Is �2 gge d� 6I� & g jll f I I � � I � I f 8 H f e - I I i I y= cv qs I �V �N ee� 5€ m E�o�!s. sg9 fl �!II I Q oi: is a o s s Si iHMls3tle .�nr � �iw a 3�3xuu�Xo i 'xH MOD vl h� U HWIaiOoa oc: ys'onx3. o ad3INd � 1—d� � ave /W Om m' VXIM1l53M HDII]PMJ C , W e 3 e 3 G 8 N 34 '=8 ( iN iill I.. 0 psi 6 gf 0 �v. a � ar a Q" se f S a 0 �v. a � ar a Q" se 6 F u> 0 v 3� F a. W1 3 z� 4 W �i A N v 3 x� �lz dEF z l offel ► a lsimmi E oil 9 . ! An dWd X311V - -- — - — — - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - aY 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - An dWd X311V - -- — - — — - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - aY ,x�=re,m dooaurN 3v�n an ,9 ' ININY(I M- l ' I ' 6 ` W nj wnvatlxg ,va6%,00+Nlaamayl�l=,o�4��xlmJtl P. : � -�6lMa tp0ia 6N4SN3 I � I gV I L– – – – – – -- – – – – – – – – Y9 II � II I II , .'i»J•1 II I � ' � I G ' I. I IL I I Cy — _. --- . —.— — _ —. —.. in I I w i, ��s I I E I I G� -- ----------- --------- - I – -- -- – -- -- -- – -- -- — � I � a I c �' --- - - - - - - - - ' - i — — — ,l3llV Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 lot of integrity. missioner Peotter noted staff should follow -up with a possible ADA Hawkins noted his concern of the dispersal requirement of 1,000. Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel Toerge Panini Cafe (PA2007 -063) 2421 E. Coast Highway squest to consider Use Permit No. 2007 -010 to allow the operation of a 3,82C luare -foot, full - service restaurant with a net public area of 640 square feet and tc low alcoholic beverage service Type "41° ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wine ating Place). Request for Accessory Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 to allow the >eration of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the oposed restaurant and an approval of Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 justify the off - street parking requirement utilizing the off -site property located al Corporate Plaza. Ling gave an overview of the staff report and noted staff had received the Commissioners and from the public, copies which have been Toerge asked if there was a requirement for parking for a . Alford answered that for a take -out service restaurant, the parking is o ace for every 50 square feet plus one for each employee on duty. It also refe the section of the Code that allows the Planning Commission to establish ige for take -out service establishments from 1 space for each 30 -50 square r blic area. )ner Hillgren asked about the crime rate notation. Ms. Ung made to 17 %. ,mmissioner Toerge noted if the restaurant is proposing to do both, take out down, how do you reconcile both of them? Alford answered that it gives you the latitude within that range from 30- are feet of net public area and take into consideration the various aspects operation such as the design characteristics of the number of tables and se outdoor dining. missioner Toerge clarified that it could be a determination of 1 per 40 squ or 1 per 30 square feet, based on characteristics. The amount of a led for take -out might help us to assess whether 1 parking space for re feet or 1 for 30 square feet which would increase the parking. issioner Eaton asked about the off -site parking spaces that V lost, then int has to find substitute parking or reduce the capacity in proportion to Page 17 of 23 PA2007 -063 Approved http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 05/27/2008 WA, Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 spaces lost. If the employee parking spaces are lost, how does Ung answered that should the off -site parking be lost, the nission or Director has the authority to re- evaluate their parking arr to determine the appropriate ratio. Discussion continued of I Edwards, representing Panini Cafe, distributed copies of his presentation referred to during his discussion. He noted the applicant has read and agr the staff report; however, questions Condition 19 regarding the constructioi trash enclosure. He discussed the proposed street elevation compared to isting street elevation, proposed alley elevation compared to the existing a ovation, proposed dining area layout compared to the existing layout, restrc Alities comparisons, kitchen facilities comparisons, patio dining comparisc iployee parking plan, proposed valet management layout for 17 vehicles, erall vehicular circulation. assy Farzine, real estate agent for Panini, noted she has reviewed the st port, noted the number of support letters received and that this is not an openi a new restaurant bar; it is about re- locating an existing cafe and eatery that h ;en in business for many years. The busiest times for the restaurant are aturday and Sunday mornings for breakfast and brunch service and is case ning. Panini will not add any night life or congestion to the area; it is only looki relocate to provide better service to its patrons. 31% of the restaurant patrc A to the establishment. Panini is proposing on -site valet parking. She asked cpand the latitude of the parking ratio of 1 space to 50 square feet due to i nount of walk -in traffic and allow this relocation. II Edwards noted condition 19 regarding the trash enclosure. We are prol trash enclosure with a locked door and a trash drop in the back of the k gel down into the trash receptacle. To have a lid would prevent the aeration from functioning. It is a water -tight enclosure. agreed. nissioner Eaton noted his concern of the off -site employee parking that distant from the site. Is there a way to oversee this parking? Would yc to a condition of approval for a review of the operation in six months or Edwards agreed to the additional condition for review and the employees u signing an agreement regarding parking off -site at 7 Corporate Plaza. The be a method of electronic enforcement as well. He requested condition 44 act 16 vehicles parked on site in the parking garage. r. Tony Brine noted the only plan he could approve was the one with 12 cars e garage. The applicant has now submitted another plan with angled parki paces and different turning movements that staff cannot support as there is n lequate turning radius provided. The original plan with 12 vehicles in the gara the only one we could approve. He added that using the van accessible loadi ea as a hammerhead turnaround is not acceptable. on the valet parking, turning radius, not using the van stripped Page 18 of 23 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 05/27/2008 �s3 Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 add up to 16 vehicles, parallel spaces, operation of ingress and egress. comment was opened. in Morgan, local resident, noted the parking is problematic even with the walk -ir cipated. He presented a hand -out and made reference to it during his speech. noted the several restaurants using the alley, parking and the use of on -stree king. He ended saying this relocation will only add to the already congestec king, egress and ingress in the alley. ak Keefer of Ameripark West, noted he parked the cars in the garage for tl ious tenant. He noted SUV's cannot be parked in this garage. This is ing garage, not a valet operation inside a parking garage. In order to mal happen you would have to queue the cars outside the garage. Stacking ca ide would block all the alley traffic. He noted the problems with cars comic going, turning radius and parking. At Commission inquiry, he noted t pany operates the valet parking for the Bungalow. McDaniel asked how wide and long the proposed 16 are. He was answered they are a little over 9 feet and are not Crespin, representing 29 homeowners south of the block on Acacia, Carne Begonia Avenues, distributed petitions signed in opposition to this propc act due to the traffic and congestion. The argument that there is parking sF that there will be no congestion arising from this is specious because you ing facts that are not accurate. You have received information contrary to :rtion. Customers do not always accept valet parking and will park themse rever they can find a space. She noted the problems with the large trn ;ed in the alleyway servicing the restaurants and asked that this be considE no the deliberation. Lorenz, local resident noted there will be four restaurants on one comer, tl ABC licenses and a new one that will be operating from morning until ing. That impacts all the other retail uses and the people who occupy buildings. This building was built as a retail use and will require exten idel. He urged that this project not be allowed. De Carion, appearing on behalf of the Bungalow noted this restaurant ut 50% larger than the Bungalow and has 50% less parking in total if y, ide the fact that people will be parking a substantial distance away and walkii )ss Coast Highway. A real issue is that the Bungalow is on a private alley ai parking belongs to Bungalow and Golden Spoon. Access is off Carnation or Bungalow lot and there will be no way to differentiate the customers. There agreement for Bungalow to park Panini traffic. Stacking is an issue. nmission inquiry he noted that the Bungalow is 2,900 square feet with sired parking of 40 spaces. They have 44 spaces. Discussion continued parking. Nichols, local resident, noted this is the worst parking area in the City. iosed employee parking is not practical. This building is a dry goods store you are making a restaurant out of it. This is not an appropriate or prat for this building. Page 19 of 23 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 05/27/2008 �A Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Berry, owner of the property of the Bungalow and Golden Spoon, presented ram depicting the proposed traffic flow of potential Panini customers. It will n and is not a practical plan. n Walker, owner and operator of the Bungalow restaurant, noted the propos ilding design is spectacular and the frontage will be an improvement from wt there currently. His concern is the parking. He currently has 44 spaces for I >taurant and another 30 spaces he uses on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday a iturday nights. He noted that all the restaurants within that community are op dinner and that is when the traffic issues begin. This proposed building It s a low demand parking requirement and that generally closed at 5 or 6 in t ening will now become a restaurant with evening hours and will cause tral ngestion in this small tight alleyway. He noted he has tried to coordine liveries; however, you can not dictate to any supplier what time they are going liver. They determine that based on their load, traffic conditions, etc. I respe intent, but the reality is it doesn't work that way. The delivery trucks in t eyway do block it as the alley is narrow. This is not a good use of the prope d will make conditions worse. rk Susson, local resident, noted the issue is parking and questioned whether you fit the requisite number of cars in that garage. If there is enough room, it. If not, then you will have to figure something out. comment was closed. Cole asked the reason for using the 1 per 40 square feet or 1 square feet. Lepo answered that is determined by what traditionally has been used by aurant with some take out and sit down service. This is a convention that h i historically used. Compared to other restaurants, it would depend on IN permits and when they were approved. mmissioner Toerge noted Panini is a successful restaurant. An approved L rmit runs with the land. As land planners we need to assure that any busine restaurant that wants to improve itself is not done so at the expense of reside other businesses in the area. If the commercial application can contain pact on site, then it gains support. To the degree the impacts generate iers, we need to address that. is a very limited area in back of those restaurants. Any business that local !re is going to have deliveries. Our Code requires that convenient parking ovided for residents, guests and patrons. It should not be difficult to mainta -ative off -site parking nor should it be difficult to enforce. There is no location s plan for off -site queuing of cars while working the valet operation. I avoid va irking as much as I can and I usually park on the street because I want to re that some young man is not driving my car. The issue of walk -in patrons lical. The proposed employee parking is a quarter mile away. The agreeme th the employees will be difficult to manage. Our Code requires that off -s irking agreements have to be permanent in nature. Five years with a five -ye lion is not permanent and the last thing I want to do is to tell Panini's they ha cut their service because they've lost parking. The amount of investmE !eded in this building to make it work is substantial and to me it puts too mu essure on the City to have to compromise the operation due to this potential to Page 20 of 23 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 05/27/2008 �5 Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 parking which is clearly not permanent as our Code requires. appropriateness of using an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit for a ne ablishment is contrary to the intent, which was to allow existing restaurants )and its floor area up to 25% of its public area not to exceed 1,000 square fe hout providing any parking. That policy was created in the early '90's whi oking was banned in restaurants, in order to help the complaining restaurar t were struggling because they lost clientele. This permit was an effort to he sting restaurants that already met the parking requirement to take advantage ne areas that does not impact parking but allow them to use the outdoor dinii gas. The Code clearly says it is to be used for existing restaurants. When N application is going to great expense to remove walls, roofs and floor area jt create outdoor dining for which they do not have to provide parking, this inaenuous and not consistent with the code. Code states roof coverings shall not have the affect of creating a )sure. This area is already enclosed and covered. Edwards noted they are pulling back the building mass and there will be inas over this area with heaters. ssioner Toerge noted a couple of restaurants have used this Code in i certainly don't think it is appropriate to encourage this kind of creation space in an effort to not provide parking. For all these reasons and i on the area, I cannot support this proposal. Alon was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner approve Use Permit 2007 -010, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 d Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 with the modification to Conc changing the parking number from 12 to 16. ioner Eaton asked for an additional condition for an annual review by Commission. 3 discussion on a parking management plan and the benefit of a it was agreed to add this new condition. missioner Eaton noted the issues raised in the petition about concentration iurants and liquor and I don't think those are critical to this issue. There cot be a concentration but that is not a reason to vote against this. If there e night liquor problems in the neighborhood, I don't think it is from tl Dlishment as they close at 10. The overall parking is an issue. He not loyee parking is critical, valet operation is key, the amount of walk mage makes a difference, the amount of the garage vehicle parking increa the annual review of the operation. He added that this can be operat onably well if they are diligent in their responsibility to do so. Ung requested the deletion of Condition 46 as it is no longer applicable to Edwards, on behalf of the applicant, accepts the revisions to the conditions. Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Toerge Page 21 of 23 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 05/27/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 22 of 23 ecused None xxx OBJECT: Knight Appeal (PA2007 -137) ITEM NO. 5 312 Hazel Drive PA2007 -112 An appeal by Diane Knight of the Planning Director's interpretation regarding the Continued to pplication of a development stringline. (setback) determined pursuant to Genera 10/04/2007 Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 23.6 to property located at 312 Haze 3rive. his item was continued to October 4, 2007 at the request of the appellant. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commission eotter to continue this item to Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recused: None xxx OBJECT: Special November Meeting of the Planning Commission. Discussion Item Only Mr. Lepo requested that the discussion item regarding a special November meeting of the Planning Commission at the request of Hoag Hospital be nsidered prior to the agenda items. It was agreed. Approved Or. Lepo noted staff would accommodate both the Planning Commission and oag and suggested that the meeting for November 8th be cancelled and hold a eeting on November 15th. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Col to cancel the November 8th meeting and to hold a meeting on November 15th for he Hoag Health Center CUP. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recused: None xxx ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo stated that at the last Council meeting the Code Amendments on mechanical screening on rooftops and ground, and the Development Agreement for Pacific View Memorial Park were approved. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee Chairman Hawkins reported that the Public Works Director gave a presentation on the Capital Improvement projects. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton reported that there was a discussion on fair http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 05/27/2008 �1 RESOLUTION NO. 1732 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2007 -010, ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 2007 -001, AND OFF - SITE PARKING AGREEMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2421 COAST HIGHWAY (PA2007 -063) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Collection Investments Corona del Mar, Inc. with respect to property located at 2421 Coast Highway, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 68, page 8 of Parcel Maps Records of Orange County, requesting a Use Permit approval to operate a 3,820 square -foot full - service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment with a net public area of 640 square feet, and to allow alcohol beverage service of beer and wine with a Type "41" ABC License (On- Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place); Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit approval to allow the construction and operation of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the proposed full - service restaurant; and Off -site Parking Agreement approval of 10 spaces to satisfy the off - street parking requirement for the proposed restaurant utilizing the off -site property located at 7 Corporate Plaza; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2007, the Planning Commission held a noticed hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing; and WHEREAS, a use permit for the proposed restaurant has been prepared in accordance with Section 20.91.035 of the Municipal Code based on the following findings and facts in support of such findings: 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is located within the Retail Service Commercial (RSC) Zoning District, which is intended to provide the Corona del Mar area with commercial services for permanent residences and visitors of the area. Restaurant uses are permitted within this designation with the approval of a use permit. The operational characteristics and location of the proposed restaurant use are such that it is a community serving use with some pedestrian oriented traffic. The proposed restaurant is consistent with this designation. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, the location of the proposed Alcoholic Beverage Outlet was considered with respect to issues of public necessity and impacts to surrounding land uses. The use will provide a public convenience by offering beer and wine sales to restaurant patrons. The location of the use is considered appropriate given the fact that the site is not located in close proximity to day care centers, schools or places of religious assembly. In addition, the Police Department has reviewed the project and has no objections to the location. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 2 of 11 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed restaurant is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. All development regulations of the RSC Zoning District would be met, including building setbacks, structure height limitations and development limits. The restaurant has been conditioned in such a manner to meet the intent of the Zoning Code regulations, including any specific conditions required for the proposed restaurant and to require strict adherence to safety and noise regulations. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, approval of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet is subject to the consideration of factors relating to over - concentration of alcohol licenses, crime rates including numbers of alcohol related crimes, and impacts to the surrounding community. Detailed analysis of the ABC application is discussed below under the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance Section. The Police Department has reviewed the project and has determined that the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the proposed restaurant will not result in an increase in alcohol - related crimes and will not result in an over - concentration of alcoholic beverage outlets since the request is to transfer the existing license from the existing restaurant to the subject location. The proposed restaurant, including beer and wine sales, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any speck condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Facts in Support of Finding: The request to allow the operation of a restaurant which includes the serving of alcoholic beverages on the premises and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, are consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The request is located within the existing building that is designated and zoned for this commercial activity. The use has been conditioned in such a manner to minimize the impacts associated with it. The plan, as conditioned, meets the design and development standards for eating and drinking establishments. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.89, the project has been conditioned to avoid potential negative impacts on the surrounding community. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 3 of 11 WHEREAS, an off -site parking agreement for the 10 parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza has been prepared in accordance with Section 20.66.080, Off- Street Parking based on the following facts and findings in support of such findings: Finding: Such lot is so located to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site or sites. Facts in Support of Finding: The off -site lot is located on the north side of Coast Highway, west of Avocado Avenue. The applicant is proposing to utilize these spaces for employee parking. No valet parking will be provided. The restaurant employees will be given maps showing the location of the parking lot and will be instructed to park at the proper location. Pedestrian access is afforded at the signalized intersection at Avocado Avenue. 2. Finding: Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use of off -site parking lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. The employees will be instructed to cross Coast Highway at the pedestrian crossing at Avocado Avenue to and from the off -site parking lot. 3. Parking is permanently available, marked, and maintained for the use it is intended to serve. Facts in Support of Finding: A 5 -year term parking agreement with a 5 -year renewal option has been secured with the property owner of the off -site parking lot. Documentation has been submitted by the property owner that the off -site parking spaces have not been leased to any other business than the applicant. The provision of 10 parking spaces in the off-site lot, and the recordation of the agreement with the County Recorder's office are required to ensure the availability of the spaces for the use. WHEREAS, the following findings required for approval of an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit pursuant to Section 20.82.050 (B) of the Zoning Code: Finding: That the proposed outdoor dining is accessory to the eating and drinking establishment. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed outdoor dining area is accessory to the proposed 3,820 square -foot restaurant. The restaurant's total net public area would be 640 square feet. The applicant proposes to have an outdoor dining area of 160 square feet which is 25 percent of the net public area of the proposed restaurant and thereby is consistent with Municipal Code Section 20.82.050 (A) that limits accessory outdoor dining areas to 25 percent of the restaurant's interior net public area, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 4 of 11 2. Finding: The establishment, maintenance or operation of the accessory outdoor dining will not, under 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 or injurious to property or improvements in the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use is accessory to the proposed restaurant use which would be subject to conditions of approval that includes limitations on hours of operation and number of seating. The proposed location of the outdoor dining area would not cause potential noise impacts to the nearby residential uses. 3. Finding: That the proposed accessory outdoor dining will not be located so as to result in reduction of existing parking spaces. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed outdoor dining area will be located in front the existing building, adjacent to the public right -a -way along Coast Highway, and thereby will not result in a reduction of the existing parking spaces located in the parking garage. Section 20.82.050 (A) of the Municipal Code does not require additional parking for accessory outdoor dining areas. WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed interior improvements to accommodate the new restaurant are minor in nature and are within the tenant space formerly occupied by a retail commercial use. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorney's fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Use Permit No. 2007 -010, Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006, subject to Conditions of Approvals in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part hereof. Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1i\ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 5 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007. Robert Hawkins, Chairman Bradley Hillgren, Secretary AYES: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins. McDaniel and Hillaren NOES: Toerae otx City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 11 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007 -010, OFF -SITE PARKING AGREEMENT NO. 2007 -001 & ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 2007 -006 Conditions in bold - italics are project specific conditions. All others are standards conditions. Planning Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan and floor plan dated August 27, 2007. 2. The total net public area for the entire restaurant shall not exceed 640 square feet and 36 seats. 3. The accessory outdoor dining area shall be limited to 160 sq. ft and 12 seats. 4. The hours of operation of the restaurant including the outdoor dining area are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily. 5. The accessory outdoor dining area shall be used in conjunction with the proposed full - service restaurant No special events, promotional activities, private functions or private parties shall be allowed within the outdoor dining area. 6. No amplified music or entertainment is permitted in the outdoor dining area. No outside paging system, loudspeaker or other noise generating device shall be utilized in conjunction with this outdoor dining area. 7. Roof coverings over the outdoor dining area shall not have the effect of creating a permanent enclosure. The use of any other type of overhead covering shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director and may require an amendment to this permit 8. A total of 22 parking spaces: 12 on -site and 10 off -site shall be provided at all times. 9. The 10 off-site parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza shall be designated and used for employee self - parking only. No patron parking shall be allowed at any given time. 10. An off -site parking agreement, subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney's office, shall be recorded. The agreement shall guarantee a a3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 11 total of 10 off -street parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza for the use authorized on the subject property. 11. Ali parking in conjunction with the subject property shall be confined to the parking areas over which the applicant, owner or operator has written rights to park. If, in the opinion of the Planning Director or City Traffic Engineer, the restaurant creates parking congestion at the sites, the applicant shall immediately resolve the congestion problem by reducing restaurant seating or increasing parking attendants or through other means until the parking congestion is eliminated and parking is property managed. The Planning Director or City Traffic Engineer has the discretion to require the preparation of a revised valet operation parking management plan. 12. The applicant or operator of the restaurant that approved off -site spaces to satisfy the required parking shall immediately notify the Planning Director of any change of ownership or use of the property where the spaces are located, or of the property for which the spaces are required, and of any termination or default of the agreement between the parties. 13. Upon notification that the agreement for the required off -site parking has terminated, the Planning Director shall establish a reasonable time in which one of the following shall occur. a. Substitute parking is provided that is acceptable to the Director; or b. The size or capacity of the restaurant use is reduced in proportion to the parking spaces lost. 14. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted restaurant use. 15. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. 16. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the existing use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code. 17. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, accessory outdoor dining permit, off -site parking agreement or revoke these approvals upon a finding of failure to comply with the conditions set forth in Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code or other applicable conditions and regulations governing the food establishment. The Planning Commission may also revoke these permits and agreement upon a determination that the 1►! City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 11 operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 18. These approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 19. A new trash enclosure with three masonry walls and a self - locking gate shall be constructed. All trash shall be stored within water -tight trash containers stored within the trash enclosure. The watertight trash containers shall have a lid or top that remains closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 20. The applicant shall maintain the watertight trash containers or receptacles so as to control odors, which may include the provision of fully self- contained containers or may include periodic steam cleaning of the containers, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 21. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage, and liter generated by the use. Employees of the premises shall pick up trash from the ground of the trash enclosure on a daily basis. 22. All deliveries shall be scheduled outside of peak operating hours of the use so that all access will not be blocked No deliveries shall be permitted before 7 :00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. 23. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on site or off -site, to advertise the proposed food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by both the Public Works Department and Caltrans in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement from each. 24. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and maintained and the area drain 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. Washing of refuse containers or restaurant equipment shall be prohibited in the parking lot and public alley. 25 The use of the rear entry door shall be prohibited between the hours of 11 :00pm and 6 :00am. 05 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 11 26. Any change in operational characteristics and /or hours of operation of the restaurant, shall require amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 27. 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 agent. 28. No audible paging system or speaker system shall be utilized any where on the premises at any time. 29. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 30. Full menu food service shall be available for ordering at all times that the restaurant establishment is open for business. 31. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. If the operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances, the Planning Commission may review, modify or revoke this Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code. 32. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be a Type 41 in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 33. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. , City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 10 of 11 34. Any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the restaurant owner or his employees or representatives share in any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks is prohibited. 35. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the license. 36. No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed except when served in conjunction with food ordered from the full service menu. 3T There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs that are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 38. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food and retail sales during the same period. The licensee shall maintain records that reflect separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand. 39. The use permit approval does not permit the premises to operate as a bar, tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub as defined by the Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves a use permit. 40. Petitioner shall not share any profits or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or the sales of drinks. 41. A noticed twelve -month review by the Planning Commission, from the date of commencement of the restaurant operation, shall be required. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to call for an earlier review if needed Public Works Department 42. 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 providing periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. Q1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 11 of 11 43. The existing garage opening shall be maintained at W-911 to accommodate two -way traffic into and out of the garage. 44. The clearance height shall be clear posted at the entrance to the parking area above the opening. 45. The valet parking shall be provided during all business hours. The valet operation shall be staffed in a manner to eliminate back up /storage of vehicles on public property. No more than 16 vehicles shall be parked on site at one time. 46. Valet signage shall not be placed within the public right -of -way. 47. Valet drop -off, pick -up, and deliveries shall occur via the alley within the subject property. Valet operations and deliveries shall not impact ingress and egress to the adjacent commercial and residential properties. 48. No portion of the accessory outdoor dining area including any patio cover /awning shall extend into the public right -of -way. 49. The daily cleaning of the accessory outdoor dining area shall not be swept, washed, or blown into the public right -of -way. Building Department 50. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 51. A grease interceptor shall be provided. 52. Structural analysis for the change of occupancy shall be required. 53. A van - accessible handicap parking space with an eight -foot accessible loading area shall be provided and maintained. The applicant shall coordinate with the Building Department for ADA compliance. Fire Department 54. A 5 -year certification shall be required for the fire sprinkler system. 55. A Type 1 Hood and Kitchen Suppression System shall be required. J� EXHIBIT 3 PARKING & INTERNAL CIRCULATION ANALYSIS BY LSA LSA March 31, 2008 RIVERSIDE LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. BERKELEY FRESNO ROCKLIN 2D EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 20D 999.559.0666 TEL CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92616 969.552.8076 FAX PORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Ms. Catherine Biggers Director of Design Panini Hospitality Group 17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 Subject: Panini Cafe Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis Dear Ms. Biggers: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to present this analysis of parking and internal circulation at the proposed Panini Caf6 location at 2421 East Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach (City). The purpose of this analysis is to review proposed parking layouts and management plans, evaluate the proposed plans in terms of meeting City criteria, and, if necessary, provide recommendations to improve parking supplyllayout and circulation around the restaurant. In preparation for this analysis, LSA reviewed project application materials, published Newport Beach staff reports, and parking/traffic management plans. LSA also had discussions with your office and with Ms. Rosalinh Ung, an Associate Planner with the City. Based on our current review, LSA understands that the staff and Planning Commission generally supported the proposed parking layout and management plan, which identified 12 on -site parking spaces and 10 off -site parking spaces for employees. The applicant's agent suggests that the on -site supply can reach up to 16 parking spaces (using 4 tandem spaces) that would equal the required parking supply per City code. City staff have concluded that the proposed/acknowledged 22 spaces exceed the City requirement and are satisfactory. Subsequent to the Planning Commission action and in response to public comments, City staff and City officials have raised some new concerns regarding circulation to the parking area that relies on entry from an alley along the rear of the building. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Panini Cafe is currently located at 2333 East Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The owner is proposing to move four doors down to 2421 East Coast Highway, into a building that used to house the Persian rug retailer Orient Handel. The new restaurant will be 3,820 square feet (sf) with a net public area of 640 sf. This net public area will accommodate 36 seats. In addition, the new restaurant will provide a 160 sf outdoor patio facing East Coast Highway that will accommodate an additional 12 seats. The applicant reports that approximately 30 percent of their current patrons walk to the restaurant from the nearby neighborhood. The applicant states that the restaurant will not provide live entertainment or dancing. Hours of operation for the restaurant will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. Newport Beach Municipal Code allows some flexibility based on operational characteristics when determining required parking for restaurants. Standards range from I parking space for each 30 sf of net public 03/31108 aRTHU070ITanim Parking; ELH.docn PLANNING i ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN \0 LEA ASSOCIATES. IMO. area to 1 parking space for each 50 sf of net public area. Outdoor dining areas are excluded from this calculation because they cannot be utilized in all weather conditions. The City has stated it expects Panini Cafe to experience high patron turnover. The City believes menu items that are quickly prepared and a lack of live entertainment will lead to shorter dining experiences. The Planning Commission agreed with City staffs recommendation to require 1 parking space for each 40 sf of net public serving area. Therefore, a total of 16 parking spaces are required for the 640 sf of dining area. It should be noted that the same 16 parking spaces would be required if the City applied a standard of 1 parking space for each 50 sf of net public area to the entire 800 sf (indoor and outdoor) dining area. The provision of 16 parking spaces for Panini Cafe is within City standards even when both dining areas are considered. Parini Cafe plans to satisfy its parking requirement in two ways. First, Panini Cafe will provide valet service to maximize the utilization of the parking space in their garage. Valet services will be provided to patrons free of charge. Second, the applicant has entered into an agreement that will allow its employees to use 10 parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza. Descriptions of valet operations and employee parking are located in the following section. LOCATION OVERVIEW Parking Locations Figure 1 provides an overview of the parking context near Panini Cafe. On- street parking is allowed on East Coast Highway but is limited to I hour between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is allowed on Begonia Avenue except on Wednesdays between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. for street sweeping. Nine parking spaces are located on Begonia Avenue between East Coast Highway and the beginning of the residential neighborhood. Parking is also allowed on Carnation Avenue except on Tuesdays between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. for street sweeping. Six parking spaces are located on Carnation Avenue between East Coast Highway and the beginning of the residential neighborhood. In addition to on -street parking adjacent to commercial uses, parking exists along the primarily residential streets of Begonia Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Fourth Avenue. LSA surveyed parking on these streets between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to determine the availability of parking when residents return home from work. Table A displays the results of this survey. LSA used an estimate of 25 feet per curbside parking space to determine the parking supply. LSA also assumed that vehicles would avoid redzones and blocking driveways. The result was a calculation that 34 vehicles can park on Fourth Avenue between Acacia Avenue and Carnation Avenue, 48 vehicles can park on Begonia Avenue between East Coast Highway and Third Avenue, and 41 vehicles can park on Carnation Avenue between East Coast Highway and 3rd Avenue. The survey revealed that Fourth Avenue experiences the least parking availability. Only two spaces were available at 6:00 p.m., and the street was essentially full after that time. Begonia Avenue and Carnation Avenue continued to have available parking spaces throughout the time surveyed. Total parking availability decreased dramatically between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Between these two times the number of available parking spaces decreased from 42 to 28. 03/31/08 a P:THUG701\Panjni Puking3 ELH.dmc \0 LS A 0 10 Employee Parking Spaces Located Off Site at 7 Corporate Plaza 7 Parking Spaces Designated for Bungalow 9 Parking Spaces Located on Begonia Avenue between East Coast Restaurant Patrons and 5 Parking Spaces Highway and the Beginning of Residences Designated for Golden Spoon Patrons 13 Standard and 1 Disabled Paulding Spaces Reserved for (} 10 Parking Spaces Reserved for N Rothschild's Restaurant 2435 East Coast Highway 7 Parking Spaces Reserved for Patrons of 2411 East Coast 0 6 Parking Spaces Located on Carnation Highway, Including Wine Gallery Avenue Between East Coast Highway Q 15 Standard and 1 Disabled Parking Spaces Reserved her Point Cafe and the Beginning of Residences 0 6 Standard and 1 Disabled Parking Spaces Located Near Both the m Parking t of Newport 31 Standard o tea aso Bungalow Restaurant and Golden Spoon Containing Standard Spaces ® and 1 Disabled Padding Space FEETWPRCOUM E) AERIAL SOURCE: MapQuest FIGURE I Panini Cafe Locations 1:tPHU0701 \G\Pavking Loavionsxdr (2/18/08) bib LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Table A: On-street Parking Availability The 10 employee parking spaces are located near the intersection of East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue within a quarter mile (approximately 1,000 feet) from Panini Cafe's new location. Two streets, Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway, have to be crossed when walking between Parini Cafe and the employee parking spaces. LSA walked the distance at a moderate pace. Walking to the employee parking spaces required waiting for two walk signals at intersections and took 9 minutes. Returning to Panini Cafe required less waiting for walk signals at intersections and took only 5 minutes. It is therefore estimated that an employee would require 7 minutes on average to travel between work and their car, a satisfactory distance and duration for an employee walking to work. Without a commitment from Panini Cafe to ensure that its employees will park in this designated area, some employees would be inclined to park in the residential neighborhood to experience a shorter walk to work. Table A shows that 10 parking spaces are available in the residential neighborhood. But the number of available spaces quickly decreases between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., when residents begin arriving home. Restaurant employees parking in the residential neighborhood may displace residents. This potential is particularly acute on Fourth Avenue, where there are no available parking spaces after 6:00 p.m. The potential for a parking impact on residents underscores the necessity that Panini Caf6 commit to enforcing its employee parking plan. Previously, the garage at 2421 East Coast Highway held 17 vehicles but did not provide a disabled parking space. The applicant is providing a disabled parking space and believes that valet services will provide 16 total parking spaces in the garage. This parking plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The City, however, has a parking policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car." In order to accommodate 16 vehicles, the valets would have to park vehicles 6, 7, 11, and 14 in a way that blocks other vehicles. Because of this the City is only willing to approve credit for 12 parking spaces in the garage. The combination of valet and employee spaces exceeds the amount required. Additionally, Panini Cafe will have a total of 48 seats inside and on their patio. These seats are arranged four per table around 12 tables. Given that each table of diners is likely to arrive in the same vehicle, even the lowest number accepted by the City is likely to accommodate all of the restaurant's patrons. The occasions when multiple vehicles will be used to transport one party are likely to be less frequent than 03131!06 «PAPHU0701Tanini Parldng3 ELHA«» 4 Cb� 4th Avenue Acacia Ave to Carnation Ave 34 Total Begonia Avenue Coast Hwy to 3rd Ave 48 Total Carnation Avenue Coast Hwy to 3rd Ave (41 Total) Total Available 4:00 p.m. 23 27 28 45 4:30 p.m. 22 28 27 46 5:00 p.m. 24 30 28 41 5:30 p.m. 22 28 24 49 6:00 p.m 32 28 21 42 6:30 p.m 34 37 24 28 7:00 p.m. 35 R 23 29 7:30 p.m. 34 38 28 23 8:00 .m. 33 39 29 22 The 10 employee parking spaces are located near the intersection of East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue within a quarter mile (approximately 1,000 feet) from Panini Cafe's new location. Two streets, Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway, have to be crossed when walking between Parini Cafe and the employee parking spaces. LSA walked the distance at a moderate pace. Walking to the employee parking spaces required waiting for two walk signals at intersections and took 9 minutes. Returning to Panini Cafe required less waiting for walk signals at intersections and took only 5 minutes. It is therefore estimated that an employee would require 7 minutes on average to travel between work and their car, a satisfactory distance and duration for an employee walking to work. Without a commitment from Panini Cafe to ensure that its employees will park in this designated area, some employees would be inclined to park in the residential neighborhood to experience a shorter walk to work. Table A shows that 10 parking spaces are available in the residential neighborhood. But the number of available spaces quickly decreases between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., when residents begin arriving home. Restaurant employees parking in the residential neighborhood may displace residents. This potential is particularly acute on Fourth Avenue, where there are no available parking spaces after 6:00 p.m. The potential for a parking impact on residents underscores the necessity that Panini Caf6 commit to enforcing its employee parking plan. Previously, the garage at 2421 East Coast Highway held 17 vehicles but did not provide a disabled parking space. The applicant is providing a disabled parking space and believes that valet services will provide 16 total parking spaces in the garage. This parking plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The City, however, has a parking policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car." In order to accommodate 16 vehicles, the valets would have to park vehicles 6, 7, 11, and 14 in a way that blocks other vehicles. Because of this the City is only willing to approve credit for 12 parking spaces in the garage. The combination of valet and employee spaces exceeds the amount required. Additionally, Panini Cafe will have a total of 48 seats inside and on their patio. These seats are arranged four per table around 12 tables. Given that each table of diners is likely to arrive in the same vehicle, even the lowest number accepted by the City is likely to accommodate all of the restaurant's patrons. The occasions when multiple vehicles will be used to transport one party are likely to be less frequent than 03131!06 «PAPHU0701Tanini Parldng3 ELHA«» 4 Cb� E a 0 3 X65 S � c� a a 3 a U z � q w w � a d E a 0 3 X65 S c� 3 a U z � E a 0 3 X65 LSA ASSOCIATES, [NU. the occasions when a party will walk to the restaurant if the current trend of 30 percent pedestrian patrons continues. Rothschild's Restaurant and The Bungalow, restaurants within the same block, both provide valet parking in the evenings. Patrons who do not wish to utilize valet services have the option of the 15 on -street parking spaces adjacent to commercial development, or they can utilize a City of Newport Beach parking lot located at the corner of 4th Avenue and Dahlia Avenue. This parking lot contains 31 standard parking spaces and one disabled parking space. It is metered from 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. but has a 12 -hour time limit. Existing Alley Traffic LSA hired Southland Car Counters to survey evening traffic in the alley on a weekday and on a Saturday. Evening hours were chosen because Panini Caf6 is busiest during the evening at its existing location and The Bungalow is only open during these hours. The count was conducted at the center of the alley, near the entrance to the Panini Cafe parking garage. Results of this count are provided below in Table B. At the highest observed rate of traffic, one vehicle passed through the alley every 2 minutes. Typical rates were less than one vehicle every 3 minutes. The addition of traffic to and from Panini Cafe's parking garage will be within the roadway's capacity and will not create excessive congestion or conflicts. Table B. Observed Alley Traffic Volume VALET ALTERNATIVES Various alternative valet circulation plans have been suggested that have different benefits and impacts. LSA examined the various valet plans and a qualitative analysis of these alternatives is provided below. Option 1: Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley The alternative requiring the least alteration of the existing streets and alleys was the one originally proposed by the applicant. In this alternative, Panini Caf€ would post a sign at the front of their property directing motorists to valet parking in the rear. This would be similar to The Bungalow's sign shown here. Motorists would drive their car through the alley and n,,:,. _ ' ; .'fig - into Panini Cafe's parking garage where the valet stand would be located. In this scenario, a queue of 03/31/08 «PiPHU070AP=ini Puking3 ELH.dw- b �b(P Thursday, January 31 2008 Saturday, February 2 2008 Eastbound Westbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 12 9 21 11 7 18 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4 7 11 8 9 17 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P,M. 7 5 12 13 4 17 9:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M 8 3 11 6 7 13 10:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. 16 11 27 4 5 9 VALET ALTERNATIVES Various alternative valet circulation plans have been suggested that have different benefits and impacts. LSA examined the various valet plans and a qualitative analysis of these alternatives is provided below. Option 1: Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley The alternative requiring the least alteration of the existing streets and alleys was the one originally proposed by the applicant. In this alternative, Panini Caf€ would post a sign at the front of their property directing motorists to valet parking in the rear. This would be similar to The Bungalow's sign shown here. Motorists would drive their car through the alley and n,,:,. _ ' ; .'fig - into Panini Cafe's parking garage where the valet stand would be located. In this scenario, a queue of 03/31/08 «PiPHU070AP=ini Puking3 ELH.dw- b �b(P Lew "SOCIATEB, INC. two vehicles could fit on Panini Cafe's property. This is similar to The Bungalow, which can queue three vehicles before affecting traffic entering the alley from Carnation Avenue. Even though two westbound lanes access the alley from Carnation Avenue, valet operations at The Bungalow is likely to block the alley to through traffic. This would cause vehicles traveling to the Panini Cafe garage to queue with vehicles travelling to The Bungalow. One outcome of this option is that it would require a sign in the alley that would direct motorists into the garage. The sign should be lit from an angle so that the light source points away from adjacent residences. Another issue is that patrons could enter the alley from either direction and not form a single queue. An advantage of this option is that it does not require altering an alley that many people are accustomed to traveling. Option 2: Valet Stand on East Coast Highway Two on- street parking spaces sit directly in front of Panini Cafe's new location. This is a possible location for a valet stand in the evenings. The speed limit on East Coast Highway, in the vicinity of the project site, is 35 miles per hour. In this segment, the curbside lane is wider than two car widths and a buffer exists between parked vehicles and traveling vehicles. This, when combined with parked cars just to the west on East Coast Highway, provides protection for a valet stand. In this scenario, patrons would pull into the area immediately in front of the restaurant. A parking attendant would drive the vehicle to and from the garage in a circular path (East Coast Highway to Carnation Avenue to the alley to Begonia Avenue to East Coast Highway). An advantage to this option is that it places patrons at the front door of the restaurant. It also allows valet signage to be better lit while eliminating the need for additional illumination and a sign in the alley. A potential impact is that a queue longer than two vehicles could develop and interfere with traffic on East Coast Highway. Another potential impact is that, with such a prominent location in front, the Panini Cafe valet stand could be mistaken as a valet stand serving multiple restaurants within close proximity, thus creating confusion along a high- volume, high -speed arterial. For this reason, this option is not recommended. Option 3: Valet Stand in One -Way Alley The entrance to the alley from Carnation Avenue, near The Bungalow, is currently striped as an entrance only (as pictured here). One suggestion for streamlining traffic flow in the alley would be to continue this striping a] I the way through and make the alley one -way westbound from Carnation Avenue to Begonia Avenue. With this alteration to the alley, a valet stand inside the Panini Cafe parking garage would be ensured of a queue in a single direction. 03/31108 «P.1PHU0701%Pmini Parldng3 ELH.dx- -/ ^ 10 l LSA ASE 0 Q IATES. IN O. This scenario, however, would still require signage in the alley. It also has the potential to increase the number of vehicles traversing the alley because patrons of Rothschild's Restaurant and the Wine Gallery would have to enter at Carnation Avenue instead of Begonia Avenue. This would also make a one -way alley difficult to enforce. For these reasons and the inconvenience to residents who use the alley for access, this option is not recommended. Option 4: Parking Reconfiguration And Mixed Valet Operations This option suggests reconfiguring the surface parking lot and establishing one valet stand that would serve 2421, 2435, 2411, and 2445 East Coast Highway. The valet for these businesses would be able to park customers' vehicles in the parking garage or on the reconfigured surface lot. Twenty -eight parking spaces currently exist in separate parking areas for The Bungalow, Golden Spoon, and 2435 East Coast Highway. The combined total area of these parking areas (designated on Figure 1 as 6, 7, and 8) is approximately 9,000 square feet. Reconfiguring this space to take advantage of common access aisles will result in greater parking efficiency. According to the Urban Land Institute Dimensions of Parking, Fourth Edition, 270 to 300 square feet per parking space is a reasonable estimate for a surface parking lot. This would result in two to five more parking spaces than currently exist. Tandem parking or other valet operations within the City's "move one car to get one car" standard would likely result in even more parking spaces. Detailed striping plans could be produced to determine the exact number of potential parking spaces if there is interest in pursing this option. Businesses occupying 2435 East Coast Highway are primarily personal and professional services. Most of those businesses have low parking demand in the evening hours when the restaurants have their highest demand. A shared parking lot would result in greater available parking for customers of 2435 East Coast Highway when their demand is highest and greater available parking for restaurant customers when their demand is highest. When the reconfigured surface parking lot is designed, a location for the valet stand can be chosen that provides more stacking capacity than currently exists for The Bungalow. Two challenges could interfere with the implementation of this option. First, this option would require the consensus of four land owners and multiple tenants within one of the buildings. Second, the option requires more construction than any of the other options. The extent of construction is not known at this time, but could be quantified at a later date. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed parking plan does not require a radical departure from existing practices in the alley behind the proposed location for Panini Cafe. Panini Caf6 will be located in an existing building. The parking garage has historically been used for valet parking for nearby restaurants and the applicant's proposal to use those spaces for his own property will not present an additional hazard. Panini CaM does plan to make one design modification. Stairs at the rear of the building that currently extend into a 10 -foot setback will be altered so that the setback is kept clear. This will provide a minor benefit by removing an obstruction from the required setback. 03/31/08 uP:NHU0701\Panini Pa king3 EtrlAoc. 6 r r.sAASSOOU.zaS, ixa. The circulation necessary for Option 1 would not present a new hazard. Option I also has the advantage of requiring the least variation from the current practice of valet parking operations at existing nearby restaurants. Option 2 would introduce a pedestrian movement in a public right -of- way, which, when coupled with a potential for driver confusion, presents a potential hazard and is therefore not recommended. Option 3, the creation of a one -way alley, also has the potential to induce driver confusion. Restricting turn movements from Begonia Avenue would be difficult to enforce. Turning vehicles present a potential hazard to vehicles and pedestrians in the alley that expect compliance. For this reason, Option 3 is not recommended. Option 4 requires the consensus of multiple parties and reconstruction of the surface parking areas. Because the proposed parking plan and circulation necessary for Option 1 do not present new hazards or require new construction, Option 1 is the preferred alternative. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. " l Anthony Petros Principal 03131/08 4 -APHU0 ITanini Parldng3 Er.H.dw. Y �0 EXHIBIT 4 INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research X P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 County Clerk, County of Orange F Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Public Review Period: April 18, 2008 through May 19, 2008 Name of Project: Panini Cafe (UP 2007 -010) Name of Project Proponent: Collection Investments (c/o Panini Hospitality Group) 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92614 Project Location: 2421 East Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92658 Relocation of the Panini Cafes and operation of a 3,820 square foot full -service Project Description: restaurant, including a 160 - square foot outdoor dining area. Project implementation will require approval of Use Permit 2007 -010, Dining Permit 2007 -006, and Offsite Parking Agreement 2007 -001. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach 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 IN attached O on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study includes 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. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider this project on at 6:30PM on June 5, 2008 in the Council Chambers in City Hall located at 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca 92663. Additional plans, studies and /or exhibits relating to the proposed project are 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. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at Date April 15, 2008 1\5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Panini Caf4 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: 4. Project Location: Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner (949) 6443208 2421 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Collection Investments, Inc. c/o Panini Hospitality Group 17310 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: Commercial Corridor (CC) RSC — Retail Service Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The applicant, Collection Investments Corona del Mar, Inc. ( Panini Hospitality Group), is proposing the relocation of the Panini Cafe, which is currently located at 2333 East Coast Highway to 2421 East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The proposed project includes the operation of a full service restaurant, an outdoor dining area, and an off -site parking agreement request. Project implementation will necessitate the following discretionary approvals by the City of Newport Beach: Approval of Use Permit 2007 -010 to operate 3,820 - square foot full- service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment with a net public area of 640 square feet, and to allow alcohol beverage service of beer and wine with a Type "41" ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place). Approval of Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit 2007 -006 to allow the construction and operation of a 160 - square foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the proposed full service restaurant. Approval of Off-Site Parking Agreement 2007 -001 to satisfy the off - street parking requirement for the proposed restaurant utilizing the off -site property located at 7 Corporate Plaza. The project includes the conversion of an existing retail commercial space to a full- service restaurant by demolishing the existing 620 square foot mezzanine and enclosing the existing deck area located to the rear of the main floor. The overall gross floor area of the building would be increased by 169 square feet (i.e., from 3,651 square feet to 3,820 square feet). New kitchen facilities would be installed that include food preparation, storage areas, and walk -in coolers. Handicapped accessible restrooms and an elevator would also be provided. PANINI CAFE Page 1 1 The proposed 160- square foot outdoor dining area will be situated at the front of the restaurant, facing East Coast Highway, and will be covered by an awning. The proposed floor accommodates a total of 48 seats for the proposed restaurant, including 36 seats for indoor dining and 12 seats for outdoor dining. The proposed hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. each day. No dancing or live entertainment is proposed. A maximum of 10 employees will work at the restaurant during the busiest hours; however, five employees would work the opening and closing shifts. The existing parking garage at the subject site has access to an alley located to the rear of the building. The existing alley serves the site and the neighboring retail commercial and residential properties. The project applicant proposes to utilize the existing parking garage to meet the on -site parking requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. A total of 16 parking spaces is proposed in the Parking Management Plan submitted by the project applicant. In addition to the 16 on -site parking spaces, the applicant is also proposing to provide 10 off -site parking spaces to accommodate employees. The 10 off - site spaces are located in a parking garage below the existing office building at 7 Corporate Plaza. Complimentary valet parking for restaurant patrons during regular operating hours. As indicated above, a Parking Management Plan has been prepared that addresses on- and off -site parking, traffic circulation, the valet parking operations, and delivery scheduling. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) City of Newport Beach (Planning Commission) California Coastal Commission 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 ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources • Energy & Mineral Resources • Hazards • Noise • Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Existing commercial structure encompassing approximately 3,651 square feet of Current Development: floor area. The structure is currently vacant but was formerly occupied by a carpet store. ❑ General commercial development, including Corona Del Mar Plaza, which To the north: supports mixed retail commercial development; and single - family detached ❑ residential development. To the east: Retail and commercial development. Single- family and two -unit (i.e., duplex) residential dwelling units and paved To the south: parking areas for adjacent retail development, offices and restaurant. To the west: Retail and commercial development. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) City of Newport Beach (Planning Commission) California Coastal Commission 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 ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources • Energy & Mineral Resources • Hazards • Noise • Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation PANINI CAFl= Page 2 ``b DETERMINATION (To 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. ❑ 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 1 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 or Negative Declaration 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, nothing further is required. ❑ Keeton Kreitzer Consulting F:\Users\PLN\Shared \Forms \New Forms \CMA\Initial Study.doc PANINI CAFE Page i1b CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ on a scenic vista? The subject property is located on the south side of East Coast Highway west of MacArthur Boulevard. Coast Highway is designated as a scenic roadway. The subject properly and surrounding area are characterized by a mix of retail commercial and residential development, including the Corona Del Mar Plaza north of Coast Highway. Project implementation will result in the relocation of an existing restaurant to the subject retail commercial structure, which will be converted and the interior remodeled to accommodate the Panini Cafts. The existing front farsade of the structure currently lacks design integrity and will be pulled back from the Coast Highway right -of -way by approximately 10.5 feet along the entire frontage of the building except for an entry portico. The alley frontage will also be improved with the addition of a portion of the building structure where a deck over the parking garage now exists. Both the front and rear of the building will be characterized by precast "stone" trim, decorative awnings, lighting, copper collectors and downspouts, and textured colored exterior plaster. In addition, the front of the building will also be upgraded with decorative wrought iron pre -cast stone columns and trim, planters with plantings, hand - painted wall murals, fountains, benches, and other features. The combination of these features and design of the structure, which does not exceed the height of the existing office building, will not significantly alter views from Coast Highway. The architectural character of the proposed Panini Cafe will be consistent with the character of the Corona del Mar Village when, particularly when compared to the aesthetic character of the existing structure, which is devoid of landscaping, lacks articulation, and reflects a "static' storefront character. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant visual impacts to the character of Coast Highway are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The subject property does not possess any unique aesthetic features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic structures or features. Although the site is located along a state scenic highway (i.e., East Coast Highway), the improvements proposed are intended to enhance the visual character of the building through the incorporation of several features, including additional tile roofing areas, pre -cast stone features, custom exterior lighting, decorative cooper collectors and downspouts, potted specimen plants and signage that complements the architectural character of the area. In addition, the prominence of the structure of the rear will also be substantially reduced in scale. Although the proposed restaurant use will be visible from Coast Highway, the building fagade and related elements will not damage the scenic character of the scenic highway. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site El 11 11 0 and its surroundings? PANINI CAFt Page 4 �gnificant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The area surrounding the subject property is also developed with a variety of retail commercial uses. The proposed conversion of the existing commercial structure to a restaurant use will not significantly change the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. As indicated above, the structural elements that are proposed will enhance the visual character of the site and complement the existing architectural character of the area. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 area? The existing development along East Coast Highway is characterized by lighting that illuminates the frontage of that arterial roadway and the rear portions of the property. In addition, lighting is also associated with building security. Lighting will also be provided for the same purpose as that which currently exists (i.e., security and structure illumination). Lighting required to illuminate the proposed parking structure will comply with standards established by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Proposed lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties. It is anticipated that the lighting will be energy efficient and will also be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the property. As a result, compliance with the lighting standards and requirements will ensure that no significant lighting impacts occur; no mitigation measures are required. 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. The subject property is developed with a single commercial structure, which is located in an area of the City that has been developed with a variety of urban uses, including retail commercial, office and residential development. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area, including the subject property, is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land," which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one -half acres. Improvements proposed for the site will not result in any significant impacts to significant farmland. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ a contract? The subject property is not zoned for agricultural uses and /or included in a Williamson Act contract. Project implementation will not require changes either to the existing zoning classifications or land use designations reflected in the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no conflicts with the adopted short- and long -range plans will occur and no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to occur to existing agricultural uses as a result of project implementation. PANINI CAFE cJ Page 5 1 � D Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Signifcant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Implementation of the proposed improvements to convert the existing retail commercial structure to accommodate the Panini Caf6 will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural uses or prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. No portion of the subject property or areas within the project environs are currently designated for agricultural purposes or are in an agricultural use. The subject property neither contains prime farmland nor supports existing agricultural uses. The site is not located in proximity to existing agricultural uses that would be affected if the project were approved. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 quality plan? The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. This long -range plan has been utilized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Project implementation does not include land use changes that would conflict with the long - range air quality projections; rather, the proposed project is entirely consistent with the adopted General Plan and, therefore, the AQMP. As previously indicated, the applicant is proposing to convert a retail commercial structure to a restaurant; no significant changes in the floor area are proposed that would alter the long -range air emissions forecasts estimated in the AQMP. Most importantly, the proposed project includes the relocation of an existing restaurant to the subject property. Therefore, after the existing structure is converted to accommodate the restaurant, the project would not generate any significant increase in vehicular traffic that would cause mobile -source emissions or result in stationary source pollutant emissions. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and the project would not obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans and /or programs. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 projected air quality violation? As indicated above, project implementation will result in the relocation of an existing restaurant to the subject property, which is currently an unoccupied retail commercial structure. No significant grading would occur as a result of project implementation that would result in significant equipment emissions and/or fugitive dust emissions. Although it is possible additional traffic could be generated by future reuse /redevelopment of the existing Panini Caf& site, it is anticipated that the potential Increase in traffic resulting from such reuse would be consistent with the traffic projections forecast in the City -wide traffic analysis conducted for the General Plan Update, which utilized " buildout" conditions based on the land uses prescribed in the Land Use Element. Based on the air quality analysis presented in the EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan Update, the land use designation adopted for the site of the Panini Cafd is the basis for the long -range air quality projects reflected in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the potential mobile -source pollutant emissions associated with such an increase in traffic have been evaluated and would not exceed the emissions forecast in the buildout conditions as reflected in the AQMP. However, future use of the existing Panini Caf6 property may exceed the development intensity allocated for the site. In that event, additional environmental analysis may be required prior to the approval of such a development on that site in order to evaluate the potential adverse air quality impacts that may result. PANINI CAFt Page 6 1 l 9 Slgnfficant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Although some emissions associated with the renovation of the existing commercial structure would occur from remodeling, painting, etc., in order to accommodate the proposed restaurant use, the emissions would be minor and, further, would be short-term in nature. Appropriate measures prescribed in the SCAQMD's rules would be implemented to address dust control, VOC emissions related to painting, etc., are minimized. Therefore, no long -term, operational changes in air emissions associated with the restaurant would occur and no air quality standards would be exceeded as a result of the proposed project. C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The implementation of the proposed restaurant relocation project is likely to result in a small increase in pollutant emissions in the air basin as a result of the activities necessary to remodel the existing commercial structure and, subsequently, during operation; however, the operational emissions, as indicated previously, would approximate those currently emitted by the Panini Cafd at it existing location only. Although short-term pollutant emissions are anticipated, mainly from the operation of construction equipment and from painting, they will be minimized through the incorporation of several standard conditions that are prescribed by the SCAQMD, which will ensure that potential short-term (i.e., construction) impacts are minimized. The proposed project is expected to generate only a few truck trips during the initial remodeling phase to delivery equipment and construction materials as well as work trips. It is anticipated that operational vehicle trips would approximate those which are currently generated by the existing restaurant. Therefore, long -term (i.e., related to project operation) emissions resulting from the proposed project should not increase and these emissions are anticipated to be less than significant. Therefore, mobile source emissions will not contribute to the cumulative degradation of the air basin and would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 concentrations? As previously indicated, the subject property is located within the Ctty's Corona del Mar commercial business district. Although sensitive receptors (i.e., residential dwelling units to the south and residential development north of Coast Highway) are located in the vicinity of the site, the greatest amount of pollutants generated by the proposed project will occur during the construction phase. The emissions will comprise mostly dust and particulate materials that will be dispersed in the area of operations during the construction phase when the existing building is remodeled and converted to a restaurant. However, such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and will be short-term in nature. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect sensitive receptors. Odors and emissions associated with the cooking operations of the restaurant will also be minimized through filtering and venting in accordance with SCAQMD rules and regulations. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ m PANINI CAFE �j R Page 7 11 V Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The proposed project includes the relocation of an existing restaurant that will accommodate a cook line with grill. These facilities will be filtered and vented up directly through the roof of the building to exhaust at least 22 feet above the street level and behind building parapets and equipment screens. Because the prevailing local air current is generally from the southwest, any smoke and /or odor would be directed well above the pavement towards Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, which is similar to existing conditions with adjacent and nearby restaurants in the vicinity of the project. The restaurant will be required to meet SCAQMD discharge requirements prescribed for residents. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The subject properly and the surrounding environs are developed with urban uses and circulation facilities. Neither the site nor project environs support any native species of plants or animals. The site is developed with an existing retail commercial structure that was formerly occupied by a carpet store. All of the vegetation that exists on the site and within the project area is introduced (i.e., non - native) plant materials that are common in urban landscapes. There are no species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species within the limits of either the site or in the immediate project area, which has been completely altered by development. Therefore, no significant impact would occur to any sensitive species designated by the resources agencies as a result of project implementation. Further, the Project is not directly affected by any regional plans, or policies of other resource agencies. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As indicated above, the subject property is located within an urbanized area within Newport Beach and does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No native habitat or grasslands exist on the subject property that would represent an important source of foraging for raptors and other sensitive or protected animal or avian species. No significant biological resources are identified in the Newport Beach General Plan either for the site or for the immediate project area. Due to the location and nature of the project, implementation will not result in significant adverse impacts to riparian or other sensitive natural community; no mitigation measures are required. PANINI CAFE Page �� 1 There are no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act located within the limits of the subject property. Further, no marshes, vernal pools, or coastal habitats exist in the project area according to the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Recreation and Open Space Element adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As previously indicated, the site is located in an area of the City along the Coast Highway corridor that is urbanized and devoid of natural habitat and /or species. The site is developed with a vacant commercial structure and does not serve as a wildlife migratory corridor. Development of the site as proposed would not alter the existing character of the area. Project implementation would result only in improvements to the existing structure in order to accommodate a restaurant; no significant alterations to the site are proposed. Therefore, implementation of the project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident species of wildlife or with the migratory patterns of fish or other wildlife species. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological m resources, such as a tree El preservation policy or ordinance? Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant physical changes to the project site and, therefore, will not result in significant impacts to biological resources. The City's General Plan does not identify the property as one that supports sensitive habitat and /or important biological resources. The project is consistent with the goals and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach as articulated in the General Plan (refer to Section IX). The City does not have an ordinance that identifies and /or regulates heritage trees on private property. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site and vicinity are urbanized and do not support any sensitive habitat and/or species that are protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Project implementation will not conflict with local, regional, or state resource preservation and /or conservation policies. Therefore no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. PANINI CAFE Page tiaa Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited p 0 to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act located within the limits of the subject property. Further, no marshes, vernal pools, or coastal habitats exist in the project area according to the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Recreation and Open Space Element adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts resulting from project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As previously indicated, the site is located in an area of the City along the Coast Highway corridor that is urbanized and devoid of natural habitat and /or species. The site is developed with a vacant commercial structure and does not serve as a wildlife migratory corridor. Development of the site as proposed would not alter the existing character of the area. Project implementation would result only in improvements to the existing structure in order to accommodate a restaurant; no significant alterations to the site are proposed. Therefore, implementation of the project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident species of wildlife or with the migratory patterns of fish or other wildlife species. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological m resources, such as a tree El preservation policy or ordinance? Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant physical changes to the project site and, therefore, will not result in significant impacts to biological resources. The City's General Plan does not identify the property as one that supports sensitive habitat and /or important biological resources. The project is consistent with the goals and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach as articulated in the General Plan (refer to Section IX). The City does not have an ordinance that identifies and /or regulates heritage trees on private property. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site and vicinity are urbanized and do not support any sensitive habitat and/or species that are protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Project implementation will not conflict with local, regional, or state resource preservation and /or conservation policies. Therefore no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. PANINI CAFE Page tiaa Potentially leas Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The subject property encompasses a single retail commercial building. The existing structure is not an historic structure and, further, there are no identified structures and/or other historical resources currently known to exist within the immediate project vicinity that would be affected as a result of implementing the proposed restaurant on the site. Records on file at the City of Newport Beach indicate that the existing structure and nearby retail /commercial development on Coast Highway have existed for at least 25 years. However, neither the subject site nor the surrounding properties are identified as historic resources in the City's General Plan. Project implementation will not necessitate any grading or site alteration that could affect any cultural /historic resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to historical resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 13 11 11 El archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? The subject property and surrounding area are urbanized and are characterized by development that involved extensive grading and significant landform modification in order to accommodate the existing commercial development along East Coast Highway. Any archaeological sites near the surface of the ground would have been disturbed and /or destroyed by past grading activities that were necessary to accommodate the existing development. No significant impacts to cultural or archaeological resources are anticipated as a result of project implementation, which does not include grading and excavation that may have the potential to encounter archaeological resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? As indicated above, the subject site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach and has been previously graded and developed. Any near -surface paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been disturbed and /or destroyed by prior development activities. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? Project implementation will not affect any sites or properties that possess known cultural values. As previously indicated, the subject property and adjacent properties are developed with commercial uses along the East Coast Highway corridor and currently support retail commercial development. It is not utilized by any Native Americans for religious or other culturally important rites. Further, no formal cemeteries are located on the site or in the project environs and no human remains are known to exist in the project area. Project implementation will not require grading and excavation to implement the proposed structural Improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed restaurant use. Therefore, the discovery of human remains is not anticipated. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. PANINI CAFE' Page 10 d 3 significant significant with significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. The proposed project site, which is currently developed with a commercial structure, is located in the seismically active Southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. However, other faults without surface expression (i.e., blind faults) or other potentially active seismic sources also capable of generating an earthquake may be present under the site at depth but not yet identified. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ 11 ❑ shaking? As indicated above, the site is located in a seismically active region. The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The subject property and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element "Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, which is located less than two miles southwest of the subject property, is classified as a "Type B" fault (i.e., a seismic sources fault that has a magnitude 6.55M <7.0 and slip rate between 2 mm and 5 mm/year). Proximity of the site to this earthquake fault system would subject the subject property to potentially severe ground shaking associated with seismic activity occurring along that feature. In addition, the Norwalk fault, approximately 15 miles from the site, may be capable of generating a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. The northeast - southwest trending Raymond Fault Zone has a length of approximately 16 miles and extends from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Sierra Madre to the Adams Hill area of Glendale. The maximum credible earthquake expected from the Raymond fault is 6.8. Other causative faults in the region include the San Andreas and San Fernando Fault Zones and the San Jacinto Fault. Seismic activity on one of these faults/fault zones could range from 6.0 to over 8.0. PANINI CAFE Page 11 a Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated As previously indicated, the subject site is developed with a commercial structure that has been designed and constructed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Implementation of the proposed project includes only the conversion of a retail commercial structure to accommodate the proposed restaurant use. As a result, the potential for impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking, including those to the existing structure and occupants, will be the same as those currently existing and, therefore, will not be significant. No mitigation measures are required. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including liquefaction? The probability of occurrence of ground failure associated with severe ground shaking (e.g., landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, and soil strength loss) depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, and other related factors. Based on information presented in the City's Public Safety Element, the site is not susceptible to the potential effects of liquefaction as a result of ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The subject property is devoid of slopes and /or unstable soils. Project implementation does not include any grading activities or site alteration that would result in the creation of manufactured slopes or other features that would subject the proposed restaurant to significant landslide potential. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of potential landsliding. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? The site has been graded in the past to accommodate the existing commercial structures. Implementation of the proposed project will not necessitate grading and /or excavation that would expose native soils to the potential of erosion. Therefore, the potentially significant erosion impacts will be avoided. C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The existing structures have been designed to address the soils conditions and characteristics that underlie the site. With the exception of structural foundation work necessary for the new building core (i.e., elevator, trash enclosure, dumbwaiter, utilities, etc.), project implementation will not result in a significant amount of grading or excavation into native soils. Although the interior of the commercial structure will be remodeled to accommodate the proposed restaurant use, no significant changes or alterations to the existing structure are proposed that would be affected by adverse soils conditions. As a result, potential impacts will be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 creating substantial risks to life or property? PANINI CAFE 5 Page 12 a Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated As previously indicated, the site is currently developed and supports a commercial structure, which has been designed to address the underlying soils conditions. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant grading and /or excavation (except for the structural foundation work previously described) or include the construction of a new building that could be affected by expansive soils. No significant Impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not ❑ ❑ ❑ m available for the disposal of waste water? The subject property and environs are currently served by a sanitary sewer system. Sewer facilities, which are located in the adjacent streets, will continue to serve the existing development, including the proposed restaurant. Raw sewage generated on the site by the proposed restaurant would not increase significantly and will continue to be collected and conveyed by the existing sanitary sewage collection and conveyance system and not a septic system or other alternative means of collecting and treating raw sewage. As a result, potential impacts associated with a septic system are not anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ❑ routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Project implementation includes the conversion of a retail commercial structure to accommodate a restaurant use. The relocated restaurant will not result in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As indicated above, the proposed project includes only the relocation of an existing restaurant to the subject property, which is a commercial structure on Coast Highway. The restaurant does not utilize any hazardous materials that would result in the release of such materials into the environment. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? PANINI CAFE Page 13 } d Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The proposed project does not include any land uses that would emit hazardous materials within one quarter mile of a school. No potential release of hazardous emissions would occur as a result of project implementation, which includes only the relocation of an existing restaurant and the operation of that restaurant at the new location in a remodeled commercial structure. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ❑ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The subject property, which is currently improved with a commercial structure, is not listed on any of the hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The subject property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other public airport. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport is located within two miles of the Five park sites in question. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? The subject property is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, use of the existing commercial structure as a restaurant will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 emergency evacuation plan? PANINI CAFE= Page 14 ' a� Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking and fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are D D D 0 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site and the site is not subject to the potential risk of wildland fires. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the proposed restaurant. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards D D ❑ 0 or waste discharge requirements? Project implementation includes only the relocation of an existing cafe from its existing location to an existing commercial structure to the east on Coast Highway. With the exception of some minor structural modifications, no extensive grading or alteration of the project site will occur. As a result, no changes to either the characteristics or quantity of surface runoff and, therefore, water quality discharged from the site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., D D D the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? PANINI CAFE Page 15 a Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Signficant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The subject site is located in an area that is completely developed. Although some minor site alteration will occur, implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater wells are located on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation of the Panini Cafe. Conversion of the existing vacant commercial building to a restaurant use will not result in any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or their ability to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the site or in the vicinity of the property. No alterations to existing watercourses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the site to the existing facilities in the adjacent roadways. The proposed project does not include modifications to the existing site characteristics and will maintain the existing grades. Therefore, project implementation will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? As indicated above, site alteration will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns in the area. The amount of impervious surfaces may increase only slightly as a result of the proposed structural modifications of the proposed project; however, neither the amount nor rate of runoff emanating from the site will be significantly increased. The potential minor increase in surface runoff that may be generated by the proposed project will not result in the exposure of either people or property to potential flooding, either on- or off -site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Although project implementation may generate a small, incremental increase in the amount of surface runoff from the site as a result of the minor site modifications, that potential minor increase will not contribute significantly to the total volume of runoff. As a result, the existing storm water drainage system in the project vicinity will be adequate to accommodate any minor increase associated with the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 PANINI CAFrz „ Page 16 `a,l potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at other nearby locations because the site is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. The types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the similar uses that exist in the vicinity of the subject site and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. It is important to note that no unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ m Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. The project includes only the relocation of an existing restaurant to a vacant commercial structure; no residential development is proposed. Therefore, conversion of the commercial building to accommodate the relocated Panini Caf6 as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ El or redirect flood flows? As indicated above, the site is not located within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain. No habitable structures are proposed on the site and no structures are proposed to be placed within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. i)- Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The subject property is not located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ m PANINI CAFE 0 Page 17 ` 3 Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. According to the City s General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are located in the immediate vicinity of the site. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. Great magnitude waves have not historically been recorded in Orange County because the coastline is somewhat protected from the north by the coastal configuration (Palos Verdes Peninsula and Point Conception) and the offshore islands (Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands). Although Newport Beach is a coastal community, the subject property is located approximately one mile from the coastline. These conditions, combined with the fact that the potential for a tsunami is considered extremely remote in the City of Newport Beach, minimize the potential for damage and/or inundation from that phenomenon. Implementation of the relocation of the Panini Cafe will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 following construction? Although no new sources of water pollution will result from the proposed project, pollutant discharges from the existing uses will continue to enter receiving waters from the project site. The types of pollutants that have the potential to be transported downstream are those that occur at the present time and include the use of pesticides and herbicides to maintain the landscaping and abate and control weeds and undesirable vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbons washed from the associated parking lot and other sources typical of urban development. However, these discharges occur at the present time from the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including ❑ ❑ ❑ a washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No significant land use changes are proposed that would include vehicle or equipment fueling and/or equipment maintenance, waste handling, and the use of hazardous materials, either during the construction phase or during the operational phase of site development. Further, no changes to the proposed parking facilities are proposed that would adversely affect storm water discharges from the site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial ❑ ❑ ❑ El uses of the receiving waters? The potential increase in impervious surfaces on the site may result in a slight increase in the volume of runoff leaving the subject property. However, it is unlikely that any potential increase in the volume of that runoff would contribute to erosion downstream from the subject site (runoff from the site occurs as surface runoff into the adjacent streets, which enters an underground pipe prior to being discharged into the bay). Nonetheless, the City will ensure that any potential for erosion is minimized or avoided through the implementation of on -site features (e.g., directing surface runoff to landscaped areas, etc.) that would achieve the intended goals and objectives prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Implementation of these standard conditions, prescribed in a WQMP,.will ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. PANINI CAFE Page 18 `�j As previously indicated (refer to Vlll.d and Vlli.e), project implementation will result in the conversion of an existing commercial structure that would accommodate the relocated Panini Caf6; however, the proposed project would approximate the same area of impervious surface that currently exist on the site. As a result, no significant increase in the potential volume and rate of runoff generated on the site would occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ El surrounding areas? Construction activities associated with the structural modifications of the existing commercial building necessary to accommodate the relocated restaurant may result in a potential temporary increase in erosion and the release of sediment and construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Although project implementation may result in the potential exposure of the site soils to the elements during the construction phase, appropriate erosion control techniques will address the speck nature of any potential erosion. Upon completion of construction, potential erosion of the site soils will be eliminated. No potential erosion of off -site soils will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject property is currently developed with a freestanding commercial structure. The site is bounded by Coast Highway on the north, residential development on the south and retail commercial development on the east and west. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed, which includes a mix of commercial and residential land uses. Conversion of the existing retail commercial floor area to accommodate the Panini Cafe would not directly affect adjacent properties because the proposed project would result in new development but would reoccupy an existing vacant commercial structure. Operation of a restaurant in the RSC zoning district requires the approval of a use permit, which prescribes the operational characteristics of that use, including parking, hours of operation, floor area, noise generated, etc., to ensure that land use compatibility is attained. Although the hours of operation would extend into the evening, the hours of operation of the restaurant would be similar to those of other restaurants located on Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed project and would not, therefore, result in land use conflicts with nearby residential land uses. In particular, project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? PANINI CAFE Oa 19 Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or ❑ ❑ ❑ B volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? As previously indicated (refer to Vlll.d and Vlli.e), project implementation will result in the conversion of an existing commercial structure that would accommodate the relocated Panini Caf6; however, the proposed project would approximate the same area of impervious surface that currently exist on the site. As a result, no significant increase in the potential volume and rate of runoff generated on the site would occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ El surrounding areas? Construction activities associated with the structural modifications of the existing commercial building necessary to accommodate the relocated restaurant may result in a potential temporary increase in erosion and the release of sediment and construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Although project implementation may result in the potential exposure of the site soils to the elements during the construction phase, appropriate erosion control techniques will address the speck nature of any potential erosion. Upon completion of construction, potential erosion of the site soils will be eliminated. No potential erosion of off -site soils will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject property is currently developed with a freestanding commercial structure. The site is bounded by Coast Highway on the north, residential development on the south and retail commercial development on the east and west. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed, which includes a mix of commercial and residential land uses. Conversion of the existing retail commercial floor area to accommodate the Panini Cafe would not directly affect adjacent properties because the proposed project would result in new development but would reoccupy an existing vacant commercial structure. Operation of a restaurant in the RSC zoning district requires the approval of a use permit, which prescribes the operational characteristics of that use, including parking, hours of operation, floor area, noise generated, etc., to ensure that land use compatibility is attained. Although the hours of operation would extend into the evening, the hours of operation of the restaurant would be similar to those of other restaurants located on Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed project and would not, therefore, result in land use conflicts with nearby residential land uses. In particular, project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? PANINI CAFE Oa 19 potentially Less Than Less than No Slgniticant significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The project site is located within a commercial area of Corona del Mar on the south side of East Coast Highway near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard, the main arterial access from inland areas to the Village of Corona del Mar. The Corona del Mar corridor extends along Coast Highway between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive and is developed with commercial uses and specialty shops that primarily serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, with isolated uses that serve highway travelers and coastal visitors. Among the area's primary sues are restaurants, home furnishings and miscellaneous apparel and professional offices. The Corona del Mar Vision Plan, developed by the Business Improvement District, is intended to enhance the shopping district through community improvements such as a linear park -like environment with extensive sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian - oriented lighting fixtures, activated crosswalks, parking lanes, and comparable improvements. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any of the long -range plans adopted for the site and vicinity, including the Newport Beall General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan as reflected below. Newport Beach General Plan — Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site as Commercial Corridor with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 (CC 0.75). The CC designation is intended to provide a range of neighborhood- serving retail and service uses along street frontages that are located and designed to foster pedestrian activity. The Land Use Element also calls for sustaining the Corona del Mar commercial corridor as a pedestrian- oriented retail village that serves surrounding neighborhoods. Restaurants are identified as one of the area's primary uses. The Land Use Element includes several policies to guide development within the Corona del Mar corridor as identified in the Table 1, below. Newport Beach General Plan — Circulation Element The City's Circulation Element encourages an efficiently operating parking system through the adoption of parking management programs for areas with inadequate parking, such as Corona del Mar. The development of public parking lots or structures, street parking permitting, valet programs, and similar techniques may be considered. In recognition of the need for additional parking in the project area, and to comply with this policy, the City's Economic Development Division is in the process of conducting a parking feasibility study. In order to satisfy the required parking for the proposed restaurant, the applicant is proposing a parking management program that employs tandem parking in the existing parking garage that would be implemented through the use of a valet service. Sixteen (16) parking spaces are proposed in the lot to accommodate restaurant patrons. In addition, the applicant is proposing to accommodate employee parking off -site with 10 parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza. The proposed on -site parking does meet the requisite parking code requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. PANINI CAFe �„ 2 Page 20 3 LU 6.20.1 Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Table 1 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Panini Cafe Use Permit Accommodate neighborhood-serving uses that complement existing development. vroject impiemenumon induces me reuse or an existing commercial structure that is current vacant. The Panini Caf6 is a "neighborhood-serving" use, which Is currently located west of the subject site on Coast Highway. The proposed relocation of the Panlni Cafe to the subject site will not conflict with the Intent of this policy to serve the nearby The project site is developed with a commercial provide rkin pag for multiple businesses along the structure that will be remodeled to accommodate the LU 6.20.2 corridor, provided that the ground floor of the street proposed restaurant. Multiple uses would not be frontage is developed for pedestrianodented retail „em provided on the site. LU 6.20-4 LU 6.205 LU 6.20 -6. Work with business associations, tenants, and property owners to implement Vision 2004 streetscape improvements that contribute to the corridor's pedestrian character. Permit new commercial development at a maximum intensity of 0.75 FAR, but allow existing commercial buildings that exceed this intensity to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre- existing intensity and, at a minimum, number of parking spaces. Work with local businesses and organizations to explore other methods to provide parking convenient to commercial uses, such as a parking district or relocation of the city parking lot at the old school site. Newport Beach Local Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) i ne proposea project incivaes me conversion or a former retail space to a restaurant that is nelghbothood•serving. The proposed outdoor patio dining area is consistent with the pedestrian- oriented environmental envisioned along the Coast i ne proposea project coes not rnciuoe new commercial development. The site is occupied by a vacant commercial structure that will be remodeled to accommodate the restaurant. The floor area proposed for the restaurant is within the maximum 0.75 FAR permitted in the Corridor Commercial land i ne project appncam nas preparea a raring Management Plan that addresses required parking, traffic circulation, vale parking, and delivery scheduling. The proposed parking plan includes 16 on -site parking spaces to accommodate restaurant patrons and 10 offsite parking spaces for employee The City's CLUP designates the subject property as General Commercial (CG), with a maximum FAR of 0.75. The CG designation is intended to provide for a wide range of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve City -wide or regional needs. These uses include service- oriented uses, including restaurants. Project implementation will require approval by the California Coastal Commission. As previously indicated, the proposed project includes the relocation of an existing restaurant within the same area of the City that is subject to the same land use and development standards and goals and objectives. The proposed use of the existing vacant commercial building is consistent with the intent of the CLUP designation. Therefore, no significant land use conflicts or inconsistencies with the adopted long -range plans for the City of Newport Beach are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required. C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community conservation plan? PANINI CAFt 3 �, Page 21 Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses 0.12 acre that is currently developed as a retail commercial building that was formerly occupied by a carpet store. The proposed project will allow for the relocation of an existing restaurant located on Coast Highway to the subject site once the structural and interior improvements are completed. The site has been entirely altered in order to accommodate the existing commercial structure that occupies the site. As a result, no natural features and /or habitat that would support sensitive species exist on the site. In particular, neither the site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community' Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and /or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would El 11 El be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The project site is currently developed and is occupied by a vacant retail commercial structure that encompasses approximately 3,651 square feet of floor area. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 0 ❑ ❑ El - general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e., structural improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed restaurant use) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 applicable standards of other agencies? PANINI CAFE Page22 )35 Potentially Less Than Less than No Slgniticant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The project site and vicinity are located within an urbanized area. John Wayne Airport is located north of the subject property; however, noise from that aviation facility does not affect the site. Ambient noise levels on the subject property and in the project environs is the result of vehicular traffic traveling along Coast Highway in the vicinity of the site. The 60 dBA CNEL noise contour associated with vehicular travel along those roadways extends into the property. However, according to the City s Noise Element, commercial uses, including restaurants, office buildings, etc., are "clearly compatible" uses up to 65 dBA CNEL and "normally compatible" uses up to 75 dBA CNEL. As a result, the project site is not subject to significant mobile- source noise levels. Potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction noise is generally high level, short-term duration noise, which represents a potential short-term impact to the ambient noise levels near the site. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach high levels. The proposed project calls for modifications to the existing vacant commercial structure on the site in order to accommodate the Panini Cafe. Construction- related noise is usually short-term duration noise that has the potential to reach very high levels. It is estimated that impact noise from falling debris associated with the interior demolition and structural modifications could exceed existing ambient levels and create a temporary nuisance. The amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to the nearest land use, and the duration of the construction/remodeling process will dictate the degree of impact. It is possible that residents located in the vicinity of the subject property (south of the existing commercial structure) may be subjected to short-term noise associated with construction and remodeling activities. Although construction noise is permitted during normal working hours, the Newport Beach Noise Control Ordinance addresses construction noise. Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires that construction complies with Section 10.28 of the Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of noise - generating construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Because the Project will be required to comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City's Noise Ordinance, the short-term noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As indicated in Section XV (Transportation/Traffic), project implementation will not result in a significant increase in daily traffic. Therefore, project - related traffic will not result in a significant long -term increase in ambient noise levels. The traffic levels projected by the City reflect future buildout of the general plan land uses. As a result, the proposed project will neither contribute to significant mobile - source noise in the project vicinity and/or City of Newport Beach nor exceed any long -term noise projections for the area. Therefore, less than significant long -term vehicular noise impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. PANINI CAFt Page 23 3 Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Hours of operation for the restaurant will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. The applicant has indicated that live entertainment or dancing is not proposed. The Newport Beach Municipal Code also addresses operational noise. The subject property is located in Noise Zone II (Commercial); however, the adjacent residential development to the south is located in Noise Zone I (Single -, two- or multiple- family Residential). The allowable exterior noise level for the proposed project is 65 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. compared to 55 dBA Leq for the adjacent residential use. Operational noise associated with the proposed restaurant must comply with the exterior noise standards for the adjacent residential uses (i.e., 55 dBA Leq). As indicated in the Noise Ordinance, project- related noise cannot exceed the 55 dBA Leq standard for any 15- minute period. Although some deliveries are anticipated that could generate some noise intrusion resulting from truck traffic in the alleyway and loading and unloading activities, a delivery schedule has been proposed that would minimize such intrusion in the neighborhood during sensitive time periods. Hours of delivery will extend from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Because amplification equipment will not be used and no music or dancing will occur at the restaurant, no significant operational noise impacts are anticipated. Compliance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance will ensure that no significant noise impacts occur. No mitigation measures are required. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As indicated above, it is possible that short-term noise levels may increase during the preparation and construction /remodeling activities necessary to accommodate the proposed restaurant. These events have the potential to generate noise and levels that could impact sensitive land uses, Including the nearby residential development) in the vicinity of the project site. It is possible that the adjacent residents could be subjected to short-term construction noise. The severity of the construction noise impacts will be dictated by the type and amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to a noise sensitive land use area (e.g., residential), and the duration of the grading and site development process. Noise levels may reach 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source for the noisiest of construction equipment. These short-term noise levels are permitted by the City during normal working hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed development must comply with the City's Noise Element and Noise Control Ordinance to ensure that construction - related noise does not extend beyond the normal working hours. The City's Noise Control Ordinance is used to protect people from noise generated by people or machinery on adjacent property. Specifically, the ordinance addresses construction noise by regulating construction hours. As previously indicated, construction hours will be restricted to those hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance. e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No portion of the project site is located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately five miles north of the subject property. Conversion of the vacant commercial building to accommodate the Panini Cafes would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at either JWA or other such facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. PANINI CAFt q 2 Page 24 l J Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project 0 El expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No portion of the project site is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Reuse of the subject property as proposed (i.e., relocation of the Panini Cafe) would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes 0 ❑ ❑ D and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Project implementation will result in the conversion of the existing vacant retail commercial floor area to a restaurant. Other improvements include remodeling interiors of the building to accommodate the restaurant use on the property. The subject property is not currently zoned for residential development and no residential structures exist on the site; no residential development is proposed. Because the site is currently developed, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would serve to stimulate growth in the City. This is particularly true because the applicant is proposing only the conversion of an existing use. Furthermore, no additional infrastructure would be required to be extended that could serve to foster unanticipated growth in the City. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the 0 0 ❑ D construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As indicated above, the project site is occupied by an existing vacant retail commercial structure, which encompasses approximately 3,651 square feet of floor area. The proposed structural and interior improvements that are necessary to accommodate the proposed restaurant use would not result in the elimination of any residential dwelling units and would not, therefore, require replacement housing. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The site does not contain any residential dwelling units and none will be eliminated from the existing inventory of housing within the City as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no residential occupants will be displaced or otherwise affected by the proposed project and no significant impacts are anticipated. PANINI CAFt Page 25 3 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains six fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. in addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. Project implementation will result the relocation of the existing Panini Cafe' to an existing vacant commercial structure east of its current location on Coast Highway. The relocation of the restaurant will not result in significant impacts to the ability of the NBFD to provide an adequate level of protection. The proposed project must comply with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and UBC requirements and will be.subject to review by the NBFD. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately one mile northwest of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation, which includes the relocation of the Panini Cafe to an existing vacant commercial structure on Coast Highway, will not result in a significant impact on the existing level of protection currently provided by the NBPD. Use of the site will remain the virtually the same and would not adversely affect the ability of the NBPD to provide an adequate level of service. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The provision of educational services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. However, the proposed project will not directly result in potentially significant impacts to the District's educational facilities and/or existing capacity because no school -age students will be generated by the medical office and related uses proposed by the applicant. No significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 PANINI CAFE p Page 26 I ` Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Implementation of the proposed project will utilize an existing commercial structure on Coast Highway. As a result, the relocation of the existing Panini Caf6 will not significantly change the use or development intensity of the subject site and, therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects on other public services, including libraries or administrative services provided by the City. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Project implementation includes modifications to an existing retail commercial structure and the conversion of the vacant floor area to a restaurant on the subject property. No residential development is proposed that would create a new demand, or increase an existing demand, for recreational facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of 0 0 recreational facilities which might have an adverse "physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Existing parks in the vicinity of the project site will not be physically altered nor will their total acreage be reduced as a result of project implementation. Further, given the nature of the proposed project (i.e., non- residential), a greater demand for parks and recreation would not occur because the project would not result in an increase in population that would necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to City-wide recreational opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: LSA Associates (LSA) prepared an analysis that evaluated the parking and internal circulation proposed for the Panini Cafe to ensure that the proposed plans meet criteria prescribed by the City of Newport Beach and provide recommendations to improve parking supply /design and circulation around the proposed restaurant. The LSA study also included a qualitative evaluation of four alternatives for providing valet service to accommodate patrons of the restaurant. The four options for parking include: (1) Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley; (2) Valet Stand on Coast Highway; (3) Valet Stand in One -Way Alley; and (4) parking Reconfiguration and Mixed Valet Operations. The results of the parking and circulation analysis, which is included as Attachment 1, are summarized below. PANINI CAFE Page 27 , �� ignificant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? As previously indicated, the Panini Cafe is currently located at 2333 Coast Highway. The restaurant will be relocated to 2421 Coast Highway, into a building that is currently vacant but was previously occupied by Orient Handel, a Persian rug retail store. Implementation of the proposed project will not generate significant new traffic. The proposed Panini Cafe will accommodate up to 48 patrons in the indoor (36) and outdoor (12) dining area on the premises. Approximately 30 percent of the existing patrons are expected to be pedestrians, based on the current ratio of patrons frequenting the restaurant at its existing location to the west. Traffic would be expected to be similar to that generated by the existing restaurant and would not, therefore, contribute significantly to peak hour traffic volumes on Coast Highway. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county ❑ ❑ ❑ H congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No significant increase in project - related traffic is anticipated as a result of project implementation. The Panini Caf& currently exists west of the subject property and generates traffic based on the existing restaurant use. Operational characteristics of the proposed project at the new location will not result in significant changes in either the volume or type of vehicular trips generated by the restaurant. Further, because the proposed project is located in the immediate vicinity of the site of the existing Panini Cafe, the trip distribution characteristics would also be the same as for the Panini Caf6 at the existing location, which is west of the project site. Therefore, no changes in the project's effect on existing or future traffic would occur and the proposed project would not result in significant project - related or cumulative impacts; no mitigation measures are required. G) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change ❑ ❑ ❑ in location that results in substantial El safety risks? The subject property. is currently developed as a commercial building, which is located approximately five miles south of John Wayne Airport. Project implementation, which includes the relocation of the Panini Caf6 from its existing location west of the subject property to an existing vacant commercial structure that will be remodeled to accommodate the restaurant, is not located in an area of the City that would affect operations or change air traffic patterns at JWA. Therefore, no significant impacts to air traffic patterns are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ ❑ or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? PANINI CAFE Page 28 Potentially Leas Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant impact hnpact Mitigation impact Incorporated Vehicular access to and from the restaurant's parking garage is from the existing alley located in the rear of the properly. A survey of traffic in the alley was conducted for the proposed project on two days, including one weekday (Thursday) and one weekend day (Saturday). Based on that survey, which was conducted at the center of the alley, near the entrance to the proposed parking garage, the highest observed rate of traffic was one vehicle every two minutes. Typical rates were less than one vehicle every three minutes. The results of that survey are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Observed Alley Traffic Volumes Panini Cafe r :SSa 6:0012.m. to 7:00 .m. 12 9 21 11 7 18 4 7 11 8 9 17 8:00 .m. to 9:00 .m. 7 5 12 13 4 17 9:00 .m. to 10:00 .m. 8 3 11 6 7 13 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 P.M . 16 11 27 4 5 9 SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. March 31 2008 Based on the findings presented in the trafficicirculation survey conducted for the proposed project and summarized in Table 2, the addition of traffic to and from the Panini Cafe parking garage will be within the roadway's capacity and will not create excessive congestion or conflicts. e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ access? ❑ Based on the parking study prepared for the proposed project, the parking plan does not require a radical departure from existing practices in the alley, although Option 2 (Valet Stand on Coast Highway), which is described below in Section XV.i., reflects a departure from the current parking for the site by relocating the valet stand. With the exception of Option 2, which relocates the valet stand to Coast Highway, the remaining three valet parking options evaluated for the proposed Panini Cafe would not be expected to substantially increase hazards due to design features. Panini Cafe will be located in an existing building. The parking garage has historically been used for valet parking by nearby restaurants and commercial uses and the applicant's proposal to utilize the existing spaces for the proposed use will not represent an additional hazard. The project proposes the elimination of the stairs at the rear of the existing building that currently extend into the 10 -foot building setback. Project implementation will ensure that encroachment of those stairs into the setback will not occur, which would be a benefit of the proposed project by bringing the project into compliance with the minimum setback required by the zoning. As indicated above, direct access to the subject property is available from Coast Highway and the alley immediately south of the existing commercial structure that will be converted to accommodate the proposed Panini Cafe. Project implementation will not adversely affect the adequacy of emergency access. The plans will be subject to review by the Newport Beach Fire and Building Departments to ensure that the proposed restaurant meets current fire and building code requirements. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ PANINI CAFE Page 29 `� a Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Based on the requirement of 1 parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area, the 640 square feet of net public area proposed for the Panini Cafe would require the provision of 16 parking spaces. Panini Cafe will have a total of 48 seats inside and on the patio. The seats are arranged four per table around 12 tables. Given that each table of diners is likely to arrive in the same vehicle, even the lowest number acceptable to the City is likely to accommodate all of the restaurant's patrons. The occasions when multiple vehicles will be used to transport one party are likely to be less frequent than the occasions when a party will walk to the restaurant if the current trend of 30 percent pedestrian patrons continues. The Valet Parking Plan (refer to Figure 2 in Attachment 1) illustrates the 16 -space plan proposed by the applicant The City, however, has a parking policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car." In order to accommodate 16 vehicles, the valets would have to park vehicles 6, 7, 11, and 14 in a way that blocks other vehicles, which is inconsistent with the City's policy of "move one car to get one car." Because of this, the City is only willing to approve credit for 12 parking spaces in the garage. With the combination of the 12 spaces in the parking structure and the 10 off -site parking spaces reserved for employee parking, the proposed project exceeds the 16 parking spaces mandated by the City's parking code. Compliance with the City's parking requirements will occur in two ways: (1) The proposed project will provide valet parking service to maximize the utilization of the parking space in the existing parking garage located at 2421 Coast Highway. Although this facility previously accommodated 17 vehicles, it did not include a handicap space. The project applicant is providing a disabled parking space, which would result in the elimination of one of the 17 spaces that exists at the present time. The 16 valet parking spaces proposed at this parking garage location (refer to Figure 2 in Attachment 1) complies with the City's requirement based on either of the City's parking standards previously described. (2) in addition to these on -site parking spaces, the project applicant has also entered into an agreement that will allow the restaurant employees to use 10 parking spaces located approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed project site at 7 Corporate Plaza. Although Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway must be crossed when walking between the Panini Caf6 and the employee parking spaces, the distance can be covered safety in less than 10 minutes, which is considered acceptable. On- street parking is permitted on Coast Highway; however, it is limited to one hour between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is also permitted on Begonia Avenue and Carnation Avenue, except on Wednesdays and Tuesdays, respectively, between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. for street sweeping. Nine parking spaces are located on Begonia Avenue and six parking spaces are located on Carnation Avenue between Coast Highway and the beginning of the respective residential neighborhoods. In addition to on- street parking adjacent to commercial uses, parking also exists along the primarily residential streets of Begonia Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Fourth Avenue. A total of 123 parking spaces exist along these streets based on an estimate of 25 feet per curbside parking space. Table 3 reflects the availability of parking along these three streets when residents return home from work. Table 3 Indicates that parking spaces would be available in the residential neighborhood; however, these spaces quickly decrease between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., when residents begin arriving home. Therefore, restaurant employees parking in the residential neighborhood may displace residents, particularly on Fourth Avenue, where there are no available parking spaces after 6:00 pm. This potential parking impact on residents underscores the necessity that Panini Cafe commit to enforcement its employee parking plan. Without such a commitment from Panini Cafe to ensure that its employees will park in the designated area, some employees would be inclined to park in the residential neighborhood to experience a shorter walk to work. PANINICAFE ` Page 30 ` Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Table 3 On-Street Parking Availability Panini Cafd 4:00 p.m. 23 27 28 45 4:30 p.m. 22 28 27 46 5:00 P.M. 24 30 28 41 5:30 p.m. 22 28 24 49 6:00 p.m. 32 28 21 42 6:30 p.m. 34 37 24 28 7:00 p.m. 35 36 23 29 7:30 p.m. 34 38 28 23 8:00 P.M. 33 39 29 22 SOURCE: LSA Associates, Inc. March 31, 2008 As indicated in Table 3, the availability of the greatest number of parking spaces along the three streets occurs before 6:00 p.m. and diminishes after that time, with only 22 parking spaces (i.e., 18 percent) available by 8:00 p.m. Overall, the least amount of available parking is on 4m Avenue. Only two spaces were available at 6:00 p.m. and the street was essentially full after that time. However, Begonia and Carnation Avenues continued to have available parking spaces throughout the survey period. Valet Parkin Options Four atematives to provide valet parking for the proposed project were evaluated in the parking and circulation study conducted for the proposed project (refer to Attachment 1). These alternatives include: (1) Valet Stand in the Two -Way Alley; (2) Valet Stand on Coast Highway; (3) Valet Stand in One -Way Alley; and (4) Parking Reconfiguration and Mixed Valet Operations. The impacts and/or benefits of each of these alternatives are discussed below. Option 1: Valet Stand in Two-Way Alley This alternative would require the least alteration of the existing streets and alleys. In this alternative, Panini Cafe would post a sign at the front of the subject property that directs motorists to valet parking in the rear, similar to that posted by The Bungalow that exists on the fagade of that building. Motorists would drive their car through the alley and into the Panini Cafe parking garage, where the valet stand would be located. In this scenario, a queue of two vehicles could be accommodated on the subject property, similar to The Bungalow, which can queue three vehicles before affecting traffic entering the alley from Carnation Avenue. As indicated above, this option would require the posting of a sign in the alley that would direct motorists into the garage. It would be necessary to light the sign from an angle so that the light source points away from adjacent residences. In addition, restaurant patrons could enter the alley from either direction and not from a single queue. The advantage of this option is that it does not require any alteration to the alley and results in the least variation from the current practice of valet parking operations at the existing nearby restaurants. PANINI CAFE Page 31 ' AA Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Option 2: Valet Stand on Coast Highway Two on- street parking spaces exist in front of the proposed location of the Panini Caf6 at 2421 East Coast Highway. As a result, it could be possible to use the existing on- street parking for the location of a valet stand. In this scenario, patrons would pull into the area immediately in front of the restaurant where a parking attendant would drive the vehicle to and from the garage in a circular path (i.e., Coast Highway to Carnation Avenue to the alley to Begonia Avenue to Coast Highway). The impact of this parking scenario is that a queue longer than two vehicles could develop behind the on- street parking location and could interfere with the traffic on Coast Highway. In addition, with such a prominent location in the front, the Panini Cafd- valet stand could be mistaken as a valet stand serving multiple restaurants within close proximity and create confusion along a high - volume, high -speed arterial. Option 2 would also introduce a pedestrian movement in a public right -of- way, which, when coupled with a potential for driver confusion, presents a potential hazard. Therefore, this option is not recommended. Option 3: Valet Stand in One -Way Alley The entrance to the alley from Carnation Avenue near The Bungalow is currently striped as an entrance only. A recommendation for streamlining traffic flow in the alley would be to continue the existing striping all the way through the alley and make it a one -way westbound facility from Carnation Avenue to Begonia Avenue. With this alteration to the alley, a valet stand inside the Panini Cafd parking garage would be ensured of a queue in a single direction. However, this alternative would still require signage in the alley and it would have the potential to increase the number of vehicles traversing the alley because patrons of Rothschild's Restaurant and the Wine Gallery would have to enter at Carnation Avenue instead of Begonia Avenue. As a result, it would be difficult to enforce the one -way alley flow. The creation of a one -way alley also has the potential to induce driver confusion. Option 4: Parking Reconfiguration and Mixed Valet Operations This option includes the reconfiguration of the surface parking lot and establishment of one valet stand that would serve 2421, 2435, 2411, and 2445 Coast Highway. The valet for these businesses would be able to park customers' vehicles in the parking garage or on the reconfigured surface lot. Reconfiguration of the existing surface parking lot would result in two to five more parking spaces than currently exist. Tandem parking or other valet operations within the City's "move one car to get one car" standard would likely result in even more parking spaces. A shared parking lot would result in greater available parking for customers of 2435 Coast Highway when their demand is highest and greater available parking for restaurant customers when the demand is highest. The location for the valet stand can be chosen that provides more stacking capacity than currently exists for The Bungalow. Implementation of this option would require the consensus of four land owners and multiple tenants within one of the buildings. Furthermore, this option requires more construction than any of the other options. The circulation necessary for Valet Option 1 (Valet in Two -Way Alley) would not present a new hazard and has the advantage of requiring the least variation from the current practice of valet parking operations at the existing restaurants in the vicinity of the proposed Panini Cafe. The other three options would result in a change in current circulation operations and could result in some degree of impacts, either in circulation and /or safety. As a result, Option 1 has been recommended for implementation based on the parking/circulation study conducted for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure that parking impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. PANINI CAFE Page 32 ' Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated MM -1 Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall prepare the Final Valet Parking Plan based on Option 1 (Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley), which will be submitted.for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The Final Valet Parking Plan shall reflect detailed striping plans for the proposed parking and also illustrate the manner in which the operational characteristics of the parking plan will occur. MM -2 Prior to issuance of the building permit, the project applicant shall prepare an Employee Parking Plan and submit that plan for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The Employee Parking Plan shall identify the manner in which enforcement will be carried out to ensure that employees do not parking in the nearby residential neighborhood. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Project implementation includes the conversion of the existing commercial structure to accommodate the proposed relocation of the Panini Caf6. The nearest bicycle route identified in the Newport Beach Circulation Element is located east and west of the site along Coast Highway and to the north along Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard; no bicycle facilities are identified along the project site frontage. Therefore, implementation of the proposed relocated restaurant will not result in any impacts to the adopted long -range plans or policies articulate in the General Plan related to such routes or to the adopted goals, objectives or policies related to alternative transportation. No significant impacts are anticipated no mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ B Regional Water Quality Control Board? Project implementation will not result in a significant increase in the generation of raw sewage. As indicated previously, the proposed project includes only the relocation of an existing restaurant to an existing commercial structure that will be remodeled to accommodate the restaurant. The raw sewage generated by the project would be typical of similar projects and, therefore, would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or necessitate a greater level of treatment. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which could cause significant environmental effects? PANINI CAFE Page 33 �� Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated The City of Newport owns and maintains several water and sewer mains in the vicinity of the subject property. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in floor area and /or use that would result in a significantly greater demand for domestic water and /or generation of raw sewage when compared to the existing restaurant at its current location. It is anticipated that the existing water and sewer mains and sewage treatment plant capacity are adequate. to accommodate the potential demands for domestic water and potential increase in raw sewage that would be generated by the proposed project. As a result, potential impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. G) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The subject property and surrounding area are developed and are covered by impervious surfaces (i.e., asphalt, concrete, structures, etc.). Implementation of the proposed project does not include any new construction that would result in changes to the amount of impervious coverage on the site. Therefore, the runoff will be directed to the same stone drain facilities that exist in the adjacent street system, which have adequate capacity to accommodate the post - development runoff generated by the Project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Project implementation will result in the same uses as currently exist at the site of the existing Panini Cafe. Because the demands for domestic water will be virtually the same as the existing demands, the proposed project would not adversely affect existing water supplies. The project will not create demands for water that exceed the parameters upon which the water supply and distribution are based. The City owns and maintains facilities in the vicinity of the subject property that serve the existing development in the vicinity of the project site. Project implementation will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. It is anticipated that the proposed restaurant would be served from the existing water facilities that serve the site and new laterals would not be required. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has adequate capacity at the existing treatment facilities to provide sanitary treatment to the raw sewage that will be generated by the project, which would be similar in nature and quantity as that currently generated at the existing location of the Panini Caf6. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required as a result of project implementation. PANINI CAFE Page 34 Al Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of demolition and construction debris during the construction phase of the project resulting from the interior remodeling of the existing commercial structure that is necessary in order to accommodate the restaurant. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the site associated with the proposed land use; however, solid waste is currently being generated by the existing restaurant and it is anticipated that no significant increase in either the type or volumes of refuse would occur if the project is approved. Further, the County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is in compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste. The project site will remain subject to this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to ❑ ❑ ❑ solid waste? As indicated above, the City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. The proposed project will be subject to the requirements established in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, ❑ ❑ ❑ H constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? As previously indicated (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology and Water Quality), the proposed project will not require any grading and /or site alteration that would result in changes to the stormwater runoff characteristics or other features that would require the implementation of a stonnwater treatment system. Because it Is anticipated that no significant increase in surface runoff would be generated as a result of project implementation, implementation of the project would not require the inclusion of any facilities that would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. PANINI CAFR' Page 35 1� Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ❑ ❑ ❑ H the projects solid waste disposal needs? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of demolition and construction debris during the construction phase of the project resulting from the interior remodeling of the existing commercial structure that is necessary in order to accommodate the restaurant. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the site associated with the proposed land use; however, solid waste is currently being generated by the existing restaurant and it is anticipated that no significant increase in either the type or volumes of refuse would occur if the project is approved. Further, the County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is in compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste. The project site will remain subject to this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to ❑ ❑ ❑ solid waste? As indicated above, the City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. The proposed project will be subject to the requirements established in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, ❑ ❑ ❑ H constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? As previously indicated (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology and Water Quality), the proposed project will not require any grading and /or site alteration that would result in changes to the stormwater runoff characteristics or other features that would require the implementation of a stonnwater treatment system. Because it Is anticipated that no significant increase in surface runoff would be generated as a result of project implementation, implementation of the project would not require the inclusion of any facilities that would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. PANINI CAFR' Page 35 1� Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential 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? The project site has been impacted by past activities that have modified the existing site features. The site is currently designated as "Commercial Corridor" on the Newport Beach Land Use Element and is zoned RSC (Retail Service Commercial). Implementation of the proposed project will result in the conversion of the vacant commercial floor area in the existing structure to a restaurant use, which would not significantly degrade the quality of the environment because the subject site has been extensively altered by prior development associated with the existing retail commercial use and nearby development located on Coast Highway in the vicinity of the site. Project implementation will not result in the loss of any sensitive habitat or species. Further, no cultural or scientific resources are known to be located on the site and important historic resources would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Project implementation will not substantially reduce the habitat of 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 major periods of California history or prehistory. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. b) Does the project have impacts that 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.) Implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant cumulative impacts. In particular, incremental traffic, noise and air quality impacts would not exceed significance thresholds identified ether by the City of Newport Beach or other responsible agency. The proposed project does not have the potential to generate other project - related impacts that may be cumulatively considerable. For example, because the subject property is currently served by the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments and, further, because it proposes only to relocate the existing Panini Cafd to an existing vacant retail commercial structure and convert the vacant floor area to a restaurant use, the project would not require new or additional law enforcement and /or fire protection service. No significant additional traffic would be generated by the proposed relocation of the restaurant to the subject site. Therefore, no additional impacts to those agencies would occur. Also, because the site is intensively developed, no native habitat or other important or sensitive species and /or cultural /scientific resources would occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. PANINI CAFE 1A I Page 36 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑. ❑ 0 on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Although project implementation will result in physical changes to the existing retail commercial structure, the proposed alterations are not anticipated to result in significant changes to the environment. Structural modifications to the existing property to convert the existing retail commercial floor area to a restaurant use will be consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. The Project is consistent with applicable development standards and floor area ratio prescribed for the RSC zoning district regulations. The potential impacts of site development as proposed have been evaluated in the preceding analysis. Based on that evaluation, the proposed development will not have the potential to generate significant environmental effects which could cause adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g., traffic and circulation, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., contribute to deficiencies in public services and/or facilities). Therefore, potential significant impacts are anticipated to be less than significant after the incorporation and implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures identified in this document. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. PANINI CAFt Page 37 `5b SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 7. Panini Caf& Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis; LSA Associates; March 31, 2008. 8. Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report, Panini Cafe; September 20, 2007. PANINI CAFE 1 Page 38 Attachment 1 Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis vp Match 31, 2008 RIVERSIDE LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BERKELEY FRESNO ROCKLIN 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 949.558.0666 TEL CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92614 949.559.6076 FAX PORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Ms. Catherine Biggers Director of Design Panini Hospitality Group 17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 Subject: Panini Caf6 Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis Dear Ms. Biggers: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to present this analysis of parking and internal circulation at the proposed Panini Caf€ location at 2421 East Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach (City). The purpose of this analysis is to review proposed parking layouts and management plans, evaluate the proposed plans in terms of meeting City criteria, and, if necessary, provide recommendations to improve parking supply/layout and circulation around the restaurant. In preparation for this analysis, LSA reviewed project application materials, published Newport Beach staff reports, and parkinghraffic management plans. LSA also had discussions with your office and with Ms. Rosalinh Ung, an Associate Planner with the City. Based on our current review, LSA understands that the staff and Planning Commission generally supported the proposed parking layout and management plan, which identified 12 on -site parking spaces and 10 off -site parking spaces for employees. The applicant's agent suggests that the on -site supply can reach up to 16 parking spaces (using 4 tandem spaces) that would equal the required parking supply per City code. City staff have concluded that the proposed/acknowledged 22 spaces exceed the City requirement and are satisfactory. Subsequent to the Planning Commission action and in response to public comments, City staff and City officials have raised some new concerns regarding circulation to the parking area that relies on entry from an alley along the rear of the building. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Panini Cafe is currently located at 2333 East Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The owner is proposing to move four doors down to 2421 East Coast Highway, into a building that used to house the Persian rug retailer Orient Handel. The new restaurant will be 3,820 square feet (sf) with a net public area of 640 sf. This net public area will accommodate 36 seats. In addition, the new restaurant will provide a 160 sf outdoor patio facing East Coast Highway that will accommodate an additional 12 seats. The applicant reports that approximately 30 percent of their current patrons walk to the restaurant from the nearby neighborhood. The applicant states that the restaurant will not provide live entertainment or dancing. Hours of operation for the restaurant will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. Newport Beach Municipal Code allows some flexibility based on operational characteristics when determining required parking for restaurants. Standards range from 1 parking space for each 30 sf of net public 03/31/08 «PAPHU07011Panini Pwking3 PLlidm. PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 1 DESIGN 1�� LSA A5300IATC3. INC. area to 1 parking space for each 50 sf of net public area. Outdoor dining areas are excluded from this calculation because they cannot be utilized in all weather conditions. The City has stated it expects Panini Caf6 to experience high patron turnover. The City believes menu items that are quickly prepared and a lack of live entertainment will lead to shorter dining experiences. The Planning Commission agreed with City staff's recommendation to require 1 parking space for each 40 sf of net public serving area. Therefore, a total of 16 parking spaces are required for the 640 sf of dining area. It should be noted that the same 16 parking spaces would be required if the City applied a standard of I parking space for each 50 sf of net public area to the entire 800 sf (indoor and outdoor) dining area. The provision of 16 parking spaces for Panini Caf6 is within City standards even when both dining areas are considered. Panini Caf6 plans to satisfy its parking requirement in two ways. First, Panini Cafe will provide valet service to maximize the utilization of the parking space in their garage. Valet services will be provided to patrons free of charge. Second, the applicant has entered into an agreement that will allow its employees to use 10 parking spaces located at 7 Corporate Plaza. Descriptions of valet operations and employee parking are located in the following section. LOCATION OVERVIEW Parldng Locations Figure 1 provides an overview of the parking context near Panini Cafe. On- street parking is allowed on East Coast Highway but is limited to 1 hour between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is allowed on Begonia Avenue except on Wednesdays between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. for street sweeping. Nine parking spaces are located on Begonia Avenue between East Coast Highway and the beginning of the residential neighborhood. Parking is also allowed on Carnation Avenue except on Tuesdays between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. for street sweeping. Six parking spaces are located on Carnation Avenue between East Coast Highway and the beginning of the residential neighborhood. In addition to on- street parking adjacent to commercial uses, parking exists along the primarily residential streets of Begonia Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Fourth Avenue. LSA surveyed parking on these streets between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m, to determine the availability of parking when residents return home from work. Table A displays the results of this survey. LSA used an estimate of 25 feet per curbside parking space to determine the parking supply. LSA also assumed that vehicles would avoid redzones and blocking driveways. The result was a calculation that 34 vehicles can park on Fourth Avenue between Acacia Avenue and Carnation Avenue, 48 vehicles can park on Begonia Avenue between East Coast Highway and Third Avenue, and 41 vehicles can park on Carnation Avenue between East Coast Highway and 3rd Avenue. The survey revealed that Fourth Avenue experiences the least parking availability. Only two spaces were available at 6:00 p.m., and the street was essentially full after that time. Begonia Avenue and Carnation Avenue continued to have available parking spaces throughout the time surveyed. Total parking availability decreased dramatically between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Between these two times the number of available parking spaces decreased from 42 to 28. 03/31/08 ,PAPHUMITmini Parking3 ELH.dmc 1 now A _Sail 4 C ,., r, l t4i j , i dtw^F. m SAN t t d: it Vol LSA A68OQIAT88. INC. Table A: On- street Parking Availability The 10 employee parking spaces are located near the intersection of East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue within a quarter mile (approximately 1,000 feet) from Panini Cafe's new location. Two streets, Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway, have to be crossed when walking between Panini Cafe and the employee parking spaces. LSA walked the distance at a moderate pace. Walking to the employee parking spaces required waiting for two walk signals at intersections and took 9 minutes. Returning to Panini Cafe required less waiting for walk signals at intersections and took only 5 minutes. It is therefore estimated that an employee would require 7 minutes on average to travel between work and their car, a satisfactory distance and duration for an employee walking to work. Without a commitment from Panini Cafe to ensure that its employees will park in this designated area, some employees would be inclined to park in the residential neighborhood to experience a shorter walk to work. Table A shows that 10 parking spaces are available in the residential neighborhood. But the number of available spaces quickly decreases between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., when residents begin arriving home. Restaurant employees parking in the residential neighborhood may displace residents. This potential is particularly acute on Fourth Avenue, where there are no available parking spaces after 6:00 p.m. The potential for a parking impact on residents underscores the necessity that Panini Cafe commit to enforcing its employee parking plan. Previously, the garage at 2421 East Coast Highway held 17 vehicles but did not provide a disabled parking space. The applicant is providing a disabled parking space and believes that valet services will provide 16 total parking spaces in the garage. This parking plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The City, however, has a parking policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car." In order to accommodate 16 vehicles, the valets would have to park vehicles 6, 7, 11, and 14 in a way that blocks other vehicles. Because of this the City is only willing to approve credit for 12 parking spaces in the garage. The combination of valet and employee spaces exceeds the amount required. Additionally, Panini Cafe will have a total of 48 seats inside and on their patio. These seats are arranged four per table around 12 tables. Given that each table of diners is likely to arrive in the same vehicle, even the lowest number accepted by the City is likely to accommodate all of the restaurant's patrons. The occasions when multiple vehicles will be used to transport one party are likely to be less frequent than 03/31/8 0APHU0701\P=ini Parking3 ELH.do . 4 l51) 4th Avenue Acacia Ave to Carnation Ave (34 Total ) Begonia Avenue Coast Hwy to 3rd Ave (48 Total Carnation Avenue Coast Hwy to 3rd Ave 41 Total Total Available 4:00 p.m. 23 27 28 45 4 30 p.m. 22 28 27 46 5:00 P.M. 24 30 28 41 5:30 p.m. 22 28 24 49 6:00 p.m. 32 28 21 42 630 .m. 34 37 24 28 7:00 . m 35 36 23 29 7:30 p.m. 34 38 28 23 8:00 p.m. 33 39 29 22 The 10 employee parking spaces are located near the intersection of East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue within a quarter mile (approximately 1,000 feet) from Panini Cafe's new location. Two streets, Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway, have to be crossed when walking between Panini Cafe and the employee parking spaces. LSA walked the distance at a moderate pace. Walking to the employee parking spaces required waiting for two walk signals at intersections and took 9 minutes. Returning to Panini Cafe required less waiting for walk signals at intersections and took only 5 minutes. It is therefore estimated that an employee would require 7 minutes on average to travel between work and their car, a satisfactory distance and duration for an employee walking to work. Without a commitment from Panini Cafe to ensure that its employees will park in this designated area, some employees would be inclined to park in the residential neighborhood to experience a shorter walk to work. Table A shows that 10 parking spaces are available in the residential neighborhood. But the number of available spaces quickly decreases between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., when residents begin arriving home. Restaurant employees parking in the residential neighborhood may displace residents. This potential is particularly acute on Fourth Avenue, where there are no available parking spaces after 6:00 p.m. The potential for a parking impact on residents underscores the necessity that Panini Cafe commit to enforcing its employee parking plan. Previously, the garage at 2421 East Coast Highway held 17 vehicles but did not provide a disabled parking space. The applicant is providing a disabled parking space and believes that valet services will provide 16 total parking spaces in the garage. This parking plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The City, however, has a parking policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car." In order to accommodate 16 vehicles, the valets would have to park vehicles 6, 7, 11, and 14 in a way that blocks other vehicles. Because of this the City is only willing to approve credit for 12 parking spaces in the garage. The combination of valet and employee spaces exceeds the amount required. Additionally, Panini Cafe will have a total of 48 seats inside and on their patio. These seats are arranged four per table around 12 tables. Given that each table of diners is likely to arrive in the same vehicle, even the lowest number accepted by the City is likely to accommodate all of the restaurant's patrons. The occasions when multiple vehicles will be used to transport one party are likely to be less frequent than 03/31/8 0APHU0701\P=ini Parking3 ELH.do . 4 l51) � � !) zl: \ r?l ba � � !) zl: \ r?l LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. the occasions when a party will walk to the restaurant if the current trend of 30 percent pedestrian patrons continues. Rothschild's Restaurant and The Bungalow, restaurants within the same block, both provide valet parking in the evenings. Patrons who do not wish to utilize valet services have the option of the 15 on- street parking spaces adjacent to commercial development, or they can utilize a City of Newport Beach parking lot located at the comer of 4th Avenue and Dahlia Avenue. This parking lot contains 31 standard parking spaces and one disabled parking space. It is metered from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. but has a 12 -hour time limit. Existing Alley Traffic LSA hired Southland Car Counters to survey evening traffic in the alley on a weekday and on a Saturday. Evening hours were chosen because Panini Cafe is busiest during the evening at its existing location and The Bungalow is only open during these hours. The count was conducted at the center of the alley, near the entrance to the Panini Cafe parking garage. Results of this count are provided below in Table B. At the highest observed rate of traffic, one vehicle passed through the alley every 2 minutes. Typical rates were less than one vehicle every 3 minutes. The addition of traffic to and from Panini Cafe's parking garage will be within the roadway's capacity and will not create excessive congestion or conflicts. Table B: Observed Alley Traffic Volume VALET ALTERNATIVES Various alternative valet circulation plans have been suggested that have different benefits and impacts. LSA examined the various valet plans and a qualitative analysis of these alternatives is provided below. Option 1: Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley The alternative requiring the least alteration of the existing streets and alleys was the one originally proposed by the applicant. In this alternative, Panini Caf6 would post a sign at the front of their property directing motorists to valet parking in the rear. This would be similar to The Bungalow's sign shown here. Motorists would drive their car through the alley and 7 ,_:1 into Panini Cafe's parking garage where the valet stand would be located. In this scenario, a queue of 03731/08 - P:THU07011Panini Parking3 Etdt.dm- 6 (f—) U Thu y, January 31 2008 Saturday, February 2 2008 Eastbound Westbound I Total Eastbound Westbound Total 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 12 9 21 11 7 18 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4 7 11 8 9 17 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.m. 7 5 12 13 4 17 9:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. 8 3 11 6 7 13 10:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. 16 11 27 4 5 9 VALET ALTERNATIVES Various alternative valet circulation plans have been suggested that have different benefits and impacts. LSA examined the various valet plans and a qualitative analysis of these alternatives is provided below. Option 1: Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley The alternative requiring the least alteration of the existing streets and alleys was the one originally proposed by the applicant. In this alternative, Panini Caf6 would post a sign at the front of their property directing motorists to valet parking in the rear. This would be similar to The Bungalow's sign shown here. Motorists would drive their car through the alley and 7 ,_:1 into Panini Cafe's parking garage where the valet stand would be located. In this scenario, a queue of 03731/08 - P:THU07011Panini Parking3 Etdt.dm- 6 (f—) U LSAASSOCIATBS, INC. two vehicles could fit on Panini Cafe's property. This is similar to The Bungalow, which can queue three vehicles before affecting traffic entering the alley from Carnation Avenue. Even though two westbound lanes access the alley from Carnation Avenue, valet operations at The Bungalow is likely to block the alley to through traffic. This would cause vehicles traveling to the Panini Cafe garage to queue with vehicles travelling to The Bungalow. One outcome of this option is that it would require a sign in the alley that would direct motorists into the garage. The sign should be lit from an angle so that the light source points away from adjacent residences. Another issue is that patrons could enter the alley from either direction and not form a single queue. An advantage of this option is that it does not require altering an alley that many people are accustomed to traveling. Option 2: Valet Stand on East Coast Highway Two on- street parking spaces sit directly in front of Panini Cafe's new location. This is a possible location for a valet stand in the evenings. The speed limit on East Coast Highway, in the vicinity of the project site, is 35 miles per hour. In this segment, the curbside lane is wider than two car widths and a buffer exists between parked vehicles and traveling vehicles. This, when combined with parked cars just to the west on East Coast Highway, provides protection for a valet stand. In this scenario, patrons would pull into the area immediately in front of the restaurant. A parking attendant would drive the vehicle to and from the garage in a circular path (East Coast Highway to Carnation Avenue to the alley to Begonia Avenue to East Coast Highway). An advantage to this option is that it places patrons at the front door of the restaurant. It also allows valet signage to be better lit while eliminating the need for additional illumination and a sign in the alley. A potential impact is that a queue longer than two vehicles could develop and interfere with traffic on East Coast Highway. Another potential impact is that, with such a prominent location in front, the Panini Cafe valet stand could be mistaken as a valet stand serving multiple restaurants within close proximity, thus creating confusion along a high- volume, high -speed arterial. For this reason, this option is not recommended. Option 3: Valet Stand in One -Way Alley The entrance to the alley from Carnation Avenue, near The Bungalow, is currently striped as an entrance only (as pictured here). One suggestion for streamlining traffic flow in the alley would be to continue this striping all the way through and make the alley one -way westbound from Carnation Avenue to Begonia Avenue. With this alteration to the alley, a valet stand inside the Panini Cafe parking garage would be ensured of a queue in a single direction. 03/31/08 «P1PHU0 IWai ini Padcing3 ELH.dm. 7 \ 5i� L v, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. This scenario, however, would still require signage in the alley. It also has the potential to increase the number of vehicles traversing the alley because patrons of Rothschild's Restaurant and the Wine Gallery would have to enter at Carnation Avenue instead of Begonia Avenue. This would also make a one -way alley difficult to enforce. For these reasons and the inconvenience to residents who use the alley for access, this option is not recommended. Option 4: Parking Reconfiguration And Mixed Valet Operations This option suggests reconfiguring the surface parking lot and establishing one valet stand that would serve 2421, 2435, 2411, and 2445 East Coast Highway. The valet for these businesses would be able to park customers' vehicles in the parking garage or on the reconfigured surface lot. Twenty -eight parking spaces currently exist in separate parking areas for The Bungalow, Golden Spoon, and 2435 East Coast Highway. The combined total area of these parking areas (designated on Figure 1 as 6, 7, and 8) is approximately 9,000 square feet. Reconfiguring this space to take advantage of common access aisles will result in greater parking efficiency. According to the Urban Land Institute Dimensions of Parking, Fourth Edition, 270 to 300 square feet per parking space is a reasonable estimate for a surface parking lot. This would result in two to five more parking spaces than currently exist. Tandem parking or other valet operations within the City's "move one car to get one car" standard would likely result in even more parking spaces. Detailed striping plans could be produced to determine the exact number of potential parking spaces if there is interest in pursing this option. Businesses occupying 2435 East Coast Highway are primarily personal and professional services. Most of those businesses have low parking demand in the evening hours when the restaurants have their highest demand. A shared parking lot would result in greater available parking for customers of 2435 East Coast Highway when their demand is highest and greater available parking for restaurant customers when their demand is highest. When the reconfigured surface parking lot is designed, a location for the valet stand can be chosen that provides more stacking capacity than currently exists for The Bungalow. Two challenges could interfere with the implementation of this option. First, this option would require the consensus of four land owners and multiple tenants within one of the buildings. Second, the option requires more construction than any of the other options. The extent of construction is not known at this time, but could be quantified at a later date. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed parking plan does not require a radical departure from existing practices in the alley behind the proposed location for Panini Cafe. Panini Cafe will be located in an existing building. The parking garage has historically been used for valet parking for nearby restaurants and the applicant's proposal to use those spaces for his own property will not present an additional hazard. Panini Caf6 does plan to make one design modification. Stairs at the rear of the building that currently extend into a 10 -foot setback will be altered so that the setback is kept clear. This will provide a minor benefit by removing an obstruction from the required setback. 03/31/06 xPAPHU070FP=ini Pa king3 ELHdmc 8 0 L8A A86001AT68. INC. The circulation necessary for Option 1 would not present a new hazard. Option 1 also has the advantage of requiring the least variation from the current practice of valet parking operations at existing nearby restaurants. Option 2 would introduce a pedestrian movement in a public right -of- way, which, when coupled with a potential for driver confusion, presents a potential hazard and is therefore not recommended. Option 3, the creation of a one -way alley, also has the potential to induce driver confusion. Restricting turn movements from Begonia Avenue would be difficult to enforce. Turning vehicles present a potential hazard to vehicles and pedestrians in the alley that expect compliance. For this reason, Option 3 is not recommended. Option 4 requires the consensus of multiple parties and reconstruction of the surface parking areas. Because the proposed parking plan and circulation necessary for Option 1 do not present new hazards or require new construction, Option I is the preferred alternative. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIIATES�, INC. Anthony Petros Principal 03(3108 «RTHUMITanini Paldng3 ELH.dmc 9 l EXHIBIT 5 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - COMMENT LETTERS lb3 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AmMtl 9eh•rarieneeear. Dollar= NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAiKTOL MALL, ROOM 964 RECENED SACRA1iENf0, CA 95811 jo �� 1 PL4NNING DERgRMEM Web Sore 9or she m,gox e-m M-. de_nehoOpecbell.nal MAY 06 ZOQB May 1, 2008 Ms. Rosatinh Ung, Associate Planner CY OF NEMORI BEACH ICITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: SCHs2008041099: CEQA Notice of Completion: proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Perrino Cat:: City d>f Newport Beach: Orange County. California Dear Ms. Ung: The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated to protect California's Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Ad (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064.5(b)(c (CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance.' In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'ares of potential effect (APEY, and If so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recornmenda the following action: J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center ( CHRIS) for possible'recorded sites' in locatone where the development will or night occur.. Contact information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation (9161653 -7278)/ htto:1Akww.ohp.parks.oa.gov. The record search will determine: • If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present J If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site fours, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate oonficiential addendum, and not be made available fix pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. J Co., ldct the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity Drat may have additional aftral resource information. Please provide this dice with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands Rte search request USGS 7.5 -minute aredranals citation with name, tow n- Nn. range and section: . • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends ttst contact be made with Conte on the attached IW to get their input on potential project impact (APE). In some cases, the existence of a Native American cultural ral resources may be known only to a local tribe(s). J Lads of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should inchnde in their mitigation plan provisions fix the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Aix (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In area of identified ardaeologital seamy, a certified ardwasologlat and a aiWrally afibleted Native American, with WoMedge in cultural resources, should nropika all gromhddistrnbi ng activities. • A ,,"Wed, Wed, NeW AneTk�ri tube may be tits orifysa�Hie d irdhxm�on about a Saixed SiieJl�bve Abte+nc�ih odlpral resource.:.. • Load should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in casulteiion with h culturally affiliated Native Americans. \kh J Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. J Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the Ca&fomia Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. . Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code slag that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. J Lead agencies should consider avoidance. as defined in 815370 of the California Cade of Regulations (CEOA Guidelares), when simrificant caftral resouroas are discovered during the course of project planning and implementation Please free to corded me at (916) 65343251 'rf you have any questions. Si�narelyD, t Dave Singleton Program Attachment List of Native American Contacts Cc: State Clearinghouse `0 I _ live American Contacts Orange County May 1, 2008 Juaneno Bad of Wwwon Irxhwm Arm Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno sao Juan capistrano , CA 92675 (949) 44993-009959 hotrnall.com (949) 493-1601 Fax Juarmo Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 -2674 era@juarum.corn 949-48&%34 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph "Bud' Sepulveda, Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 771440 -3 70oo.net 71144 -8 913884 ---1 118812 - CELL bsepui @yahoo.net Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson JuanePio Band `of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juanenc Santa Ana , CA 92799 (714) 323-8312 sonia.johnston0sbcglobal.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciac hemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources Anita Espinoza 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno San Jum capistraw , CA 92675 Anaheim CA 92807 kaamalamGcox.net (714) 779-8832 (949) 493-0959 (949) 293 -8522 Cell (949) 493 -1601 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 al 99&071 bcglobal.net sifredgcxuzOsbcglobal.net This list Is cun*M only as of Uw data of Oft doaanwil. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Ocampo, Chairperson 1108 E. 4th Street Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92701 (714) 547 -9676 (714) 623-0709-ce11 Dlstrlbution of this list does not relle" aly person of stakdory respomlMlky as defined in Section 0911.5 of the Roalth and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Msomme Codes This Mat is only , 11 1 k for contec" local Nature Aun rican with regard to cWNwel resources for the prep, SCI1120UBUf10ft, CEM N041ke of Completlon: proposed MlOyaled Negative DeclAmson for the panlnl Cafe Project City of Hmpart Beech: ora gs Cowdy, CaBfonda. W1 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 16, 2008 VIA E -MAIL & FIRST CLASS MAIL Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Joel D. Kuperberg Direct Dial: (714) 6624608 E-mail: jkuperberg@rutan.com RECEIVED BY PI ANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 16 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Re: Use Permit No. 2007 -010, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 and Offsite Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 (Parini Cafe Relocation) Honorable Chair and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of Commercial West Brokerage, the owner of the property located at 2443 East Pacific Coast Highway. On June 5, 2008, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the above applications for the Panini Cafe relocation to 2421 East Pacific Coast High)vay. Commercial West opposes approval of the above applications for the relocation of Panini Cafe to the proposed site for the following reasons: • The draft mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project ( "MND ") does not comply with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA' ). • The project should not be approved unless and until a complete traffic impact study is prepared and approved in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, codified as Newport Beach Municipal Code § 15.40.010, et seq. • The Planning Commission cannot make at least one of the three required findings under Newport Beach Municipal Code § 29.91.035(A) for the issuance of a conditional use permit for this project. • The proposed Panini patio does not meet the requirements of Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.82.050(A) for an accessory outdoor dining permit. At the outset, it should be emphasized that Commercial West does not oppose the relocation of the Panini Cafe because it is an adjacent restaurant use, or due to any concerns regarding competition from an adjacent food - serving establishment. On the contrary, Commercial West strongly believes that restaurants and other commercial uses help give Corona del Mar the Futan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950. Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1950 1 714- 641.5100 1 Fax 714- 546 -9035 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 131/026439-0001 ` 909317.01 &05116/08 1 RUTAN ATTORNEVI AT LAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 2 vibrant, exciting "village" feel that make it an attractive location for both residents and visitors. To this end, it supports the location of new and additional restaurants, retail stores and other commercial establishments at appropriate locations in Corona del Mar. However, Commercial West opposes the Panini relocation at the proposed location due to specific concerns regarding documented environmental traffic and parking impacts, and because the proposed site cannot accommodate this type of use. As proposed, the Panini relocation will adversely impact the use of the building at 2443 East Pacific Coast Highway by Commercial West, its tenants and business invitees. In this regard, it is unfortunate that the applicant seeks Planning Commission approval of the very same application —with the very same parking plan—that engendered so much community opposition and technical critiques at the September 20, 2007 Planning Commission hearing and in anticipation of the November 27, 2007 City Council hearing, when consideration of this project was continued because of these very concerns. The attached May 12, 2008 analysis from the traffic engineering firm RK Engineering Group, Inc. (the "RK Traffic Analysis "), as well as the evidence — both in the form of the City staff analyses and communications from residents in connection with 2007 Planning Commission and City Council hearings — demonstrate that the relocation of Panini to the intersection of MacArthur and East Pacific Coast Highway would cause significant adverse parking and traffic circulation impacts to the businesses at that location and their customers, as well as to the residents who live in the immediate neighborhood. I. THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS INADEQUATE AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CEQA. When this project was last before the Planning Commission, the applicant took the position that the project was exempt from CEQA as a "minor alteration of existing facilities." In its appeal of the project approval, Commercial West appropriately highlighted how that categorical exemption cannot legally fit the proposed relocation project, and why this project requires CEQA review and analysis. While the City and the applicant have acknowledged their error in seeking to exempt this project from CEQA, they have chosen to comply with CEQA by preparing a mitigated negative declaration, rather than a full EIR. However, because of the numerous environmental impacts that may result from this project, CEQA does not permit the use of a mitigated negative declaration for the Panini relocation. Under CEQA, there is "a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR," No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 84 (1974), and a "preference to resolve doubts in favor of full -blown environmental review," Sierra Club v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 150 Cal.AppAth 370, 381 -383 (2007). Accordingly, an EIR must be prepared 1311026439 -0001 909317.01 s05116M8 l� RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LA. Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 3 "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary," Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 122 Cal.AppAth 572, 580 (2004) (emphasis added); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 927 (2004). The "fair argument" test requires a lead agency to prepare an EIR where "there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial," CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1) (emphasis added); see, San Joaquin Raptor /Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, 42 Cal.AppAth 608, 614 -615 (1996). Stated differently, "for projects that may cause both beneficial and adverse significant impacts on the environment, preparation of an EIR is required because the consideration of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures might result in changes to the project that decrease its adverse impacts on California's environment," County Sanitation District No. 2 v. County of Kern, 127 Cal.AppAth 1544,1580 (2005) (emphasis added). It bears noting that fact -based conclusions of a qualified expert—such as the attached RK Traffic Analysis -- constitute substantial evidence for purposes of CEQA. Public Resources Code § 21080(e); City of Livermore v. LAFCO, 184 Cal.App.3d 531, 541 (1986). When qualified experts present conflicting evidence on the existence, nature or extent of a project's impacts, the City is required to accept the evidence showing that the impact might occur, Architectural Heritage Assn v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal.AppAth 1095, 1114 (2004). Further, personal observations of neighbors —such as the evidence of the significant traffic and parking problems that will result from the relocation of Panini presented last year to the Planning Commission and City Council by the residents of the neighborhood also can serve as substantial evidence of potential impacts, requiring the preparation of an EIR, Oro Fino Mining Co. v. County of El Dorado, 225 Cal.App.3d 872 (1990). A review of the MND for the Panini relocation project reveals that the MND fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of CEQA in numerous respects, and is vulnerable to legal challenge if adopted by the City. Among its many CEQA shortcomings, the MND fails to comply with California law in the following respects: 1. Inadequate Project Description – Piecemealine. A complete, adequate project description is at the core of any environmental analysis, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 (2007); and an inadequate project description invalidates an assessment under CEQA, Cadiz Land Co. v Rail Cycle, LP, 83 Cal.AppAth 74 (2000). An agency may not piecemeal a large project into smaller pieces, each with minimal impacts on the environment, to avoid full environmental disclosure, Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal.3d 263, 283 -284 (1975). CEQA requires "that environmental 131/026439-0001 909317.01 &05/76(08 i�V RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT 1AW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 4 considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences," Burbank - Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler, 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592 (1991). As the attached RK Traffic Analysis demonstrates, the proposed Panini relocation is logically only a small part of a larger commercial project contemplated at 2421 East Coast Highway, because the proposed Panini relocation will use only a small portion of the existing facility there. Typically, between 45% and 55% of a restaurant's usable area is dedicated to "public space," Le., dining area. Panini's existing facility, at 2333 East Pacific Coast Highway, comprises 1,500 square feet of usable space, in which 52 indoor seats and 6 outdoor seats are located, and the existing facility thus appears to meet the usable area standard. By contrast, the proposed Panini relocation site is over twice as large — 3,820 square feet — but the application claims that only 640 square feet (or just 16.8% of the usable area) will be used for dining space, and then to accommodate only 36 indoor seats. In other words, the application states that Panini proposes to relocate to a structure 2.5 times larger than the existing Panini restaurant, while reducing its indoor seating by 31 %. On that basis, the relocation makes no economic sense at all. It is self- evident from a review of Panini's existing space utilization and its proposed relocation that the applications before the Planning Commission are only the first phase of a much larger project. By seeking approval of just this limited first phase of the Panini Cafe relocation with a MND, rather than analyzing the ultimate use of the entirety of the complete facility at 2421 East Pacific Coast Highway, the application is a classic example of the "piecemealing" condemned by the courts in Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, and other cases. Indeed, in an analogous situation, the California Supreme Court invalidated a CEQA document in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Ca1.3d 376 (1988), after concluding that it analyzed only the use of a small portion of a building acquired by the University of California, rather than the use of the entirety of that building. Here, by analyzing the impacts of just 640 square feet of dining space in a structure comprising 3,820 square feet, the MND improperly piecemeals the totality of the project, ignoring the full extent of the direct and cumulative impacts of the project as a whole. 2. I_nadequate Analysis of Employee Parking Impacts. The MND acknowledges the very limited availability of on -street parking in the Corona del Mar area (see, LSA March 31, 2008 Circulation Analysis at pp. 2, 4). The LSA analysis accompanying the MND, the attached RK Traffic Analysis and common knowledge all reveal significant traffic and parking constraints in the area, given the high volume of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and traffic congestion on the narrow neighborhood streets in Corona del Mar. Within the Corona del Mar area, in proximity to the proposed Panini relocation, there is virtually no on- street parking in the 131/026039.0001 909317,01 ORION RUTAN ATTOANM AT LAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 5 evenings. This on- street parking deficiency is confirmed by the Corona del Mar Business Improvement Parking Study conducted in 2000. In light of these conditions, the MND fails to analyze the full extent of the impacts resulting from employees at the relocated Panini Cafe parking in this already parking - constrained neighborhood. The MND acknowledges that the offsite employee parking location is almost % of a mile away, requiring employees to park at a remote lot, walk for at least 7 minutes, and then cross a busy street. The MND contains no meaningful analysis of the public safety impacts, as well as the personal safety impacts, of those employees rushing across Pacific Coast Highway if they are late for work. Further, the RK Traffic Analysis concludes, based upon the experience and expertise of the traffic engineers who prepared that report, that the Panini employees are likely to park in the immediate Corona del Mar neighborhood rather than the remote parking lot because of convenience and in order to avoid delays, thereby taking up the few remaining spaces in the neighborhood needed by residents and their guests. The MND improperly assumes that the employees will use the remote parking rather than the neighborhood parking, and thereby fails to analyze the impacts upon the Corona del Mar neighborhood of these employees following normal human behavior by parking close to their place of work. 3. Failure to Analyze Alley Obstruction Impacts of Valet Parking Plan. As demonstrated in the RK Traffic Analysis, the proposed valet parking management plan at the proposed relocated Panini's not only is inconsistent with the City's parking policy for valet parking, but will also create obstruction impacts to the relatively narrow alley behind the restaurant structure. If two vehicles enter the area for drop off, one of the two vehicles will encroach into the travel path of the existing alley (see Appendix C to RK Traffic Analysis). This obstruction will block emergency vehicles and public vehicular and pedestrian use of the alley, and will significantly restrict the ability of customers of other commercial facilities served by the alley to access their intended destinations. The MND fails to analyze their obstruction impacts, and proposes no mitigation measures to address them. Given the high intensity of development in the area, the potential obstruction of emergency vehicles is particularly acute, and requires a separate and full analysis. 4. Failure to Analyze Obstruction Impacts of Using the Alley as Panini's Loading Area. As discussed in the RK Traffic Analysis, the site of the relocated Panini Cafe has no separate loading area for the delivery of food, equipment and materials. As a result, normal- sized (i.e., 30 -foot) trucks making deliveries to the relocated Panini's will block both the exit ramp from the existing underground parking facility, as well as the driveways of the Corona del Mar residents whose garages open onto the alley. The MND contains no analysis of the impacts to the alley, the guests of other commercial establishments or the residents' properties backing onto the alley, of the lack of any loading area for deliveries to the Panini relocation site, or the 131/026479-0001 909317.01 x05116108 1�� RUTAN ATTOPNFYS AT LAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 6 effect of delivery trucks blocking access to customers, residents and the traveling public whenever deliveries are made. 5. Failure to Analyze Increased Traffic from the Relocated Panini Cafe. The initial study incorrectly notes "no impact" with respect to whether the proposed relocation will "cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load ... " As the RK Traffic Analysis demonstrates, the proposed Panini relocation will cause a three -fold increase in daily traffic (486 ADT) and a four -fold increase in afternoon peak traffic. In sum, the Panini relocation project will generate 320 more trips per day than the previous use of that site as a carpet store. While the MND does not refer to any thresholds of significance for evaluating increased traffic, the City's enactment of its Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Newport Beach Municipal Code § 15.40.010, et seq.) requires a traffic impact study if a proposed use generates more than 300 additional net trips per day. By establishing a "trigger" for further review of traffic impacts, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance serves as a threshold of significance for traffic impacts in Newport Beach. Thus, because the proposed Panini relocation exceeds 300 trips per day, the proposed project in fact causes a potential significant environmental impact that the MND has failed to analyze or mitigate. 6. Inadequate, Vague Mitigation Measures. Both of the proposed mitigation measures in the MND are impermissibly vague and lack the level of detail required under CEQA to serve as measures that reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. With respect to Mitigation Measure 1 (draft MND, p. 33), the requirement that the applicant "prepare a Final Valet Parking Plan" for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer is inadequate and incomplete, because it does not set forth (other than by vague reference to "Option 1 ") the specific operational requirements to be imposed upon the applicant. Further, by stating that this plan must "illustrate the manner in which the operational characteristics of the parking plan will occur," rather than itself setting forth those operational characteristics, the mitigation measure vests undue discretion in a City official's future decision, without adequate standards, performance objectives or other parameters. Similarly, Mitigation Measure 2 (draft MND, p. 33) for the preparation of an employee parking plan to be approved by the City Engineer, contains no standards, criteria or restrictions to govern the Traffic Engineer's discretion in reviewing the proposed plan. The mitigation measure also provides that the plan "shall identify the manner in which enforcement will be carried out to ensure that employees do not parking [sic] in the nearby residential neighborhood," but does not specify how or in what manner the enforcement will occur, rendering it impossible for the City to find that this plan mitigates the potential parking impacts to a level of insignificance. 1311026439 -W01 909317 01 .05/16/08 1 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT IAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 7 Thus, both mitigation measures fail for three reasons. First, because the mitigation measures essentially require the future development, review and City approval of specific mitigation plans, they defer the actual mitigation program to a later date, and thereby violate CEQA because they are insufficient to support a determination that potentially significant parking impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance, in violation of CEQA, Sundstrom V. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (1988). Second, the mitigation measures contain no standards for performance; their adequacy is left to the unbridled discretion of a City employee. In League to Protect Oakland's Heritage and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland, 52 Cal.AppAth 896 (1977), the court invalidated a mitigated negative declaration because the mitigation was similarly tentative and vague. Finally, the mitigation measures cannot pass muster under CEQA because the actual mitigation —which is deferred to future "plans " — impermissibly avoids public scrutiny and review. A mitigated negative declaration requiring the formulation of specific mitigation at a future time violates CEQA's requirement that members of the public must have an opportunity to review and comment on the actual mitigation before the mitigated negative declaration is adopted, Public Resources Code Section 21080(cx2); State CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b)(1); Quail Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1605 (1994). For all of these reasons, the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate under CEQA. II. THE CITY MAY NOT APPROVE THE PANINI CAFE RELOCATION UNTIL A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS PREPARED AND APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, codified as Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC") § 15.40.010, et seq., requires the phasing of development with circulation system improvements to accommodate project - generated traffic in order to maintain the high quality of the residential and commercial neighborhoods in Newport Beach. Under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project generating more than 300 average daily trips (§ 15.40.030(C)(1)) cannot receive a land use entitlement or building or construction permit unless the City has approved a traffic impact study for the project prepared in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and its implementing guidelines (NBMC § 15.40.030(A)). As the RK Traffic Analysis concludes, the proposed Panini relocation will generate 320 more trips per day than the previous occupancy and use of that site as a carpet store. As a result, the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the preparation and City approval of a traffic impact study in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and implementing guidelines prior to approval of the relocation project. Approval of the project without a traffic impact study will violate the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1311026439-0001 909317.01 ROAMS 1 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT IAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 8 III. THE DOCUMENTED PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPACTS PREVENT THE CITY FROM MAKING AT LEAST ONE OF THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE PANINI RELOCATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.91.035(A) requires the City to make three specific findings in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. One of those findings, set forth in NBMC § 20.91.035(A)(2), requires as follows: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the general plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; will not be detriment to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvement in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City; ... (Emphasis added.) The City cannot make the findings required in NBMC § 20.91.035(A)(2), because the demonstrated parking and circulation problems resulting from the Panini relocation project conflict with the policies in the Newport Beach Circulation Element, and the project will be detrimental to persons living or working near the proposed relocated Panini Cafe. With respect to the "no detrimental impact" finding requirement, both the extensive public input to the Planning Commission and City Council in 2007, and the conclusions of the attached RK Traffic Analysis, demonstrate that the parking and circulation impacts from this relocation will have a significant impact on the neighboring businesses and residences. The likelihood of Panini Cafe employees failing to use a remote parking lot and instead taking the few remaining parking spaces available in the Corona del Mar neighborhood, the obstruction of the alley behind the proposed relocated Panini Cafe resulting from valet queuing and delivery trucks using the alley as a loading zone, and the increased traffic from this project, have all been highlighted above. None of these issues are addressed in the draft MND. As a result, the evidence simply does not support the required City Code finding that the Panini Cafe relocation "will not be detrimental" to the public health or safety of persons residing or working in or adjacent to that relocated restaurant, or to the properties in the vicinity. For these same reasons, the proposed Panini relocation is inconsistent with at least two policies in the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Circulation Element Policy 7.1.1 "Require[s] that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors." As previously indicated, the expert analysis, neighborhood comments and prior City staff concerns all highlight the inadequate onsite parking, and call into question the efficacy of the remote parking plan. 131ro26439 -0001 909317.01 a05116108 /3 1 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 9 Further, General Plan Circulation Element Policy 7.1.8 requires the City to "Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce." In 2007, Newport Beach City staff documented its concerns regarding the maintenance and enforcement of both the onsite and offsite parking arrangements proposed for the Panini relocation. The RK Traffic Analysis further highlights the difficulty in maintaining and enforcing both the remote employee parking plan, as well as the valet parking at the relocated Panini site, and notes the obstructive impacts that will result from the queuing of restaurant customers and the presence of delivery trucks in the alley behind the proposed Panini Cafe location. Based upon the parking circulation problems that will likely result from the proposed Panini relocation, no evidence supports the City's ability to make the findings required in NBMC § 20.91.035(A )(2) that the project is consistent with the General Plan and will not have any detrimental impacts to neighbors or adjacent businesses. As a result, the City may not, consistent with its Municipal Code, approve the Panini Relocation Conditional Use Permit. IV. THE PROPOSED PANINI OUTDOOR PATIO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT. The Panini relocation proposes an outdoor area as an accessory use under NBMC § 20.82.050(A). However, the proposed patio does not comply with the express requirements of that provision. Section 20.82.050(A) only applies to applications "to add or expand outdoor dining to an existing eating and drinking establishment...:' (emphasis added). The project description in the draft MND makes clear that the Panini Cafe relocation is not the continued use of an existing restaurant facility; rather, the Panini relocation project comprises "the conversion of an existing retail commercial space to a full service restaurant" (draft MND, p. 1); the structure to house the relocated Panini Cafe "is currently vacant but was formerly occupied by a carpet store" (draft MND, p. 2). Consequently, the proposed Panini relocation does not affect "an existing eating and drinking establishment; indeed, there is no evidence that this site has ever housed a restaurant or other type of eating or drinking establishment. The Panini relocation therefore would result in a new restaurant use at this former carpet store location. Because the Panini relocation is not the expanded or different use of an existing restaurant at the relocation site, no accessory outdoor dining permit may be granted pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.82.050(A). s s s 131/026439-0001 909317.01 a05 116/08 1 �1 RUTAN ATTONNFVS AT LAW Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission May 16, 2008 Page 10 Thank you for your consideration of this letter commenting upon the draft MND for the Panini Cafe relocation, and opposing the approval of proposed Use Permit No. 2007 -010, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006, and Outdoor Parking Agreement No. 2007- 001, for that relocation. Representatives of Commercial West Brokerage look forward to answering any questions that the Planning Commission may have during the public hearing on this matter on June 5, 2008. Very truly yours, RI LTAN & TUCKER, LLP Jo . Ku) rg JDK:t Attachment cc: Mr. Phil Berry 131/026439.0001 909317.01 05116M n + ® gFUR 1 ng �I�p, 11C. May 12, 2008 Mr. Phil Berry COMMERCIAL WEST. BROKERAGE, INC., 2443 East Coast Hwy Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 transportation planning • traffic engineering environmental engineering • parking studies Subject: Panini Caf6 Parking and Internal Traffic Study Review Dear Mr. Berry: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this parking and traffic review of the Panini Cafd relocation (UP- 2007 -010) being proposed in the City of Newport Beach (within the Corona del Mar Community). RK is a full service traffic and transportation firm located in Newport Beach, California. Robert Kahn, P.E. a registered traffic and civil engineer in the State of California provided this review of the Panini Cafd Parking and Internal Traffic Study Review. Mr. Kahn's resume is included in Appendix A. The purpose of the review was to assess adequacy of parking and internal traffic and circulation as a result of the proposed relocation of the Panini Cafd in the City of Newport Beach. RK reviewed the application for the project including the Panini Cafd Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis and compared it to the City Municipal Code with respect to parking and circulation. The existing Panini Cafd is located at 2333 East Pacific Coast Highway. The project is planning to be relocated to at 2421 East Pacific Coast Highway (previously the Oriental Rug Store) and the project will include a 3,820- square foot full service restaurant, including a 160 square foot outdoor dining area. A copy of the proposed floor plan and underground parking garage is included in Appendix B. According to the project description and Floor plan, the project will accommodate a total of 48 seats for the proposed restaurant including 36 seats for the indoor dining area and 12 seats for the outdoor dining area. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM each day and no entertainment uses will be provided on -site. A maximum of 10 employees will work at the restaurant during the busiest shift. The proposed project will include a total of 16 on -site parking spaces within the basement area, including several spaces that will be valet service spaces. In addition, 10 off -site parking spaces will be provided at 7 Corporate Plaza, located in Newport Center, Approximately 1,450 feet away the proposed site. The City of Newport Beach has a 3991 macarthur boulevard, suite 310 newpurt beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 http://www.rkengineer.cm 0 parking policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car ". According to the City documents, in order to accommodate 16 vehicles the valets would have to park vehicles 6, 7 and 11 and 14 in a way that blocks other vehicles, which is inconsistent with the City's policy of "move one car to get one car ". As a result of this, the City staff indicated that a credit of only 12 on -site spaces should be given for this site. In order to review this application, RK has conducted a field review of both the existing and proposed Panini CA sites and reviewed the following documents: • City of Newport Beach Environmental Check list dated April 15, 2008 • LSA Associates, Inc. March 31, 2008 Panini Cafe Parking and Internal Circulation Analysis • Proposed Building Layout and Parking Plan • City of Newport Beach/Corona Del Mar Business Improvement District Parking Evaluation July, 26, 2000 • City TPO (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Guidelines Findings Based upon a review of the above items, RK would offer the following findings with respect to the proposed project: 1. Based on the proposed building size of 3,820 square feet, (see Appendix B) the site could very well generate significantly more "public space" area than the 640 square feet utilized in the calculation of the parking requirement. Typical restaurants contain 45 to 55 percent of their area dedicated to "public space ", whereas, the proposed project plans only identifies 16.8 percent of the space dedicated to "public space ". 2. The existing Panini CafE includes approximately 1,500 square feet, with a total of at least 52 indoor seats and 6 outdoor seats. This would indicate that the proposed 3,820 square foot facility located at 2421 Pacific Coast Highway may generate significantly greater indoor space and seats than estimated in the parking analysis. 3. Since it is very possible the proposed project would generate additional public space areas and seating, substantially more parking will be required than is currently being proposed for the site and at the off -site location. 4. The parking demand in the area is significant based upon a review of both the LSA Associates, Inc. study, previous Corona Del Mar Business Improvement District Parking Evaluation and RK's field review of the area. During peak usage times of the restaurant, limited on- street parking is available and additional parking demand would displace existing residential use of on- street parking in the area. Doubling the size of the current restaurant will create a substantially greater parking demand for on- street parking in the area. }1� S. The off -site parking location for employees is located at a substantial distance (1,450 feet from the proposed site). This distance requires a substantial walk time and it is anticipated that employees will park on the adjacent residential streets despite the proposed parking management program. Any currently available on- street parking will be quickly utilized by the employees. 6. There is limited queuing in the area for the valet service (see Appendix Q. The site plans indicate that excess queuing could occur into the alleyway, however, that will result in blocking emergency access and general circulation and flow in this area. This will cause more congestion in the existing alley. The site provides no defined loading area for the delivery of goods and materials to the site. If typical a box -truck (30 feet long) parks adjacent to the building, it would block the existing alley, interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent residential garages and also block the ingress/egress to the underground parking facility for the site. This will cause more congestion in the existing alley. 8. Although the Applicant's proposed access to the project is from Fourth Avenue, the proximity of the existing driveway located at the Bungalow Restaurant may often be utilized, since it is more convenient for access from Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. This will create additional demand and queuing in this alley interfering with existing operations of the valet service at the Bungalow Restaurant and the adjacent office building. This will create more conflicts with pedestrians behind the existing restaurant. 9. The proposed project will generate three times the daily traffic and four times the PM peak hour traffic than the previous use for the site, was a specialty retail use. The additional traffic will certainly affect the current operations in the alleyway serving existing uses. 10. Based upon the projected net increase in trip generation, the project should be subject to a TPO (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) traffic impact study. A copy of the TPO requirements is included in Appendix D. The project will exceed 300 daily trips even with credit taken for the previous use at the site. As a result of this a full TPO traffic analysis needs to be conducted for the site. This study will determine whether the project would cause any significant on or off -site traffic impacts. Discussion RK has identified a number of issues related to the proposed project that could impact parking and traffic demand in the area. These items could result in an adverse impact if not properly mitigated. The following items need further evaluation: �o lic Space The proposed building at 2421 East Pacific Coast Highway will include approximately 3,820 square feet with a net public area of 640 square feet. In addition, a 160 square foot outdoor dining area is proposed with the project. The 640 square feet represent 16.8 percent of the total building area. This is very low in comparison to typical restaurant facilities of this size. Typically, restaurants provide approximately 45 to 55 percent of the total size to public space utilized for dining. This is not the case in this proposal, and therefore, the proposed site could easily be changed to increase the amount of public space area in the future which would increase the amount of seating. The proposed 36 indoor seats seems considerably low given the overall gross size of the overall building. As a result of this low proposed number of seats, the building could be easily converted to add additional seating, and therefore, increase parking demand substantially in the future. If the building provided a typical amount of public space in comparison to the overall building size, nearly 1,900 square feet would be devoted to public space and therefore, would require 48 parking spaces rather than the 16 proposed parking spaces based upon the City's recommended parking rate of 1 space per 40 square feet of public space. Seating Capacity of the Existing Panini Cafe The existing Panini Caf6 occupies a building of approximately 1,500 square feet. It has a total of at least 52 indoor seats and 6 outdoor seats. This site is located at 2333 East Pacific Coast Highway. While the size of the existing facility is less than half of the proposed site at 2421 East Pacific Coast Highway, the seating capacity is nearly the same within the building itself. Again, the proposed building site has the a potential to generate significantly more public space and seating areas because of it size, which would require two or three times the amount of parking currently required. Existing On- Street Parking Demand Parking Demand in the vicinity of the proposed Panini Caf6 has been documented by several sources. This includes the recent LSA Associates, Inc. Parking Internal Circulation analysis, the previous Corona Del Mar Business Improvement District Parking Study completed in Year 2000, and parking reviews completed by RK on Friday, May 2, 2008. The LSA Associates, Inc. parking study acknowledges that there is limited existing on- street parking capacity available in proximity to the proposed Panini Cafe, especially on Fourth Avenue between Acacia Avenue to Carnation. In this area, the LSA Associates, Inc. study indicates that at 7:00 PM (the peak time of the proposed restaurant) 35 spaces were occupied out of a total of 34 available parking spaces. The peak parking demand along Begonia Avenue and Carnation Avenue also indicates substantial parking demand especially during the periods when the restaurant will be at its peak hours. ',t The Corona Del Mar Business Improvement Parking Study conducted in 2000, indicated a lack of available parking in the Corona Del Mar area. In the 2400 Block area on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, there was a parking capacity of 83 parking spaces available within the block. That parking study also calculated that the parking required in the area was approximately 94 spaces (at one space per 200 square feet), which indicated a deficit of available parking for the 2400 Block of Pacific Coast Highway. With increased restaurant usage in the area that has occurred over the last several years, increased parking demand has occurred and a further deficit in available parking has occurred. Since the off -site parking for employees is located at a substantial distance from the site (over 1,450 feet) there is a good probability that employees will attempt to park in the vicinity of the site within the adjacent residential streets. The existing parking demand in the area is already excessive and the increased usage by employees cannot be controlled by the operator and therefore would have an adverse impact to the existing residential and commercial community in the area. Off -site Parking Location The parking management plan proposes to accommodate off -site parking for employees at an existing office building at 7 Corporate Plaza in the Newport Center area. This location requires crossing Pacific Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue at a signalized intersection to gain access to the off -site parking facility. Furthermore, measurements made for the actual path of walking would require a walking distance of 1,450 feet. This requires a travel time of approximately 7 minutes, which will further discourage employees from parking in the off -site location instead there will be parking on- street in the surrounding residential areas. The significant issue with staff members parking on- street is that they would take up the spaces before the residents, and other commercial facilities need the spaces during the peak parking period that occurs after 6:00 PM. This issue would further impact the parking impacts of the proposed project. Valet Queuing Area The Applicant proposes a valet parking management plan, which utilizes the underground parking facility at the site. A copy of the proposed parking layout is included in Appendix B. According to the plan, this layout accommodates up to 16 parking spaces, which requires the movement of vehicles, which will block other vehicles in the parking facility. This violates the City of Newport Beach Parking Policy for valet parking plans described as "move one car to get one car ". Furthermore, as shown in Appendix B, if two vehicles enter the site for drop -off, one of the vehicles would encroach half way into the existing alley. This would block emergency vehicles, public use of the alleyway and would also make it difficult to enter /exit other uses served by the existing alley. This was probably not a problem with the previous use of the facility, because of the significantly lower traffic demand for the site. The previous use generated only about one third of the daily traffic and 25 percent of the PM peak hour traffic that would be generated by the proposed Panini CaM restaurant use. )`;L ck of Loadina Air The proposed project does not have a sufficient loading area for materials and goods that are delivered to the site. The only location where delivery vehicles can park is adjacent to the trash dumpsters and driveway area of the underground parking facility. A typical 30 -foot box truck would block the exiting area from the underground parking facility and would also make it impossible for residents to west to exit their garages, which directly face this area. Furthermore, the delivery vehicles would also block portions of the alley making it impossible to travel to the north during delivery times. Again, no proper loading area has been identified for use for this facility and is anticipated that the restaurant will need delivery on a frequent basis for food, beverages and supplies. Site Access from Pa Ic fic Cost Highway and MacArthur Boulevard The proposed access to the site has been planned to occur from Fourth Avenue to/from an existing alley. Although this is the planned access route, the more logical route would occur from Carnation Avenue through an existing private driveway. This would be a shorter distance from East Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. This will cause potential disruption to the existing restaurant and office uses in the area conflict with pedestrian circulation in the alley and would also have the potential for queuing onto Carnation Avenue and onto East Pacific Coast Highway. Again, the proposed use will generate three times the daily traffic and four times the PM peak hour traffic than the previous use of the site. TPO (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Traffic Impact Study RK has estimated the trip generation for both the existing and proposed use of the site. Trip generation rates have been developed by the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) and are shown in Table 1. Trip generation for both high turn over sit down restaurant (proposed use) and specialty retail center (previous rug store use) are included in Table 1. The proposed potential trip generation for this site is shown in Table 2. The high turn over sit -down restaurant will generate 486 trip -ends per day with 44 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 41 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The previous rug store use would have generated 5 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 10 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. As shown on Table 2, the proposed project would generate three times as much daily traffic and nearly four times as much PM peak hour traffic than the previous use. The Gty of Newport Beach TPO (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) included in Appendix D, requires a TPO traffic impact study if a proposed use generates more net than 300 additional net trips per day. The proposed project will generate 320 more trips per day than the previous use of the site. Therefore, a TPO traffic impact study is required for the proposed development. 11 1O Conclusions RK has completed a parking and traffic review of the proposed Panini Caf6 project. Based upon this review, there is potential for the project to generate significantly more parking demand than has been estimated in the parking and internal circulation analysis because of the potential for additional public space based on square footage. The proposed project proposes 16 on -site parking spaces although the City's traffic engineering department indicates that only 12 spaces are feasible based upon the City of Newport Beach's policy of "move one car to get one car ". An additional 14 off -site spaces are located at a significant distance from the site; therefore employees will likely utilize the adjacent residential streets for parking instead. Based upon several previous parking studies, there is very little excess parking available in the area, therefore, overflow parking would occur and adversely affect the existing residents and commercial uses in the area. Finally, the proposed project will generate three times more the daily trips and four times more PM peak hour trips than the previous rug store use of this size. As a result of this, substantial traffic impacts may occur and a City of Newport Beach TPO traffic impact study is required. RK appreciates this opportunity to work with Commercial West Brokerage, Inc., on this project. If you have any questions regarding this study, please call me at (949) 474 -0849. Sincerely, �� ART"yk.� /RK� ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 1,, 0555 Robert Kahn, P.E. EW 12131709 Principal w,, , _ Registered Civil Engineer 20285 Registered Traffic Engineer 4555 Attachments xc: Mr. Joel D. Kuperberg, Rutan & Tucker, LLP RK:rdIRK6504 JN:2067- 2008 -01 10 Tables ��5 TABLE 7 Trip Generation Rates' Land Use ITE Trip Code Unitsz Peak Hour Dail AM PM In Out In Out High Tum Over SR down Restaurant 932 TSF 5.99 5.53 6.66 4.26 127.15 ,Specialty Retail Center 814 1 TSF 0.80 0.53 1.19 1.52 1 44.32 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engin off s (n E), 76P Generation, 7(h Edaion, 2003, Land Use Category _. z TSF = Thousand Square Feet i.Mktable- MK6504re /N.2067- 2008 -01 ) %gyp TABLE 2 Trip Generation Land Use ITE Trip Code Quantity Peak Hour Dail AM PM In Out In Out High Turn Over Sit down Restaurant 932 3.820 TSF 23 21 25 16 486 Specialty Retail Center 814 1 3.651 TSF 3 2 4 6 162 Difference - - 20 19 21 10 324 Requirement to Prepare a TPO TIS I I I 300 rX*dbkMK6504r8 IN:2067- 200 &0l pl Appendices )` 16 Appendix A Resume of Robert Kahn, P.E. J�� engineering 11441111119 1111L Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal Areas of Bpertise Traffic Engineering Transportation Pkxhnnng Trxnponation Solutions Traffic Impact Analysis Circulatim Systems for Planned Communities Traffic Control Device Warrants Traffic Calming Traffic Seely studies Parking Demand Studies Traffic Signal, Signing and Striping Plans Traffic Control Plans Parking Lot Design AosuWW Engineering Noise impact Sadles EdhnaWn Universi d Cafifamia, Berkeley, M.S., Civil Engineering, 1968 University of felifomia, Berkeley, BS., Evil Engineering, 1967 University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate Courses in Transportation Systems, 1970 Representative Experience Robert rahn, P.E., has worked po>fassionafiy in traffic engineering and transportation planning since 1968. He received his master of sodem degree in cra7 engineering from the University of Cafifmhia, Berkeley, Institute of Transponalion and Traffic Engineering. Mr. Kahn received his bachelors degree in Chit Engineering fran the University of California, SerWe r, Mr. Kahn started his career in California Division of Highways (CaltranO and developed the first computerized sunefillanceard omtrd system fb the Loa Angeles area. Mr. Kahn developed the Califome khddern Detection Logic which la udTard throughout California for the detection of traffic Incidents on thefreawaysystem. Mr. Kahn has worked for a major land development company preparing Master Plans for irdrastrucWre. Heahmhaswodoed eleven yens with a muhFdisciplkhed consulting engineering firm in chargeof the Engineering Planning Department This Induded al facets of preliminary design, tentative map prapetaffm, ttanspertaton and environmental engineering, amt pubs agcy coordination. Mr. Kahn has provided traffic and transportation services to major planned communities including Also Maio, Cato De Cam, FwUll Ranch, Highlands Ranch in Derwer Colorado, Mission Mgq Vega Planned Community in San Clemente and Wolf Valley Ranch in Temecula. He has also provided contract traffic engineering services to the Cities of Irvine Nome k Perris wW San Jacinto in Wverside county, California. Mr, Kahn has prepared traffic impact studies for numerous communities throughout Soudhern California, Nevada and In Colorado. Major trafk Impact studIm Incktde lheABso Viejo Town Center, the Summit Development, the Shops at Mission Vigo, Kaleidoscope, Dana Paint Headlands, foothill Rmch, Talega, Majestic Spectrum, and Centre Pointe M the City of China His work In the area of parking demand studies and parking lot design has been artgreiva Shared parking studies for the Aliso Mejo Town Cent Foothill Ranch Towne Centre, Trabum Plaza and numerous commercial sties have been completed to accurately determine the peels paddng demand for mind use projects. Mr. Kahn has been able to make the mostefficiertt utibsthon of parking lots by matbrrhing efficient and safe systarns. Page 1 of 2 rib group, in& Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal prohessional Wtory RK Engineering Group, Inc 2001 -Resent WK &Associates, Inc., Principal, 1990 -2000 Robert Kahn and Associates, Inc, Prindpa6 198&1990 lack G Raub Company, Vice President Engineering Planning, 1977 -1988 TheNvine Company, Program Engineer, 1972 -1977 eahrans California Division of HigFm A Assistant Engineer, 1968- 1972 Affifiations Insft to of Transportation Engineers (ITE) American Society of Coil Engineers (ASCE) American of Public Works Association (AMA) Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors (CELM Orange county Traffic Engineers Council (OC1Eq Mr. Kahn has been an Innovator in developing and Implementing traffic calcining techniques. Over twenty years ago, Mr. Kahn refined the design and implementation standards for speed Manps for use in loot neighborhoods. Most recently, he has been Involved in the development of modem roundabouts in lieu of traffic signals or other traffic control devices at ineersegbrn. Mr. Kahn previously presented the use of traffic calming devices In rnetvty developing communities to the Institute of Tianspntadon Engineers Traffic Calming Conference in Monterey, CaRmnfa. Mr. Kahn has been Involved in ihe design of traffic signal system; sgning aid striping plans an hundreds of projects to both the public and private sector. Most room*, he has completed the design of several traffic signals vvhkh will save the renwwted Shops at Mission Viejo Mall. Mr. Kahn vies in charge of a major ITS project forthe Crry of Irvine, vifikh provided fiberop6c interconnect and dosed circuit TV along Barran ParleAn Ahon Parkway and lake Forest Drive. Mr. Kahn has been involved In acoustical engineering since 197& He vwsinrespotnibledmrgeoftutA lisoMejuNoise Monitoring Program which redefined the 65 CNEL noise contours for MCAS Ef Toro. He his also developed compute applications of the FHWA Noise Model. Mr. Kahn has prepared numerous noise impact ngwrts in the Abo Viejo, Mission Vtejq Foothill Rench, Santa Margarita. Ladare and Talega Planned eantmundtas. Noisefmpactsfrom stationery sources inducrmg car washes„ loading dodo, air conditioning compressors, ddveahru speakers and other sources have been evaluated in the Artso Viejo Auto ReW Center Noise Study, Albertsaus Store 606 Noise Study-Rancho Cucamonga, Pro Source Distribution Building Rural Noise Study in Ontario. Major specific plan and zone change noise studies have been prepared for the Summit Heights Specific Wan in Fontana, Lytle Greek Land and Resources Property in Riahq Tamarack Square In Carlsbad, California, International Trade and Transportation Center In Kum County, Cahfarni% and Sun CrtiiPabn Springs Mr. Kahn founded the firm of Robert Kahn and Associates in 1968, which was the predecessor m RK1K & Associates, Inc, in 1990. He has made presentations to the ITE and the California Public Woda Conference. Page 2 of 2 `_11 Appendix B Project Floor Plan and Parking Plan JJX r - - i i i ue i I xa ina i vx errew Q DMING AREA T BU 4TONc w ar�"cuW— as ` l- ivy --19� ON 1-4 pzo¢MC tt�uuew 10 Appendix C Proposed Valet Management Plan M �-W� W D l" it olI'll ��5 V loov l" it olI'll ��5 Appendix D TPO (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) jc � 15.40.010 Findings. Page 1 of 1 t-�iIRI>llIIc , t +Z +I�iF�l1.�iI+�C+7� 1SA0.010 Findings. A. The phasing of development with circulation system Improvements to accommodate project - generated traffic Is important to maintaining the high quality of the residential and commercial neighborhoods In Newport Beach; B. Traffic congestion caused by Inadequate phasing of circulation improvements and development is hamdul to the public health, safety and general welfare due to the potential for delays in emergency response, air quality impacts and an overall reduction in the quality of file. C. While some development may be Important to the continued vitailty of the local economy, the City should continue to require mitigation of traffic impacts by project proponents to ensure the circulation system functions as planned; D. Circulation system improvements should not alter the character of neighborhoods or result In the oonetructlan of streets and highways which expand the capacity of the roadway system beyond levels proposed In the circulation element; E. This chapter is consistent with the authority of a public sniffy to ensure that project proponents male or fund improvements that increase the capacity of the circulation system to accommodate project generated iraftic. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 4< MOVIOUS nexl >> httpJ/ municipalcodes .lexisnexis.com/codeslnewportb/ DATAnTrLE15IChaptcr_15_40_ .. 5/12/2008 `c1 15.40.020 Objectives. Page 1 of 1 15.40.020 Objectives. The City Council has adopted this chapter to achieve the following objectives: A. To provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic Impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period: B. To Identify the specific and near -term Impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system Improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with Identified dreulation system Improvements: C. To ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific Impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and O. To provide a machantem for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) http:/lmunicipaicodes. lexisnexis. com/ codeslnewportb /pATAMTLE15 /Chapter_15_40_... 5/1212008 Jq(� 15.40.030 Standards for Approval -- Findings— Exemptions. Page 1 of 3 flit � r � _ :.�r •� h �� 15.40.030 Standards for Approval — Findings— Exemptions. A. Standards for Approval, Unless a project is exempt as provided In subsection (C), no building, grading or related permit shall be issued for any project until the project has been approved phnsuard to this chapter (approver). A project shall be approved only if the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, finds: 1. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared In compliance with this chapter and Appendix A; 2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made; and 3. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. B. Findings for Approval. No project shall be approved pursuant to this chapter unless the Piaming Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal. finds that: 1. Construction of the project will be completed within sbdy (80) months of project approval; and: a. The project wit neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any Impacted primary Intersection, or b. The project Including circulation Improvements that the project proponent Is required to make and/or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program or otherwise, will nether cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection, or c. The project trips will cause or mater worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one or more impacted primary Intersection(s) but the project proponent is required to construct and/or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program or otherwise, circulation Improvements, or make contributions, such that: (1) The project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any Impacted primary intersection for which there is a feasible Improvement, and (2) The benefits resulting from circulation Improvements constructed or funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse Impact of project trips at any Impacted primary Intersection for which there is (are) no feasible Improvements) that would, If Implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (13)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse Impacts and benefits, only the following improvements and/or contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) below: (a) Contributions to the preparation oil, and/or Implementation of some or all of the recommendations in, a traffic mitigation study related to an impacted primary Intersection that Is Initiated or approved by the City Council, (b) Improvements, If any, that mkigate the Impact of project trips at any impacted primary Intersection for which there is (are) no feasible Improvements) that, t implemented, would satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(b), (c) Improvements that mitigate the Impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection in the vMrdty of the project, (d) Improvements that mitigate the Impacts of project trips on any impacted primary Itersection operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80 ICU, or d. The project complies with (1)(b) upon the completion of one or more circulation improvements; and: (1) The time and/or funding necessary to complete the Improvement(s) Is (are) not roughly proportional to the Impacts of project-generated trips, and (2) There is a strong likelihood the Improvement(B) will be completed within forty -elght (48) months from the Clete the project and traffic study are considered by the Planning Comirnwon, or City Council on review or appeal. This finding shall not be made unless, on or before the date of approval, a conceptual plan for each improvement has been prepared in sufficient detail to permit http:l lmunicipalcodes.lexisnexis.coml codes/ newportb / —DATAtrITLE15 /Chapter_15_40_... 511212008 �(6 M40.030 Standards for Approval -- Findings -- Exemptions. Page 2 of 3 estimation of cost and funding sources for the Improvement(s); the Improvements) is (are) consistent with the circulation element or appropriate amendments have been Initiated; an account has been established to receive all funds and contributions necessary to construct the Improvement(s) and the improvement Is identified as one to be constructed pursuant to the five year capital Improvement plan and as spectied in Appendix A, and (3) The project proponent pays a fee to fund construction of the Improvement(s). The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the estimated cost of the improvements) by a fraction. The fraction shall be calculated by dividing the "effective capacity decrease" in the impacted primary intersection attributable to project trips by the "effective capacity Increase" in the Impacted primary intersection that is attributable to the Improvement. The terms "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A. Or 2. The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan with construction of all phases not anticipated to be complete within sixty (60) months of project approval; and a. The project is subject to a development agreement which requires the construction of, or contributions to, circulation Improvements early In the development phasing program, and b. The traffic study contains sufficient date and analysis to determine t that portion of the project reasonsby expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy within sixty (60) months of project approval sattsfies the provisions of subsections (i3)(1)(a) or (13)(1)(b), and m The Lard Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are not made inconsistent by the Impact of project trips (including circulation Improvements designed to mitigate the Impacts of project trips) when added to the trips resulting from development anticipated to occur within the City based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and d. The project Is required, during the abdy (60) month period immediately after approval, to construct circulation Improvament(s) such that: (1) Project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any Impacted primary Intersection for which there is a feasible improvement, (2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips at any Impacted primary Intersection for which there Is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if Implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (13)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse Impacts and benefits, only the following Improvements and/or contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the Improvements andror contributions described In subparagraphs (a) or (b): (a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or implementation of some or all of the recommendations In, a traffic mklgation study related to an Impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City Council, (b) Improvements, it any, that mltlgate the Impact of project trips at any Impacted primary Intersection for which there is (are) no feasible Improvement(s) that it implemented, would fully aatlsiy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b), (c) Improvements that millgate the imparts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection In the vicinity of the project, (d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any Impacted primary Intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.60 ICU; and 3. The Planning Commission, or City Cowell on review, or appeal finds, by the affirmative vote of five - sevenths (517) of the members eligible to vote, that this chapter Is Inapplicable to the project because the project will result in benefits that outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on the circulation system; C. Exemptions. The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. 1. Any project that generates no more than three hundred (300) average daily trips. This exception shall not apply to Individual projects on the same parcel or parcels of property, such as changes In land use or increases In floor area, that In any twenty four (24) month period cumulatively generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips; 2. Any project that, during any morning or evening peak hour period, does not Increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary Intersection; 3. Any project that meets all of the following criteria: a. The project would be constructed on property within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach and that Is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange or an adjacent city as of the effective date of this ordinance; and httpJ /municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ codes/ newpodhl —DATAtITrMl5 /Chapter_15_40_... 5/1212008 �bb 15.40.030 Standards for Approval— Findings -- Exemptions. b. The project is subject to a vesting tentative or parcel map, development agreement, pre - annwxation agreement and/or other legal document that vests the right of the property owner to construct the project in the County or adjacent city; and o. The property owner enters into a development agreement, pre - annexation agreement, or similar agreement with the City of Newport Beach: (1) That establishes the average dairy trips generated by the project ("baseline*), (2) That requires the property owner to comply with this chapter prior to the Issuance of any permit for development that would, in any twenty-four (24) month period, generate more than three hundred (300) average daily tdps above the baseline for the project, and (3) That makes this chapter applicable to the project immediately upon annexation; d The City Council determines, prior to annexation, that the environmental document prepared for the project fully compiles with CEOA and the CEOA Guidelines. (Ord. 99.17 § 1 (part), 1999) Pap 3 of 3 httpJ /municipal codes. lexisnexis. com / codes/ aewportW ,pATA/f11ZE15 /Chapter_15_40_... 5/121=8 �0 ) 15.40.035 Expiration. page 1 of 1 01 iir WO16161? 61901611 N. tISA0.035 Expiration. A. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, shall establish a spedfk date on which the approval of the project shall expire (expiration date). In no event shall the expiration date be less than twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval. The Initial expiration data for projects other than those described In Section 15.40.030(6)(2) shall be no more than sixty (50) month from the date of approval unless subsequent approval is required from another public agency. In the event the project requires approval from another public agency subsequent to approval pursuant to this chapter, the date of approval shall be the date of the action taken by the last public agency to consider the project. Approval pursuant to this chapter shall terminate on the expiration date unless a building permit has been Issued for the project and construction has commenced pursuant to that pamrit prior to the expiration date or the expiration date has been extended pursuant to subsection (C). B. Any project approved pursuant to this chapter shag be considered a "committed project" until the expiration date, if any, or until the final certificate of occupancy has been issued H construction has commenced on a portion or a phase of the project. All trips generated by each committed project shall be Included In all subsequent traffic studies conducted pursuant to this chapter-as-provided In appendix A. Committed projects shall be administered In acxxxdanoe with C. The Planning Commission or City Council may, subsequent to the date of approval, extend the expiration date for any project. D. The Planning Director and Traffic Manager shall, at least annually, monitor the progress of each project to ensure compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) << previous I next » http: l /municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ codes/ newpertbJ -PATA/TITLEIS/Chaptcr_15 40_... 5/12/2008 �oa- 15.40.040 Definitions. Page 1 of 1 I b a 1: •z 15.40.040 Deflntttone. The following terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning Indicated below: "Circulation element- means the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach as amended from time to time. "Circulation improvement(s)" or `improvement(a)" means a modification to a primary Intersection (possibly including a related roadway link) that increases the capacity of the primary intersection. "Date of approval" means the date the project Is approved, pursuant to this chapter, by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal. "Feasible improvement" means a circulation improvement that: 1. Is not Inconsistent with the Circulation Element as the data of approval and has not been identified as Infeasible by the City Council at a public hearing to initiate or approve a traffic mitigation study: or 2. Is not inconsistent with any amendment(s) to the Circulation Element initiated and approved in conjunction with the project and Is required to be completed by the project proponent andfor the City within the time frames required by this chapter. "ICU" means the Intersection capacity utilization computed in accordance with standard traffic engineering principles and the procedures outlined in the existing Appendix A. "Impacted primary Intersection" means any primary Intersection where project trips Increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one percent or more during any peak hour period. 'Level of traffic service" means the letter assigned to a range of ICU's in accordance with Appendix A. Wembere eligible to vote" means all members of the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, lawfully holding office except those members disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. 'Peak tour period" means the tour consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between seven am. and nine a.m. (morning) and the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between four p.m. and six pm. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each primary intersection) as determined by the field counts required by Appendix A. "Primary intereacdon" means each Intersection tdentilied in the existing Appendix B and, with respect to individual projects, any additional Intersection selected by the Traffic Manager pursuant to Section 15.40.050(B)(1). Project" means Weer as defined In the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 at seq.), the CEQA Guidelines, and relevant decisional law without regard to whether any environmental document is required for the project. The term "projeor shall also mean any application for a building or grading permit for development that would generate more than three hundred (900) average daily trips. Traffic engineer' means the traffic engineer retained by the City to prepare the traffic study. Traffic Manager' means the person employed by the City who occupies the position of Traffic and Development Services Manager or similar position. Traffk: mitigation study" means a study designed to evaluate and recommend a plan to mitigate the Impact of an actual or potential unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any primary Intersection or traffic volumes in any residential neighborhood In the vicinity of that primary Intersection. `Traffic study" means the study prepared by the traffic engineer in strict compliance with this chapter Including Appendix A. "Unsatisfactory level of saMW means a level of service at a primary intersection, which is worse than level of service '17 (.90 ICU), during any morning or evening peak hour period as determined in accordance with Appendix A. (Ord, 2007 -12 § 1 (Exh. A), 2007: Ord. 88.17 § t (part), 19%) http:Ilmunicipal codes. lexisnexis. comleodeal newponb / —DATAIlTnE15 /Chapter_15- 40_... 5/12/2008 to 15.40.050 Procedures. Page 1 of 1 UIX61ORIZA1101"re M, 15.40.050 Procedures. A. The Planning Commission shall determine compliance with this chapter based on the traffic study for the project, Information from staff andlor the traffc engineer, and the entire record of the proceedings conducted with regard to the project. The traffic study shall be prepared In compliance with Appendix A. B. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, the traffic manager, In the exercise of his/her professional discretion, shall: 1. Direct the preparation of each traffic study by a traffic engineer retained by the City and, In compliance with Appendix A, determine those primary Intersections (or other intersections If the Impact of project traffic on primary intersections may not be representative) that may be impacted by project trips; 2. Ensure that each traffic study Is prepared In compliance with the methodology described in Appendix A and independently evaluate the conclusions of the traffic engineer; 3. Make recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council with respell to the criteria for evakcting trip reduction measures, the appropriate trip generation rates of land uses, and the criteria for distributing project trips to ensure that each traffic study reflects modem transportation engineering practice. C. Any finding or decision of the Planning Commission with respect to any project that also requires discretionary action on the parr of the City Council, such as an amendment to the general plan or zoning ordinance, shah be deemed an advisory action. In such cases the City Council shall take any action required by this chapter at the same date and time that the City Council considers the other discretionary approvals required by the project. D. The application for any building, grading or other permit for any project subject to this chapter shah be approved, conditionally approved or denied within one year from the data on which the application Is deemed complete. In the event action is not taken on an application within one year, the project shall be deemed approved provided it is consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinanoio of the City of Newport Beach. E. A fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expenses of administering this chapter shall accompany the application for a traffic study. The application for a traffic study shall be submitted in compliance with Appendix A. F. The City Council shah conduct a noticed public hearing prior to Initiating or approving any traffic mitigation study and identifying as Infeasible any Improvement at or near any primary intersection; G. The City Council may establish reimbursement programs to ensure that multiple projects affecting the same primary Intersection pay for improvements in proportion to their respective Impacts. The reimbursement programs shall be developed and administered In compliance with Appendix A. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) IOUs j next » httpJl municipalcodes .lexisncxis.com/codednewporib/ DATAffM.E15 /Chapter_15_40 ... 5/12=08 �b l 15.40.060 Hearings —Dice, Page I of 1 R, 1777Z UT 511 R 7255 M7.77 rMOMM04� 16.40.060 Hearings— Notice. A. The Planning Commission, and the City Council on appeal or review, shall hold a public hearing on any project pursuant to this chapter. The public hearing on the traffic study may be consolidated with other hearings required by the project. The hearing shall be noticed in the manner provided In Section 20.91.030(C) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision. B. All findings required or provided for In this chapter shall be In writing and supported by the weight of the evidence in the entire administrative record for the project including the traffic study. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) « previous ) next >> htt p:// municipatcodes. leaisnexis. condcodes/ newportbl. DATA/1TPi.E15/Chapter_15_40_... 5/12/2008 X05 15.40.075 Proportionality. Page 1 of 1 15.40.075 Proportionality. A. In no event shall ft Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal: 1. Impose any traffic related condition or conditions on the approval of a project that would requtre the project proponent to construct one or more circulation improvements) H the total cost of traffic related conditions and/or improvements is not roughly proportional to the impact of project trips; or 2. Impose any traffic related condition or conditions on the approval of a project which would require the payment of fees or costs that are riot roughly proportional to the impact of project B. The provisions of this chapter are intended to address the specific and, in most cases, near tern impacts of project trips on impacted primary Intersections rather than the overall Impact of project traffic on the circulation system. Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is intended to address the overall Impact of development on the circulation system. Conditions or fees Imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be In addition to fees required pursuant to Chapter 15.38 except as otherwise provided in Chapter 15.38. C. The provisions of this section shall not limit or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, to Impose on any project all feasible mitigation measures pursuant to the provisions of applicable taw, Including CEOA and the CEQA Guidelines. D. The provisions of this section shall net require approval of any project ti the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, is unable to make the findings required for approval pursuant to this chapter. I- The provisions of this section shall not require approval of any project which the Planning Commission Is authorized to deny or modify pursuant to any State law or City ordinance, resolution or plan. F. The provisions of this section shall not Urnit or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, to Impose conditions, fees, exaction or dedications on a project pursuant to: 1. A development agreement; 2. A reimbursement agreement, a reimbursement program, or any agreement acceptable to the project proponent 3. The consent of the project proponent; or 4. An amendment to the land use element or zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach that Is required for approval of the project. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (party, 1999) «previous I next >> http: l lmunicipalcodcs.lexisnexis.coml codesl newportb /pATA/P1TLE15IChapter_15_40_... 5117tM8 0 15.40.080 SeverabiNty. Page 1 of i ,i:_� : r71:1:FiI:[cididl�i�L 15.40.080 Severabiltty. It all or a portion of any section or subsection of this chapter Is declared invalid, at[ of the provisions of this chapter that have not been declared Invalid shall be considered valid and In full force and effect. y : RF hup:l lmunicipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ codes/ newportb / —DATAfffME15 /Chapter—l5_40 ... 5/12/2008 X61 APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRA... Page 1 of 5 APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 1. Gpnsral. These Administrative Procedures (Procedures) apply to any Project for which Traffic Study Is required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). 2. Appkatlnn. a. The proponent of any Project subject to the TPO shall: 1. file an application for a Traffic Study; IL pay the required fees; and 9L sign an agreement to pay all costa related to the Traffic Study. b. The application shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. A complete description of the Project Including the total amount of floor area to be constructed and the amount of floor area allocated to each proposed land use; if. A Project site plan that depicts the location and intensity of proposed development, the location of points of Ingress and egress, and the location of part frig lots or structures; Ill. Any proposed Project phasing; N. Any trip reduction measure proposed by the Project proponent; v. Any information, study, or report that supports any request by the Project proponent to use trip generation rates that differ from those In the most current version of ITE's Trip Generation or the SANDAG Traffic Generators; and A. Any other information that, In the opinion of the Traffic Manager, is necessary to properly evaluate the traffic impacts of the Project or the Circulation System Improvements that could mitigate those traffic Impacts. S. Traffic Study Assumptions. a. The definitions In Section 15.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be applicable to these Procedures. b. ICU calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for both through and turn lanes. No factor for yellow time shall be Included in the lane capacity assumptions. ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratite for each movement to three decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places. The increase In the ICU attributable to Project trips shall be calculated to three decimal places. The ICU shall then be rounded to two decimal places. For example, an ICU of .904 shall be rounded to .90 and an ICU of .905 shall be rounded to .91. c. Circulation System Improvements may be included in the Traffic Study for a Project provided that the Traffic Manager determines: I. The Improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the Project or Project phase for which the Traffic Study is being performed: and 11. The Improvement Is Included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined In sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis; or http:!/ municipalcodes .lexisnexis.coWcodes/newportb DATAnTrLE15 /Chapter_15_40 ... 5/12/2008 No APPENDIX A ADNIINISTRATWE PROCEDURES FOR INIPLEhM? 9NG THE TRA... Page 2 of 5 Iii. The design of the Improvement Is consistent with standard City design criteria or has been approved by the City Council, or other public entity with jurisdiction over the Improvement, and Is defined in sufffclently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis. d Traffic volumes shall be based on estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the Project, or that portion of the Project for which the Traffic Study Is being performed The intent of this Subsection is to ensure use of the most accurate Information to estimate traffic volumes one year after Project completion. Traffic volume estimates shall be based on: 1. The most current field counts for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during the morning and evening Peak Hour Period between February 1 and May 31; fi. Traffic generated by Committed Projects as detemnined in accordance with the TPO and these Procedures Ill. Projects reasonably expected to be complete within the one year after Project completion and which are located in the City of Newport Beach or its sphere of influence; Iv. Increases in regional traffic anticipated to occur within one year after Project completion as projected in the most current City Council approved traffic analysis model for the City of Newport Beach or other accepted sources of future Orange County traffic growth; and v. Other information customarily used by Traffic Engineers to accurately estimate future traffic volumes. e. For purposes of the traffic analysis of Circulation System Improvements, seventy percent (70%) of the Incremental increase in Intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vphg for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of any GirculationSystemfmprovement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized In inure Traffic Studies. f. Trip generation rates for the land uses contemplated by the Project shall be based on standard trip generation values listed in the current version of ITE's Trip Generation except as provided in this Subsection. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, use trip generation rates other than as specified In Trip Generation when such rates are based on limited information or study and there Is a valid study of the trip generation rate of a similar land use that supports a different rate. g. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, reduce trip generation rates for some or all of the land uses contemplated by the Project based on specific trip reduction measures when. 1. The Project proponent proposes in writing and prior to commencement of the Traffic Study, specific and permanent measures that wi8 reduce Peak Hour Period taps generated by the Project; and it. The Traffic Manager and Traffic Engineer, in the exercise of their best professional judgment, each determine that the proposed measure(s) will reduce Peak Hour Period Project trips and the specific reduction in Project trips that can reasonably be expected; and Ill. The Project proponent provides the City with written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measures) will be permanently Implemented The Project proponent must consent to make permanent implementation of the measure(s) a condition to the approval of the Project, and the measure(s) shall be made a condition of the Project by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal. h. In determining Project trips, credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site. Credit shall be given based an the tap generation rates In RE's Trip Generation. In the alternative, the Traffic Manager may, In the exercise of his/her professional judgment, authorize the use of trip generation rates in SANDAG's Traffic Generators or on the basis of actual she traffic counts, in the event the Project site has not been used for any purpose for a period of one (1) year prior to the Ching of an application for a Traffic Study, credit shall be limited to trips generated by the last known land use, If any, that could be resumed with no discretionary approval. For any land use that is not active as of the date of the application for a Traffic Study, the Project proponent shall have the burden of establishing that the use was In operation during the previous one (1) year period. 1. The purpose of this Paragraph is to ensure that trips that would be generated upon completion http: l /manicipalcodrs.lexisnexis.com/ codes /newportb/_DATAfnTLE15 /Chapter 15_40_.,. 5/12!2()08 ok6 1 APPHNDIX A ADAQNISTRATNE PROCEDURES FOR IDZPL NMNTING THE TRA... Pup 3 of 5 of a Project approved pursuant to the TPO are Incorporated into any subsequent Traffic Study conducted prior to completion of the Project andlor post-Project field counts specified In Section 3.d.1. A Committed Project to one that has been approved pursuant to the TPO, requires no further discretionary approval by the City, and has received or Is entitled to receive, a building or grading permit for construction of the Project or one or more phases of the Project. In preparing a Traffic Study, trips generated by Committed Projects shall be Included subject to the following: I. All trips generated by each Committed Project or that portion or phase of the Committed Project for which no certificate of occupancy has been Issued shall be included In any Traffic Study conducted prior to the Expiration Date of that Committed Project; fi. In the event a final certificate of occupancy has been Issued for one or more phases of a Committed Project, all trips shall be included In subsequent Traffic Studies until completion of the first.' eld cour"a required by $ubaection 3(d)(i) subsequent to the date on which the final certficate of occupancy was issued. Subsequent to completion of the field counts those trips generated by phases of the Committed Project that have received a final certifloate of occupancy shall no longer be included in subsequent Traffic Studies. iii. The Traffic Manager and Planning Director shall maintain a list of Committed Projects and, at least annually, update the list to reflect new Approvals pursuant to the TPO as well as completion of all or a portion of each Committed Project. A Comm ted Project shall not be removed from the Committed Project list until a final certificate of occupancy has been Issued for all phases and the field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(p have been taken subsequent to Issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Iv. The total trips generated by Committed Projects shall be reduced by twenty percent (20%) to account for the interaction of Committed Project trlps. j. For purposes of Chapter 15.40 and lhese Procedures, the following Levels of Traffic Service ranges shall apply: A .00 -601CU 8.61 —.70 IOU C.71—.00 ICU D.81—.90 ICU E.91-1.00 ICU F Above 1.00 ICU 4. Initial Traffic ft* Procedlrres. a. The Traffic Manager shall retain a qualified Traffic Engineer pursuant to contract with the City to prepare a Traffic Study for the Project in compliance with the TPO and the methodology specified in these Procedures. b. The Traffic Manager shall advise the Traffic Engineer of the methodology and assumptions required by these Procedures and provide the Traffic Engineer with a copy of the TPO and these Procedures. c. The Traffic Manager, In consultation with the Traffic Engineer and In accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and principles, shall determine the most probable manner In which Project Trips will be distributed throughout the Circulation System. The deterndnallon of Project trip distribution shall be consistent with: 1, the assumptions in the City's current transportation analysis model relative to production and attraction characteristics of various lend uses; and H. previous trip distribution determinations for Projects of similar size and location; Trip distributions shall be In Increments of 5% of Project Trips. In no event shall Project trips be removed from any roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located except at a signalized Intersection with another roadway on which a Primary Intersection Is located. The determination of Project trip distribution shall, in all cases, reflect the most probable movement of Project trips throughout the Circulation System. The Traffic Study shall dearly explain the rationale for the determination of Project trip distribution. d. The Traffic Engineer shall determine I Project trips will Increase traffic on any leg of any http: /IMUMcipaloodas.lexisnexis.com/ codas /newpo"- ))ATA/1=15 /Chapter_15 40_... 5/12/2008 I, JD /1 1 . cf�l 010AVtllTWA-1 III shall first calculate the ICU of the Primary Intersection with existing, committed and regional trips. Project trips and the lmprovement (Improved With Project ICU). The "affe dve capacity decrease" shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the improved With Project ICU. iii. For example, If the Future W10 Project ICU Is .92 and the Improved W/O Project ICU Is .82 the °effective capacity increase" Is 10. N the Improved W/O Project ICU Is .82 and the Improved ICU With Project ICU Is .87 the "effective capacity decrease' is 5. Assuming the cost of the Improvement Is $100,000 the contribution of the Project would be $50,000 ($100,000 mu8lplied by 5M 0). h. The Traffic Study shall also provide the Planning Commission with any additional Information relevant to the findings or analysis required by the TPO. 6. Staff Analvsis. a. The Traffic Engineer shall transmit a draft Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager for review, comment and correction. The Traffic Manager shag review the draft Traffic Study and submit corrections to the Traffic Engineer within 15 days after receipt. The Traffic Engineer shall make the corrections within ten (10) days of receipt and transmit the final Traft Study to the Traffic Manager. b. The Traffic Manager shall transmit the final Traffic Study to the Planning Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. 7. Issuance of Permits, The City shall not issue building, grading or other permits for a Project Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 BA.b., 15.40.090 BA c., or 15A0.030 5.2, until each Improvement that has been assumed to be in place for purposes of Project Approval, or Is to be constructed or funded as a condition to Project Approval, satisfies the following criteria: a. The Improvement has been budgeted and committed for construction by or on behalf of the W. or b. The State, County or other governmental agency making She Improvement has accepted bids for the Project; or c. The Improvement has been approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions and Is to be constructed by the Project proponent In oonju chain with development of the Project or the Project proponent has guaranteed construction of the Improvement through the posting of bonds or other form of assurance. 8. Reimbursement Programs. a. The City Council may establish Reimbursement Programs to ensue Project conditions are roughly Proportional to Project impcob and to facilitate the prompt construction of Improvements to mitigate the impact of Project trips. A Reimbursement Program may be proposed by the City Manager to the City Council whenever he/she becomes more of the potential for multiple Projects to Impact a Primary Intersection and a Feasible Improvement may be required of one or more of the Projects because of the impact of Project trips. b. A Reimbursement Program shall have the following components: t. Identification of the Feasible Improvement(s) Including, without limitation, preliminary design and cost estimates and the estimated date of completion of the Feasible Improvement(s); ii: Calculation of the "effective capacity increase" allributable to the Feasible Improvement(s); iii. The amount of the cost of the Feasible Improvement for which the City or Project Proponent shall be entitled to reimbursement from subsequent or contemporaneous Projects; Iv. The duration of the period during which Reimbursement shall be required of subsequent or contemporaneous Projects. 9. Committed Improvements. In the case of Projects Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.1.d., the Improvement(s) assumed to be completed within forty-eight (48) months attar Project Approval shall be listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIry Council shag not remove the Improvement(s) from the CIP unless a different Improvement (Substitute Improvement) Is identiffed and the Substitute Improvement will result in reductions in the ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection that equal or exceed the reductions) in ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersectlon(s) that were assumed or projected when the Project was Approved. << previous j next r> http:/ hnunicipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ codes/ newpor tW-J)ATAMTLE151Qrapter_15_40_... 5/12/2008 �1� Appendix B Primary Interswtions << previous I next >> Page 2 of 2 htt p:!/ municipalcodes .lexisnexis.conVcodes/mwporth/ DATAIITILBI5IChapter_15_40_... 5/12/2008 ��a May 19, 2008 Comments to Mitigated Negative Declaration Name of Project: Panini Caf6 (UP 2007 -010) Project Location: 2421 East Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA Submitted by: Dennis Baker 706 % Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar, 92625 949.675.2199 Submitted to: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 10 NR % Ar 9 G b� MAN r C�Jy0�N 1 z� ©® Elyp��'lB�c H Coyer aaae Project address is incorrect. According to post office should be: 2421 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -2002 This is a new restaurant and a new use for this property. The use of the word "Relocation" implies there will not be a restaurant operation in the current location. Since the use permit for the existing location will remain in effect, this is a new use permit and should be stated as such. IX LAND USE AND PLANNING The "relocation" of the Panini restaurant will leave behind an existing facility and use permit for a restaurant. It is very unlikely that the owner of this property will convert this property to a rug shop or some other retail outlet, balancing out the relocation. The emphasis on the "relocation" ignores the fact that the impact will be significant, as if Panini stayed where it was and a new restaurant was being placed at the new location. +UwI Y/ - I�r.YIYV1 DVaWI VCIICIal rlall — NI"T14 "GICIIIfint o Circulation Element 7.1.1 — Cod es states the following: "Re wire that now development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors" • Range of parking required for this application is one car per 30 to 50 square feet of public floor area. • Using only the 640 square foot "indoor" portion of the restaurant • 13 to 22 parking stalls required ■ Considerations • Large kitchen area compared to the small dining area • Large area attributable to "take out" customers • High side of the code is warranted o At least a minimum 22 spaces should be required o Provides no parking allocation for the "outdoor" dining area ■ Would increase required parking 4 to 6 spaces. o 9 non -valet on -site parking spaces provided o Or maximum 16 on -site valet parked spaces ■ "...the applicant is proposing to accommodate employee parking off - site" • Nothing in code allows or even considers the splitting of code required parking into separate visitor an employee parking areas. • Code requires parking to be adequate and convenient for both employees and visitors in all areas of required parking. • Almost half (a very high percentage for any restaurant) of the parking is allocated to employees that visitors will not use. • A quarter mile and across Coast Highway from the restaurant • Even with monitoring, which would be difficult, this is not convenient as required by code • Off -site parking agreement with a term of 5 years with a 5 year renewal option o Zoning code requires offsite parking agreements to be permanent. • Permanent is generally considered to be 20 — 30 years, not 5 or 10 years • Replacement parking would be difficult to find in an already constrained parking environment o Circulation Element 7.1.8 —"Site and design new development to avoid use of a 1A • Valet operation • Extremely difficult to undertake • Using the public alley for staging of cars is disallowed by code • Using adjacent private property for staging without permission is not acceptable • Blocking adjacent property owner's access to their garages and parking areas is not acceptable. • Customers will park in adjacent business lots or on residential streets • When on -site parking is full • Some customers simply will not want a valet driving their car • Applicant cannot control where customers and employees XV ultima TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC tely choose to park. • Valet parking options o Option 1: Valet Stand in Two -Way Alley • Comparison to Bungalow • Bungalow sign directs motorists to private nropert� for staging • Proposed Panini sign would direct motorists to the same private property without property owner's permission and would conflict with existing uses • Alley widths are not adequate for two cars to pass. • This resu is regularly in confrontations between cars going in • Attach ent 1, Figure 2 shows the "Valet Ops. and deliveries" located in the same space. • This space is inadequate for a standard restaurant delivery truck to use • Valet parking and deliveries cannot occupy the same space at the same time • If a delivery is attempted and the truck is not encroaching on the alley the entrance to the parking garage will be encroached on by the truck and garage access will be very difficult to impossible depending on the length of the truck ■ Stated in option 2, but not in option 1 is that a queue of more than 2 cars could occur, blocking the alley at the intersection of 2 parking lot exits and 2 alleys serving business and residents. • Option 2: Valet Stand on Coast Highway • As stated, creates unacceptable hazards. ■ This option also removes 2 public parking places for private use in an area already impacted by a shortage of parking • Option 3: Valet Stand in One -Wav Allav This is • Even if this was a public alley, this illustrates the applicants willingness to use public property for the queuing of valet parking. • There is already significant driver confusion in the alley from Begonia to the intersection with the 4th street alley. • Option 4: Parking Reconfiguration and Mixed Valet Operations ■ At the current time, the restaurant owners, property owners, business owners and residents cannot come to a solution to the existing parking situation in the area. A lack of leadership and the unwillingness to work together for a common solution as it exists now, make it unlikely that this option will work, especially with the addition of another restaurant. It is an additional restaurant, since the former site will continue to have a use permit for a restaurant and will likely continue in this use. • Concluding paragraph and Mitigations • Recommended Option 1 is flawed as indicated above. • MM1 refers to an alley that doesn't exist • MM2 ai5 • The operators of the current location of Panini have demonstrated that they do not currently manage their parking of either customers or employees. There is no reason to believe they will adhere to MM2. Attachment 1 • On page 2 LSA states, regarding parking requirements: "Outdoor dining areas are excluded from this calculation because they cannot be utilized in all weather conditions. They fail to cite the code that states this. It is quesionable that the outdoor seating is exempt from parking requirement calculations in a new permit application. • On page 7 LSA repeatedly makes reference, and shows a photo of "the alley from Carnation Avenue ". This is not an alley, but a private parking lot. XII. PUBLIC SERV/CES - Fire protection: Encroachment into the public right of way is likely and would obstruct access by emergency vehicles. • Attachment 1 Figure 2 shows an area approximately 10 feet deep across the 45 foot width of the property for "VALET OPS. & DELIVERIES ". 0 25 feet of this width is the entrance to the garage and must be unobstructed to provide access for the proposed valet parking o The remainder of 20 feet by 10 feet (pipes to property line) is for loading. • Most delivery trucks are larger than this and will protrude into the alley • Based on observation most delivery trucks will park in the alley • In Attachment 1, page 7, LSA makes reference to valet queues of 3 cars. o 3 or more cars queuing will encroach on the public right of way in the alley • The potential for more instances of "confrontation" by cars entering and leaving the business on this alley will present a potential obstruction to emergency vehicle access. • Please refer to Figures 1 — 5 in attached photos The following figures are photos of situations that directly reflect on this application and indicate issues of deliveries and parking should be considered: • Figure 1 — Sysco (restaurant supplier to Panini's) semi blocking entrance to alley as well as Begonia Avenue and small delivery truck parked in alley. • Figure 2 — Same small delivery truck as in figure 1 with proposed delivery area for new Panini location in background. • Figure 3 — Car driving over private drive to get by delivery truck shown in figure 2. • Figure 4 — Before driver moved truck to other side of alley (figures 1 -3) after being asked to move since exhaust was going into bedroom window and garage was blocked. Note cars apposing each other attempting to get around truck. • Figure 5 — This truck was unloading items at new Panini location for Panini's. It was parked in alley like this with no driver present for 45 minutes. • Figure 6 — A small car ( Panini employee) parked across entrance to garage. Note limited space in front of car for delivery trucks. • Figures 7 and 9 — Front and rear view of Sysco truck blocking alley delivering to existing Panini location blocking public alley completely. • Figure 8 — Sysco delivery to existing Panini on different day. Note cones closing off alley to public access. • Figure 10 — Truck making early morning (5:08 am) to existing Panini. (Code limits deliveries to no earlier than 7 am.) • Figure 11 — Grease trap pump truck servicing existing Panini location. These trucks regularly services restaurants. Note size of this truck and compare to Figure 6. • Figure 12 — Current disregard to employee parking control. 5 out of 6 of these cars belong to Panini employees. (Circled in red.) Applicant states he will control employee parking, yet Panini employees currently park on streets. ZIP 9 �I 4 TsgSki .�, � � . \� .�y \ < \� \� � % �\ \�� /�] \» ., v DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORIA'HUN Dishiat 12 3337 Michelson M% Sub 380 r toe, CA 97br241094 Tek• (949) 724-2267 FWL (949) 7242592 May 1:49 2008 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Califonoda 92685 Post -ir Fax We 7871 Day 5 f q �s CoJneII cm Pheea a FexS t ...'"'77(�.��i'^ Subject: Panial CaN — (UP 2007 -010) Relocation Project Dear Ms, Ung, File: IGWCEQA SCH#: 2068041099 Log #: 2038 SR -1 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Detlaratioa (MN D). Per the Panini CafE relocation project. The project is proposing the relocation of the Paulin Cats from 2333 East Coast Highway to 2421 East Coast Highway in the City of Corona Del Mar. The project includes the conversion of an cxixft retail commercial apace to a full service restaurant, The Department of Transporkntion (Department) is a responsible agency on this project and we have the fallowing comments: 1. If any construction activity is to occur within the Department's Right of way, the applicant must apply for an Encroachment Permit. As a condition of the application process, the applicant will be required to submit either a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWFW) or a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) pursuant to the Department's Storm Water Quality Handbook. In addition, biological and cultural impacts will have to be assessed to meet the Department's standards. 2. Any runoff draining into the Department's Right of Way from construction operations or fiUm the resulting project must filly conform to the Department's Statewide NPDES Permit (Order No. 99- 06 -DWQ, NPDES No. C,AS000003) and the current discharge requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board to avoid impacting water quality. 3. Controls must be implemented to contain all vebicle loads and avoid any tracking of materials that may fall or blow onto Department's roadways or tkcilities. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not lre*ate to call Maryaut Molan at (949) 774 -2267. Sin , Ryan Cliaamherlain, Rrannh Chien` Local AevelopnlmUlatergovernmental Review "C&&m nprnw moWHry oases cdob"W" ate SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 -3435 t(213)2361800 f (213) 2361825 www.scag.ca.gov Officers President Richard Dixon, Lake Forest First Vice President Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel PLANNING DEPARTMEW MAY 2 0 2000 May 16, 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ms, Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, P. O- Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120080238 Panini Cafe Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for submitting the Panini Cafe for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. Sincerely, 4ZZ"*aor- LAVERNE JONES, Planning Technician Environmental Planning Division The Regional Council is comprised of 75 elected officials representing 187 cities, six counHie�,dAndd 0.�� four County Transportation Commissions, and a Tribal Government representative within So a t i . .D)5 >not us.cvus We have reviewed the Panini Cafe, and have determined that the proposed Second Vice President vacant . Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Immediate Past President Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section Gary Ovitt, San Bernardino County 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would °°u`Y comtntttee chairs appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. Administration Ronald O. Loveridge, Riverside A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 130, 2008 Community, Economic and Intergovemmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. Human Development Huma Jon Edney, El Centro The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all Energy and Environment Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be Transportation and Communications sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, Mike Ten, South Pasadena please contact me at (213) 236 -1857. Thank you. Sincerely, 4ZZ"*aor- LAVERNE JONES, Planning Technician Environmental Planning Division The Regional Council is comprised of 75 elected officials representing 187 cities, six counHie�,dAndd 0.�� four County Transportation Commissions, and a Tribal Government representative within So a t i . .D)5 >not us.cvus Page 1 of 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: mmorgan13 RR [mmorgan13 @roadrunner.comj Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:31 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Panini Cafe proposed project To: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner FROM: John & Margaret Morgan Reference: Panini Cafe (UP 2007 -010) Mitigated Negative Declaration Ms Ung: We are writing to voice our concerns for the above referenced project. We wholeheartedly agree and support the comments and issues raised by Mr. Dennis Baker in his May 19, 2008 letter to you. After reviewing recent information submitted to the Planning Commission by RK Engineering Group, Inc and Rutan, Attorneys at Law, and our firsthand experience with the impacted traffic and parking areas, we are convinced that this project does not meet the minimum requirements for the change in use, nor does not take into consideration the neighborhood and homeowners in the area. Internal Virus Database is out -of -date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.486 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 9:29 PM 05/20/2008 Page I of 2 Ung, Rosalinh From: Lila Crespin, Ph.D. [lilacrespin @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:15 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Mitigated Negative Dec.- Panini's Dear Ms. Ung, Page 20 of the MND [Mitigated Negative Declaration for Panini's new restaurant refers the General Plan for NB. I was an advisory member for the plan before and during approval. I have concerns about the MND a few of which are listed below. Circulation Element Sixteen parking spaces are not adequate; it does not provide for employee parking as do other restaurant use permits. There is an inadequate area for receiving and retrieving cars for clients. Upon request, I will provide photographs of the this area with two cars parked in it. Additional cars for use in this area would overflow into the public alley — an alley I and others use on a daily basis. City of Newport Beach General Plan p 2 -3 The Vision Statement of the City of Newport Beach General Plan (2006) states: "The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community emphasis added.] I am asking that this statement be honored and that it is done so in regards to no further restaurant development. The traffic, noise, and congestion are at full capacity for those who live in this vicinity. Our needs for a peaceful home must be recognized by our city officials according to the voter - approved General Plan. XIII Public Services - Fire Protection? 707 Begonia Avenue, where I reside, is constantly impacted with parked cars. In the past, fire trucks have been observed as not being able to pass through due to poorly parked cars on both sides of the street. Another commercial restaurant means greater parking conflicts. This denies residents of the heavily impacted restaurant area the same protection afforded other citizens of Newport Beach. This paragraph instigates a question concerning the semantics of the MND. The new Panini's is described as a relocation. Yet throughout the document, it is described as a new restaurant and a new use permit was issued as such. The previous Panini will continue as a restaurant thereby impacting the area further with nine, alcohol- serving restaurants within one and a half city blocks in CdM.. The language of the MND must be consistent throughout. I am asking that it be made so for the clarification of all who read it. �aa 05/20/2008 Page 2 of 2 XV Transportation Traffic Item a) is designated as "no impact." This is specious and must be corrected to "Potentially Significant Impact." We are residents of 707 Begonia Ave. for 35 years. As each new restaurant has opened we have lost privileges granted to others in Newport Beach: no parking in front of our own home until after 10:30 at night or before 8: 00AM. We often cannot pass in front of our home without backing up to make way for a delivery truck, or other vehicles that wish to enter one of the restaurants presently in existence. A new restaurant may presume to operate that all patrons will subscribe to valet parking but this is not true and cannot be true since there is no way to guarantee a patron preference. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Lila & Emil Crespin 707 Begonia Ave. CdM 92625 05/20/2008 'la3 EXHIBIT 6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT REVISIONS LETTER n 19001:01 DEC 21200; SUMMARY OF REVISIONSCffy OF NEWPORT BEACH Panini Cafe — CDM, CA Rear Building Profile: The original building massing at rear /alley frontage has been modified with a significant reduction to the building mass. The original design included a 361f. wide upper cornice line and new vertical building wall at about 32ft. above the garage floor /alley pavement. This has been re- designed to be pushed back about 13ft (into building) and replaced with about 37 if of lower sloping decorative clay mission tile roofing with a fascia line significantly lower, about 22 -23ft. above the garage floor /alley. This modification will result in a substantial reduction in the visual nature and scale of the rear building mass when viewed from street level (alley). The building aesthetic will also be enhanced with the warmth of the additional tile roofing areas, as well as appointments in pre -cast stone, custom exterior lighting, decorative copper collectors and downspouts, potted specimen plants and tastefully designed signage. 2. Exterior Staircase: The existing stair at the rear of the building currently encroaches approximately four feet into the rear 10ft setback, as was depicted on the original application plans. The stair design has been modified as suggested to be retracted/re -built with a full ten (10) foot setback to the first riser which opens up the entire area for deliveries staging, etc., increasing visibility and safety, while enhancing functionality. 3. Valet Parking Configuration: (In existing garage structure) The original design and graphic depiction have been slightly modified to reflect the recent on- site/in- garage valet parking demonstration as conducted by the professional valet parking company slated to provide valet service at Panini's new location. The garage parking solution as field demonstrated and confirmed on video and with digital still photos (available) consists of a sixteen -space configuration, as depicted on the revised parking plan, along with numbered vehicles denoting the sequencing. Circulation is entirely with the structure and on- site, including queuing and parking. Sixteen (16) spaces satisfies the parking requirement as set forth in the report, and as confirmed by the Planning Commission approval. The maneuvering sequence does not now involve using the striped van access area, as was originally shown. A 33 -slide Power Point presentation was prepared for purposes of illustration, as well as a hard copy of same. Please refer to exhibit `F' of the original application in comparison to the revised garage parking plan on sheet A -2 of the revised drawings. -End- 2435 East Coast Highway Ste. 7 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Tel: USA 949.721.5500 Fax: 949.721.5502 www.PlanetDesignIne.com Email: wredwards@PlanetDesignInc.com �a'1 EXHIBIT 7 REVISED PLAN -Py .17 � Zd : - - ---= 1 1 2 ��( §\� / }��� C\2 §/ # mc L4- C> 4 C, Zd : - - ---= 1 1 2 ��( §\� / }��� \ \t 4 C, 0 u E3 c 7, PH. y. (/( § \( |)!� ��( §\� / }��� \ \t 4 C, 0 u E3 c l3� , ^ :ƒ \\\ }2 \\ d�\ » » §..\ - \ $1 \ :. . - - - - -- ;. .. , .;.•. w�. a ! . \ a3 6 i aIM fNb •1!� a � ccrs i3 ��p!p x i s II M y; a35 IM H \I j� Ilia A LO )� X31 P F. '.WHlse J a!=Wa •a JZn a o IMNY ,vd �_ -�rvrvrv. rw,^,ao:imor vn oo_,mdraiw?aaoaivwminn nwm�ww�mmmw a ti� _ ^swd Mo IY i rr p J Gk I II I 5�5eg�a3 ?I II iI II l , 1 _ , I II � J I I W 'J s a•4 �' ue. A3llb' 5�5eg�a3 ?I II iI II l , 1 _ , I II � J I I W 'J s a•4 �' ue. A3llb' 011 ay1