No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout333 Bayside Dr_OD2007-001 (PA2007-004)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 June 7. 200 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -001 333 Bayside Drive (PA2007 -004) APPLICANT NAME: Jeff Reuter for 333 Bayside, LLC. ISSUE Should the Planning Commission approve an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 636 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the existing full - service restaurant? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -001. On December 29, 2006, the Planning Department received an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit application from Mr. Jeff Reuter for the construction and operation of a 636 square -foot outdoor dining area. Decision - making authority for Accessory Outdoor Dining Permits is assigned to the Planning Director pursuant to Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code (Accessory Outdoor Dining). This application, however, is being referred to the Planning Commission for consideration due to the concern that the proposed outdoor dining area may have potential noise impacts to the nearby residents. �L L� OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Existing Zoning Designations 5 R OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 4 The basis for the Planning Commission action on this application rests on the review of the submitted noise study (Exhibit 3) and analysis made by an independent noise consultant, Mestre -Greve Associates (Exhibit 5). Mestre -Greve has been retained by the Planning Department to provide technical input and rationale linking the Accessory Outdoor Dining findings with the City's noise standards. BACKGROUND On January 2, 1998, the Planning Director approved Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 44 to allow the operator of the previous restaurant (Yankee Tavern) to construct and operate a 634 square -foot outdoor dining area. This approval was later extended to January 16, 2001. On December 19, 2000, the Planning Department extended the approval to January 16, 2003. The Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit was never exercised and subsequently expired. On February 15, 2006, the Planning Director approved Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2005 -004 to allow the applicant to construct and operate a 636 square -foot outdoor dining area. The approval decision was appealed by Linda Isle residents and the applicant withdrew the application. DISCUSSION Proposed Outdoor Dinina Area The applicant proposes to construct a 636 square -foot outdoor dining area to be located on the second floor of the existing restaurant. The dining area is designed to be enclosed on the southeast and southwest sides with wall elements approximately 7 feet, 3' /z inches high. The wall elements will consist of a 2 -foot, 8 -inch plaster wall topped with operable windows. The applicant states that these windows will be closed each night by 7:00 p.m. and will remain closed throughout the remainder of the evening. A sail cloth material roof cover is also proposed. The outdoor dining area will seat approximately 45 people. The applicant states that there will be no live entertainment and all activities will cease by 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and by 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Existing Site Conditions The restaurant is located on the second floor of an office building at the intersection of Bayside Drive and West Coast Highway. The restaurant is a full - service establishment and permitted to operate under the conditions of Use Permit No. 3325 (Exhibit 2). The restaurant's net public area of 2,538 square feet, hours of operation (9:00 a.m. to 2:00 I OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 5 a.m., seven days a week), and parking are maintained and provided in accordance with the Use Permit. No live entertainment and/or dancing are allowed with the Use Permit. Analysis In order to approve an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the project will not 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 ". In the past, the City received noise complaints from residents even when noise levels were below the limits in the City Noise Ordinance. It should be noted that the 1998 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit was approved before the requirement for an acoustical study for all new bay front restaurant development. The 2006 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit, however, was considered and approved with an acoustical study. This approval was appealed by the Linda Isle residents because of the concerns that the restaurant's noises will still be audible from their properties even though the projected noise levels were below the City's noise standards. The applicant, however later, withdrew the application. The requirement that the project will not be a detrimental to the 'peace' and 'comfort' implies a level of protection from noise greater than provided in Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code (Community Noise Control). Therefore, any noise study conducted for any proposed bay front restaurant project should go beyond what is simply required by the noise ordinance, and determine, among other things, whether the noise from the project will be audible at the nearby residential areas. City Noise Regulations Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code (Community Noise Control) states the allowable average exterior noise levels experienced in a residential area (Zone 1) are as follows: • 55 dBA for any 15- minute period during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p. m • 50 dBA for any 15- minute period during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The maximum instantaneous noise level that is permitted is 75 dBA during the daytime or 70 dBA during the nighttime. • The ambient noise shall be standard if the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard. 0 OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 6 Noise Study The applicant submitted a noise study prepared by Wieland Associates, Inc., dated November 28, 2006 (Revised March 30, 2007) as part of the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit application (Exhibit 3). The requirement for an acoustical study for all new bay front restaurant development was instituted in 1998 by the Planning Commission to address issues of noise associated with bay front restaurants and impacts from activities that occur outside the restaurants. The noise study was prepared pursuant to the exterior noise levels criteria specified in Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code (Community Noise Control). The noise study also uses noise measurements of existing facilities (Blue Water Gril12, Billy's and Charthouse) and uses standard acoustic calculations to project the noise levels of the existing restaurant to the Linda Isle residences. The following chart summarizes the results from the noise study: ;y warHmolen>,i olse I 'Property Levels fdBA) Av6090Z 1. Maximum 136staurant 1041inda Isle_ 49.7 -60.6 1 59.7 -77.7 1 N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A 3 -Thi -3 51.9 -58.0 55.1 -70.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Bill 's/Charthouse °; 59.5 67.4 53 61 39 47 Blue Wafer Grill ':' 53.3 1 57.0 1 46 1 50 1 32 1 36 As stated in the noise study, the data collected at the Billy's /Charthouse in Newport Beach has been used with the window opened /closed scenarios to project the noise levels generated by 3- Thirty -3. These two establishments have more "boisterous" outdoor dining environments than Blue Water Grill, and may be more comparable to 3- Thirty -3, thereby producing higher noise levels. The noise study indicated that the estimated average and maximum noise levels generated by activities at the proposed outdoor dining area will comply with the City's noise standards. The following chart summarizes the Code's noise standards and the outdoor dining area's noise projections using the Billy's /Charthouse noise data: ' A copy of the study report (1998 Wieland Associates Report) and minutes of the July 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. 2 The submitted noise study identified Blue Water Grill as Blue Fish Grill. 0 OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 7 .TIMU 70 dBA 147 (windows closed by The study concluded that noise generated by the outdoor dining activities will not exceed the maximum allowable exterior noise level at any nearby residentially -zoned property of 50 dBA, and 60 dBA for commercially zoned property from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The study acknowledged, however, that some of the activities at the proposed outdoor dining area will, on occasion, be audible and discernible at the nearby residences because the type and character of the noise generated by the restaurant activities (i.e. people talking, car horns from the patrons leaving the parking lot) are different from the ambient traffic noise. Mestre Greve's Commentary In order to relate the submitted noise study and the City's noise standards to the required 'peace and comfort' findings of the Accessory Outdoor Dining Ordinance as the basis for the Planning Commission action, staff sought the professional opinion of an independent acoustical consultant, Mr. Fred Greve of Mestre Greve Associates. After reviewing the application package, Mr. Greve found the submitted noise study is consistent with that required by the City's noise standards. He also concluded the noise levels generated by the outdoor dining area will be audible from time to time, but they will not be perceived as loud. The maximum noise levels at the residences due to the outdoor dining activities will generally be around 47dBA. During loud events, peak noise levels from patio dining could be as high as 57 dBA. These events could be clearly audible, but would not be perceived as loud since traffic on Coast Highway and aircraft overflights commonly reach noise levels in the 65 to 75 dBA range. The Mestre Greve's commentary indicated that, based on best noise projection estimates, noise levels generated by the outdoor dining area on a normal night would be 39 dBA and could be 10 dBA higher with a noisier crowd, special event, or party. The commentary also noted that existing activities at the restaurant were "occasionally audible ". The typical maximum noise levels for the restaurant are 47 dBA due to people talking and 52 to 64 dBA for car horns in the parking lot. Ambient noise levels based on measurements at the closest residence ranged from 49.7 dBA in the late evening to 60.6 dBA in the early evening. )iD OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Greve also stated that the residents will probably be annoyed by the noise intrusion from the outdoor dining area. The level of annoyance is often a very subjective response and not based on how loud the noise is. An example was given of the acceptance level of annoyance, depending on whether the noise source is consistent with noises typical for a residential neighborhood. In this case, the residents most likely consider the restaurant and its operation as inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and, therefore, any noise generated from the restaurant would be considered as a source of annoyance (Exhibit 5). Required Findings Section 20.82.050 (B) of the Zoning Code requires the following findings be made in order to approve an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit: 1. That the proposed outdoor dining is accessory to the eating and drinking establishment. 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. 3. That the proposed accessory outdoor dining will not be located so as to result in reduction of existing parking spaces. Finding No. 1 could be made since the proposed outdoor dining area is accessory to the existing restaurant by having a total floor area of 636 square feet. Section 20.82.050 (A) limits accessory outdoor dining areas to 25 percent of the interior net public area, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Finding No. 3 could be made since the proposed outdoor dining area will be located behind the existing building, overlooking the waterway, and thereby will not result in a reduction of the existing parking spaces located in the front of the building. Furthermore, Section 20.82.050 (A) does not require additional parking for accessory outdoor dining areas. For Finding No. 2, Planning Commission must make a determination as to whether or not the proposed outdoor dining would 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. Noise sources associated with the operation of a restaurant such as music, people laughing, talking, singing, silverware clattering, kitchen activities, deliveries and trash disposal have traditionally been the main causes of citizen complaints. }b OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 9 It is the opinion of staff that Finding No. 2 could not be made given that the nearest residential properties are located approximately 215 feet across the channel on Linda Isle, which is much closer when compared to the residents living across the water on Lido Isle to Billy's /Charthouse. Staff receives noise complaints from the Lido Isle residents about Billy's /Charthouse which is located at a distance of approximately 740 feet from Lido Isle. The general conclusion is that the closer the residents to the restaurant, the more noise would be audible. As discussed above, noise from the restaurant would be heard by the residents, especially during lulls in traffic in the later portion of the evening. The concern here is that the noise generated by the outdoor dining will be perceived as loud and the residents will be annoyed by the noise from the outdoor dining area. The operable windows and low solid partition walls will not provide adequate sound attenuation to limit or prevent adverse noise impacts on the surrounding residential uses from the noise generated by activities in the outdoor dining area. Furthermore, the conclusion of Finding No. 2 also was based on the criteria from Section 10.28.010 of the Municipal Code (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). The following, in staffs opinion, are applicable to this application: • Proximity of the noise to the residential sleeping areas • Time of day and night the noise occurs • The noise is produced by a commercial activity The existing restaurant is in close proximity to the residents on Linda Isle. The outdoor dining area will stay open until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. In the past, the existing restaurant has created noise - related problems for the surrounding residential uses. Noise is generated from the restaurant's designated outdoor smoking area and from the parking lot when the patrons leave the restaurant at late hours. The increase in the floor area devoted to dining and the increase in the overall number of patrons that will be accommodated will have an additive effect on the existing noise related problems; therefore, approval of this outdoor dining application would further exacerbate the existing noise problems associated with the current restaurant use and would in turn have a detrimental effect on the peace, comfort and welfare of the nearby residential properties across the water. Concerns from Residents The Planning Department received several letters from the Linda Isle residents during the application review process. The residents of 104, 105, and 106 Linda Isle collectively expressed their opposition to the proposed outdoor dining area. They also expressed concerns with the applicant's noise study for the proposed outdoor dining area and with loud noise generated from the restaurant's current operations (Exhibit 6). 4a OD2007 -001 June 7, 2007 Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 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 Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: L4-et a'az' R I tsalinh Ung, Asso te r lanner Exhibits: Submitted by: PA %. -..�& ector IV 1. Draft Resolution No. 2007- 2. Use Permit No. 3325 3. Noise Study 4. 1998 Wieland Associates Report and Minutes of the July 23, Commission meeting 5. Mestre Greve's Memo 6. Letters from the Linda Isle residents 7. Project Plans 1998 Planning 12) EXHIBIT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL vk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 2007 -001 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 636-SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR DINING AREA ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 BAYSIDE DRIVE (PA2007 -004) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Jeff Reuter with respect to property located at 333 Bayside Drive, and legally described as Lot A & B of Parcel Map Book 6 Page 10 (Revised #249) and Portion of Lot 1 Tract 5361, requesting approval of an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 636 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with the existing full - service restaurant; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 7, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 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 Hall and on the city website; and WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed accessory outdoor dining at the subject site will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property or improvements in the area for the following reasons: 1. The existing restaurant is in close proximity to the residents on Linda Isle. The distance and orientation of the proposed outdoor dining area directly toward the residential uses across the bay with no solid intervening structures or devices to reduce the noise generated by the activities common to outdoor dining areas. 2. The existing restaurant has created noise related problems for the surrounding residential uses in the past. Noise is generated from the restaurant's designated smoking area and from the parking lot when the patrons leave the restaurant at late hours. The increase in the floor area devoted to dining and the increase in the overall number of patrons that will be accommodated will have an additive effect on the existing noise related problems; therefore, approval of this outdoor dining application would further exacerbate the existing noise problems associated with the current restaurant use and would in turn have a detrimental effect on the peace, comfort and welfare of the nearby residential properties across the water. WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 2 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 denies Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -001. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2007. AYES: NOES: 93 Jeffrey Cole, Chairman BY: Robert Hawkins, Secretary VD EXHIBIT 2 USE PERMIT NO. 3325 0 C`bMMISSIONERS September 22, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX ngresa /egress on to West Coast Highway. She said that t parking lot is used to avoid the traffic signal at t Avenue and West Coast Highway. Commissioner M t under e feet in width and not labeled as compact parking s Zees. Ayes • • r r M Motion was vo d on to deny Use Permit No. 3323 subject Noes + + t to the findings n Exhibit "B ". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed -site parking is inadequate for the subject take -ou restaurant and further that said restaurant is loc ted adjacent to a residen- tial area where the exi ing demand for on- street parking is very high. 2. That the proposed take -out estaurant is not compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3323 wil under the circumstances of the case, be detriment to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and aneral welfare of persons residing or working i the neighborhood and will be detrimental and injur us to property or improvements in the neighborhood a Use Permit No. 3325 (Public Hearing) I Item No-4 Request to increase the allowable occupancy of the U UP3325 former Baxter's Restaurant facility, and to establish a new parking requirement based upon "net public area ". ' 'Approved The proposal also requests to change the operational characteristics of the former restaurant facility which served "breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and maintained a cocktail lounge with live entertainment and dancing. The proposed restaurant will consist of a bar and a dining room with incidental background music, and will only be open for business between 5 :00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily and for Sunday brunch. The proposal also includes the utilization of on -site parking spaces and reciprocal parking on adjoining commercial property, and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit a valet parking service. -ll- COMMISSIONERS 9y9� �.y Q��'omyo September 22, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots A and B of Parcel Map 6 -10 (Resubdivision No. .249) and a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 5361, located at 333 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, across from the De Anza Mobile Home Park. ZONE: C -1 -H APPLICANT: Hans Prager, Newport Beach OWNER: Marvin Burton, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hans Prager, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Prager described the New England tbemed "Yankee Tavern" Restaurant, and he stated that said restaurant will be open during the dinner hours and there are plans to open for Sunday Brunch. Mr. Marvin Burton, property owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Burton stated that he had conferred with the applicant regarding the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and that they had agreed with same. Mr. Burton distributed letters from Mr. Wambaugh, Linda Isle, and Ms. Lynne Valentine, occupant of the ground floor on the adjacent property south of the subject site, who are in support of the subject application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Prager replied that the restaurant is proposed to be open by February 1, 1989. In response to a question posed by James Hewicker, Planning Director, Mr. Prager replied that the restaurant will employ their own valet service. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3325 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Pers6n stated that he would support the motion based on the applicant's successful record as a restaurateur in Newport Beach. -12- 10. COMMISSIONERS yBG9 99o�9�r�0 yov< September 22, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Di Sano concurred with the foregoing statement.in support of the use permit application. Chairman Pomeroy stated his support of the motion, and the characteristics of the restaurant. Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3325 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". All Ayes MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the subject proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the Local Coastal Program and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 4. That the restaurant will be open only during those hours when office uses on the site and in the adjoining building are closed for business. 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of any property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may be. required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3325 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 8. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow the use of valet parking will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, -13- 0 COMMISSIONERS } MINUTES September 22, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations except as provided in the following conditions. 2. That all employees of the restaurant shall park in the shared, on -site parking lot. 3. That 64, parking spaces shall be provided for the restaurant during restaurant operating hours. 4. That onsite parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. That handicapped parking shall be provided as required by Code, and that the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic 'Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. A handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped parking space. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened from views from Bayside Drive, East Coast Highway, and adjoining properties. 8. That the operating hours of the restaurant shall be 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m, to 2:00 a.m. on Sundays. 9. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures on the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage system in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform -14- NE r COMMISSIONERS �m9t September 22, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Building Code, unless otherwise provided by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 10. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 11. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided is such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 12. That a trash compactor be provided in the restaurant facility. 13. That restaurant development standards pertaining to walls, landscaping, utilities, and parking lot illumination shall be waived. Said waiver does not include the required.public improvements. 14. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. lb. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -15- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL January Y, lyyc MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH That the Planning Commission may add or modify co 'bons of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the Ci uncit the revocation of this use permit, upon a determinatio at the operation which is the subject of this use permit, cause ' 'ury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, ort or general welfare of the community. That this use permit shall expire if not rcised within 24 months from the date of approval as spe ' in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal e ..: [uest to amend a previously approved use permit which pitted a change in the allowable occupancy of an existing aurant located in the C -1 -H District. Said approval also uded: a change in the operational characteristics of the aurant so as to include a bar and dining area with background sic; the establishment of a new parking requirement; the :ntion of a valet parking service; the establishment of rational hours from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 am. Monday through arday and 9:00 am. to 2:00 am. on Sunday; and the continued of a reciprocal parking arrangement with an adjoining unercial property. The proposed amendment includes a request amend Condition No. 8 of the existing use permit so as to mit the restaurant to be open for Saturday lunch. 110N: Lots A and B of Parcel Map 6 -10 (Resubdivision No. 249) and a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 5361, located at 333 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly side of Bayside Drive, between East Coast Highway and Linda Isle Drive. C -1 -H Hans Prager, Newport Beach Marvin Burton, Newport Beach . -9- INDEX Item No.4 UP3325A Approved A✓ > COMMISSIONERS 01- January 9, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL. CALL 1NOEX James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that two letters of opposition from Linda Isle residents were . received by staff regarding the request. The concerns expressed may be a misunderstanding of the public notice, inasmuch as the restaurant currently is open until 2:00 a.m., and the proposed application only establishes a lunch hour on Saturdays. In. response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Rewicker explained that no noise problems have been registered with the Police Department by Linda Isle residents towards the subject restaurant. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay suggested that Mr. King notify the concerned Linda Isle residents for the purpose of clarification of the restaurant's operating hours. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3325 Al Ayes subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W. MOTION CARRIED. FMWGS I. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available to accommodate the proposed change in the hours of operation of the restaurant. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and -10- N COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT January 9, l994 MINUTES BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX landscaping, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. S. That the approval of Use Permit No: 3325 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CON_1?iT'IONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3325 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. 4. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the establishment of the Saturday lunchtime operation of the restaurant. 5. That a minimum of one parking space for each 41± square feet of "net public area" (62 spaces) shall be provided during the Saturday lunch operation of the restaurant and one parking space for each 40 square of "net public area" .feet for all other hours of the restaurant's operation. 6. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -11- N COMMISSIONERS \A4' °c,' s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX ve entertainment shallVe confined to the mtenor o r e structure; an further that when the live entertainment is performed, all windows d doors within the restaurant shall be closed except when ente ' and leaving by the main entrance of the restaurant. 4. That no dancing shall be perinitted in the restaurant ess the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use 5. That all previously applicable conditions approval of Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended) shall remain in efl a part of this approval. 6. That the Planning Commis ' n may add or modify conditions of approval to the use pe , or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this u rmit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subj of this use permit, cause injury, or is detrimental to the health, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the communi 7. T this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months f the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. saa Use Permit No. 3325 (Amended) (Public Hearing) stem No.. Request to amend a previously approved use pemtit which permitted a UP3325A change in the allowable occupancy of an existing restaurant located on property located in the RMC -H District. Said approval also included: a Approved change in the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to include a bar and dining area with background music; the establishment of a new parking requirement; the retention of a valet parking service; the establishment of operational hours from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday; and the continued use of a reciprocal parking arrangement with an adjoining commercial property. The proposed amendment requests a change in the operational characteristics to change the opening hour to 11:00 a.m_, so as to provide lunch service on a daily basis, where the lunch service is currently limited to Saturdays and Sundays only; and to waive a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces for the daytime use. -7- ;Z4 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots A and B of Parcel Map 6 -10 (Resubdivision No. 249) and a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 5361, located at 333 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly side of Bayside Drive between East Coast Highway and Linda Isle Drive. ZONE: RMC -H APPLICANT: Hans Prager (Yankee Tavern Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER: Marvin Burton, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject application and the existing operation as previously amended and approved. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hans Prager, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Ms. Leanne Benvenuti, 106 Linda Isle, appeared before the Planning Commission for a clarification of the restaurant's operation. Director Hewicker explained that the only request is that the restaurant be allowed to be open for lunch. She said that the Linda Isle Community Association had concerns that the restaurant's operation would change and the change would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. lotion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3225 iii Aye (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. -8- a1 COI %4MISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 1 That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available to accommodate the proposed change in the hours of operation of the restaurant. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the off-street parking (30 daytime parking spaces during the week) walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3325 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3325 and Use Permit No. 3325 (Amended) shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be limited between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., daily. 4. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the establishment of the weekday daytime operation of the restaurant. 5. That a minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided for the daytime operation of the subject restaurant during the week. A -9- 9Y COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX minimum of one parking space for each t square feet of net public area" (62 spaces) shall be provided during the Saturday daytime operation of the restaurant, and one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" (64 spaces) for all other hours of the restaurant's operation. 6. That the development standards pertaining to a portion of the required parking spaces (30 daytime parking spaces during the week) walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping„ are waived. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 8. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. rsr PernitNo.355t fContinmd Public H a' Item No. Request to rmit the establishment of a nautical museum in a floating UP3551 structure curre occupied by Charley Brown's Restaurant, where the related off - street p area is located in the RMC -H District. The approves proposed facility will inc exhibit space, a meeting area, a library, a gift store and a cafe with ale beer and wine on the floating structure, with related off - street ing on the adjoining upland parcel. The proposal also include request to permit live entertainment, dancing, and alcoholic bevera for various museum functions, weddings, and other private parties. LOCATION: Lot A , Tract No. 5361, Parcel 4 of 1 Map 93 -111 (Resubdivision No. 995) and a pore of Block 54 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 15 10- 9� EXHIBIT 3 NOISE STUDY �6 r Wieland Associates, Inc. Acoustical Consultants November 28, 2006 H"Jug MAN 10 M10 Project File 886 -06 (Revised March 30, 2007) Mr. Jeff Reuter tuna z0 add 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant Amon" 'aag et INmy]id 333 Bayside Drive 148 0555054 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Evaluation of Noise Levels Generated by Outdoor Dining Activities Reference: Architectural Drawings prepared by John E. Wells and Associates, Architects. No date. Dear Mr. Reuter, The City of Newport Beach has requested that an acoustical study be provided as part of the process of obtaining a permit for outdoor dining at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant. This report has been prepared in response to the City's request. Accordingly, the following sections will provide a description of the outdoor dining area, discuss the applicable noise standards, provide the results of our analysis, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Outdoor Dining Area The 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant has applied for a permit to construct an approximately 736 square foot outdoor dining area at the southwest comer of the existing building at 333 Bayside Drive. The capacity of the patio will be about 45 people. There will be no live entertainment or pre- recorded music pertnitted at the outdoor dining area, and ail activities will cease by 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and by 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. As indicated on the referenced plans, the dining area will be enclosed on the southeast and southwest sides with barriers having an approximate height of 7' -3'h" above the floor. These barriers will consist of a 2' -8" plaster wall topped with operable windows. The windows will be closed each night by 7:00 p.m. and will remain closed throughout the remainder of the evening. A layer of sail cloth will cover the top of the dining area. Referring to Figure 1 -1, the proposed outdoor dining area is located directly across the bay from Linda Isle, about 215 feet from the nearest residential property. 2691 Richter Avenue, Suite 107 Tel: (949) 474 1222 Irvine, CA 92606 www,wielandassoc.com Fax: (949) 474 9122 31 WA Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Outdoor Dining Area Figure 1 -1. Location of the Study Area 2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards The City's noise ordinance standards (Chapter 10.26) state that the allowable average exterior noise level experienced in a residential area as a result of activities at the outdoor dining facility shall not exceed 55 dB(A) for any 15- minute period during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m During the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the standard is 50 dB(A). The maximum instantaneous noise level that is permitted is 75 dB(A) during the daytime or 70 dB(A) during the nighttime. If the ambient noise level exceeds these standards, then the ambient shall be the standard. Although permitted by the Code, this report will take a conservative approach by trot assessing potential impacts relative to the ambient noise level if the ambient noise level is higher than the City's prescribed standards. 3 Ambient Noise Measurements Measurements were obtained at the rear yard of 102 Linda Isle on the evenings of November 15 and 18, 2006 in order to identify the existing ambient noise levels in the area. This location provided direct line -of -sight to the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant, and was the closest residential location to the restaurant at which access could be obtained. During the measurements, notes were kept to document the events that occurred, as well as the maximum noise levels generated by those events. 3- THIRTY -3 WATERFRONT RESTAURANT 2 Project Fite 886 -06 Revised Mardi 30, 2007 3 I� FINAL WA Wieland Associates, Inc. outdoor Dining Area Our observations on both evenings indicate that the predominant noise source in the area is traffic on East Coast Highway. Additional noise was generated by boats in the marina, helicopters, and aircraft taking off from John Wayne Airport. The results of the measurements, provided in Appendix I, indicate average ambient noise levels in the range of 51.9 to 58.0 dB(A) between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The maximum noise levels measured at the residence ranged from 55.1 to 70.4 dB(A). Activities at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant were occasionally audible and measurable over the ambient traffic noise. Typical maximum noise levels generated at the restaurant were 50 to 66 dB(A) due to restaurant door slamming, 54 dB(A) due to a gate slammjng, 50 to 55 dB(A) for metal clanging (possibly from the kitchen), and 51 to 55 dB(A) for shouting in the parking lot. An additional ambient noise measurement was obtained on the evening of March 23, 2007 at the rear yard of 104 Linda Isle. This is the closest residential location to the proposed outdoor dining area. As with the previous measurement, notes were kept to document the events that occurred, as well as the maximum noise levels generated by those events. The results of the measurements, provided in Appendix 1, indicate average ambient noise levels in the range of 49.7 to 60.6 dB(A) between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. The maximum noise levels measured at the residence ranged from 59.7 to 77.7 dB(A). Activities at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant were occasionally audible and measurable over the ambient traffic noise. Typical maximum noise levels generated at the restaurant were 47 dB(A) due to people talking, and 52 to 64 dB(A) for car horns in the parking lot. 4 Analysis of Dining Area Noise Levels In order to characterize the noise levels that will be generated by the proposed outdoor dining area, additional measurements were obtained on the evening of November 24a at a location approximately 24 feet from the outdoor dining area at the Blue Fish Grill, 630 Lido Park Drive, in Newport Beach. This outdoor dining area was characterized by the client as being representative of the type of dining experience and activity level expected at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant. During the course of the measurement there were approximately 12 to 15 people at the Blue Fish Grill's dining area. There were no barriers or other obstructions to block the noise generated by the activities at the outdoor dining area. The results of the measurement indicate an average noise level of 53.3 dB(A) and a maximum noise level of about 57 dB(A). It is noted that the measured average noise level provides excellent agreement with published data for human speech with a vocal effort between a "normal" and "raised" level', which is consistent with what was experienced on the evening of the 24d. Assuming that the noise levels treasured at the Blue Fish Grill are representative of those that will be generated at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant, an analysis can then be conducted to estimate the ' Referring to Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, edited by Cyril Harris, the average speech level is 58 dB(A) for males and 55 dB(A) for females at a distance of I meter with "normal" vocal effort, and 65 dB(A) for males and 62 dB(A) for females at a distance of 1 meter with "normal" vocal effort. The measured average noise level of 53.3 dB(A) at 24 feet is equivalent to one person producing a speech level of 60 dB(A) at 1 meter. 3- THIRTY -3 WATERFRONT RESTAURANT 3 Project File 886 -06 Revised March 30, 2007 ,, q W Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Outdoor Dining Area noise levels that will be experienced at the residences on Linda Isle. The analysis used in this study is based on standard prediction algorithmsz for favorable propagation of noise (i.e., the algorithm takes into account atmospheric and ground conditions that tend to favor noise propagation to a receiver). The results of the analysis, provided in Appendix II, indicate an average noise level of about 46 dB(A) at the nearest residential property (about 215 feet away). The maximum noise level will be about 50 dB(A). These are the estimated noise levels that will be experienced during the daytime hours when the barrier windows at the outdoor dining area are open. Both of these levels are well below the City's daytime noise ordinance standards of 55 dB(A) for an average noise level and 75 dB(A) for a maximum noise level. When the barrier windows at the outdoor dining area are closed, it is estimated that the average and maximum noise levels will be 32 dB(A) and 36 dB(A), respectively, at the Linda Isle residences. Both of these levels are well below the City's nighttime noise ordinance standards of 50 dB(A) for an average noise level and 70 dB(A) for a maximum noise level. Because of community concerns, it may be useful to consider the measured noise levels obtained as part of a previous study at the outdoor dining areas associated with the Charthouse restaurant and Billy's in Newport Beach. These two establishments have a somewhat more "boisterous" outdoor dining environment than is anticipated for the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant, and therefore produce higher noise levels. During the measurement there were approximately 14 to 20 people at the Charthouse dining area, and 20 to 30 people at the Billy's dining area (which has a bar). These two dining areas are located side -by -side, are surrounded by an approximately 7 -foot high glass wall, and are separated from each other by another glass wall of the same height. The results of the measurement indicate an average noise level of 59.5 dB(A) and a maximum noise level of 67.4 dB(A) at a point about 20 feet from the center of the two dining areas. Using the same analytical procedures as discussed earlier, an analysis was conducted to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the residences on Linda Isle. The results of the analysis, provided in Appendix II, indicate an average noise level of about 53 dB(A) at the nearest residential property (about 215 feet away). The maximum noise level will be about 61 dB(A). These are the estimated noise levels that will be experienced during the daytime hours when the barrier windows at the outdoor dining area are open. Both of these levels are below the City's daytime noise ordinance standards of 55 dB(A) for an average noise level and 75 dB(A) for a maximum noise level. When the barrier windows at the outdoor dining area are closed, it is estimated that the average and maximum noise levels will be 39 dB(A) and 47 dB(A), respectively, at the Linda Isle residences. Both of these levels are well below the City's nighttime noise ordinance standards of 50 dB(A) for an average noise level and 70 dB(A) for a maximum noise level. 2 Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. 3-THIRTY-3 WATERFRONT RESTAURANT Project File 886.06 Harris. 1998 4 Revised March 30, 2007 J WA FINAL Wieland Associates, Inc. Outdoor Dining Area 5 Assessment of Impact Based on the analysis of Section 4 and the assumptions of Section 1, it is expected that the estimated average and maximum noise levels generated by activities at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant outdoor dining area will comply with the City's noise ordinance standards. 6 Mitigation Referring to Section 5, no significant impacts are assessed for the proposed project; therefore, additional mitigation is not required. 7 Conclusion Based on the results of our study and analysis, it is concluded that the outdoor dining activities at the 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant will comply with the City's noise standards. It should be noted that, despite compliance with the City standards, activities at the proposed outdoor dining area will be audible and discernible at the nearby residences. This is due to the fact that the type and character of the noise generated by the dining activities is different from that of the ambient traffic noise. Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with acoustical consulting services. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at 9491474 -1222. Sincerely, WIELAND ASSOC David L. Wieland Principal Consultant 3- THIRTY -3 WATERFRONT RESTAURANT 5 Project File 886 -06 Revised March 30, 2007 35 Appendix Noise Measurements 3� Table 1 -1. Summary of Noise Measurements at 102 Linda Isle 31 Table I -2. Summary of Noise Measurements at 102 Linda Isle 1b Table I -3. Single Event Noise Level Measurements Project: 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant Date: 11/15/2006 Position: At rear of 102 Linda Isle Time: 7.55pm to 9.00pm 1 8:00 PM Truck horn on PCH 52.5 2 8:02 PM Car accelerating on PCH 54.8 3 8:03 PM Helicopter overhead 64.2 4 8:04 PM Impact from PCH - loose cover? 5 8:05 PM Aircraft 65.0 6 8:05 PM Car started in 3Thirty3 carpark 7 8:06 PM Loud vehicle driving on PCH 58.5 8 8:07 PM Aircraft 57.0 9 8:07 PM Rustling in tree near SLM - caused by animal? 10 8:08 PM Impacts from PCH - loose cover? 55.0 11 8:08 PM Car door slamming and people talking in 3Thirty3 carpark 12 8:08 PM Restaurant door slamming at 3Thirty3 66.3 13 8:10 PM Impact from Boat hitting wall nearby 54.5 14 8:10 PM Truck accelerating on PCH 15 8:12 PM Impact from Boat hitting wall nearby 54.1 16 8:12 PM Motorcycle accelerating on PCH 54.0 17 8:13 PM Restaurant door opening at 3Thirty3 18 8:13 PM JLoud. bus driving on PCH 56.1 19 8:14 PM Motorcycle accelerating on PCH 57.8 20 8:15 PM Car accelerating on PCH 21 8:17 PM Impacts from PCH - loose cover? 53.6 22 8:17 PM Loud car on PCH 56.9 23 8:17 PM Heavy truck driving on PCH 55.9 24 8:18 PM Restaurant door slamming at 3Thirty3 52.0 25 8:18 PM ILoud car on PCH 58.6 26 8:19 PM Loud car on PCH 54.6 27 8:20 PM Impacts from PCH - loose cover? 52.6 28 8:21 PM Loud car on PCH 54.0 29 8:22 PM Aircraft and heavy truck on PCH (simultaneously) 55.0 30 8:24 PM Impacts from PCH - loose cover? 54.0 31 8:24 PM Aircraft - flvine overhead from North 64.5 Wieland Associates, Inc. 3� Table I -3. cont, Single Event Noise Level Measurements Project: 3Thirty3 Outdoor Dining Area Date: 11/15/2006 Position: At rear of no. 102 Linda Isle Time: 7.55pm to 9.00pm 32 8:25 PM Clanging from 3Thirty3 - kitchen noises? 55.3 33 8:26 PM Aircraft 54.3 34 8:26 PM Impacts from PCH - loose cover? 56.0 35 8:27 PM Impacts from PCH - loose cover? 53.8 36 8:27 PM Heavy truck driving on PCH 57.5 37 8:28 PM Loudspeaker announcement on bus on PCH 55.3 38 8:30 PM Brake or tyre squeal from PCH 49.8 39 8:30 PM Loud car on PCH 54.9 40 8:31 PM Loud car on PCH 52.3 41 8:32 PM Shouting from resaurant carpark 53.9 42 8:32 PM Shouting from resaurant carpark 54.7 43 8:33 PM Shouting from resaurant carpark 50.8 44 8:33 PM Loud motorcycle on PCH 52.4 45 8:33 PM Loud car on PCH 55.2 46 8:33 PM Car horn 55.4 47 8:34 PM Clanging from 3Thirty3 - kitchen noises? 49.6 48 8:35 PM I Shouting from resaurant carpark 49 8:36 PM Car horn 52.8 50 51 8:36 PM 8:37 PM Homeowner talkie (recorded before pausing SLM) Shouting from resaurant carpark 56.0 51.0 52 8:37 PM Loud car on PCH 52.8 53 8:39 PM Loud car on PCH 54.2 54 8 :40 PM Clanging from 3Thirty3 - kitchen noises? 54.9 55 8:40 PM Restaurant door slamming at 3Thirty3 49.8 56 8:40 PM Loud car on PCH 53.9 57 8:40 PM Heavy truck driving on PCH 54.1 58 8:42 PM Aircraft 63.0 59 8:43 PM Loud motorcycle on PCH 53.7 60 8:45 PM Loud car on PCH 61 8:45 PM I Loud motorcycle on PCH 58.4 62 8:46 PM I Clanging from 3Thirty3 - kitchen noises? 52.8 Wleland Associates, Inc. Table I -3. cunt, Single Event Noise Level Measurements Project: 3Thirty3 Outdoor Dining Area Date: 11/15/2006 Position: At rear of no. 102 Linda Isle . _ n nn-. Wieland Associates, ino. Table I -4. Noise Survey Project: 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant Position: On boardwalk adjacent to outdoor dining area at the Blue Fish Grill Date: November 24, 2006 Time: Noted Noise Source: Ambient traffic and activities at outdoor dining area Distance: 24' from outdoor dining area SLM Height: 5' LD 820 S/N: 0996 LD CAL250 Calibrator SIN: 2966 Operator: David Wieland 80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 S 60.0 55.0 O z 50.0 45.0 40.0 1 I I I I I I ( I L I 1 I I - --- - -----=-- - - - -I- - - - - -= ----- I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 ! 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Time Noise Level is Exceeded " Leq is the average sound level during the measurement period. Ln is the sound level exceeded n% of the time during the measurement period. Lmax and Lunn are the maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. WIELIND ASSOCIATES, INC. qda I I 11 MENI - --- ©MMM ---- MMMM M--- MM M MM-- MM-- MMMM M®-- MM-- MM M - --- M®-- MM-MI MM-- " Leq is the average sound level during the measurement period. Ln is the sound level exceeded n% of the time during the measurement period. Lmax and Lunn are the maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. WIELIND ASSOCIATES, INC. qda I I Table 1-5. Summary of Noise Measurements Obtained at 104 Linda Isle 23- Mar -07 7:00 -7:15 pm 54.7 66.8 23- Mar -07 7:15 -7:30 pm 60.5 70.0 24- Mar -07 7:30 -7:45 pm 60.6 76.4 23- Mar -07 7:45 -8:00 pm 1 52:0 59.7 24- Mar -07 8:00 -8:15 pm 58.4 69.7 23- Mar -07 8:15 -8:30 pm 57.8 71.4 23- Mar -07 8:30 -8:45 pm 54.4 71.1 23- Mar -07 8:45 -9:00 pm 54.2 66.4 23- Mar -07 9:00 -9:15 pm 56.2 69.3 23- Mar -07 9:15 -9:30 pm 58.4 76.4 23- Mar -07 9:30 -9:45 pm 53.8 67.2 23- Mar -07 9.45 -10:00 pm 54.3 67.4 23- Mar -07 10:00 -10:15 pm 55.9 69.5 23- Mar -07 10:15 -10:30 m 49.7 64.7 23- Mar -07 10:30 -10:45 m 49.7 64.0 3_ r.5 10:45 -11:00 m 56.1 77.7 k�3 Table 15. Summary of Noise Measurements Obtained at 104 Linda Isle INIMM 23- Mar -07 7:00 -7:15 pm i. 54.7 66.8 23- Mar -07 7:15 -7:30 pm 60.5 70.0 24- Mar -07 7:30 -7:45 pm 60.6 76.4 23- Mar -07 7:45 -8:00 pm 52.0 59.7 24- Mar -07 8:00 -8:15 pm 58.4 69.7 23- Mar -07 8:15 -8:30 pm 57.8 71.4 23- Mar -07 1 8:30 -8:45 pm 54.4 71.1 23- Mar -07 8:45 -9:00 pm 54.2 66.4 23- Mar -07 9:00 -9:15 pm 56.2 69.3 23- Mar -07 9:15 -9:30 pm 58.4 76.4 23- Mar -07 9:30 -9:45 pm 53.8 67.2 23- Mar -07 9:45 -10:00 pm 54.3 67.4 23- Mar -07 10:00 -10:15 pm 55.9 69.5 23- M2r -07 10:15 -10:30 m 49.7 64.7 23- Mar -07 10:30 -10:45 m 49.7 64.0 23- Mar -07 10:45 -11:00 m 56:1 77.7 W Table I -6. Single Event Noise Level Measurements Project: 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant Date: 3/23/2006 Position: At rear of 104 Linda Isle Time: 7.00pm to 11.00pm Wieland Associates, Inc. Table I - -6. cont, Single Event Noise Level Measurements Project: 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant Date: 3/23/2006 Position: At rear of 104 Linda Isle Till:, 7.00pm to 1 I.00pm 32 8:18 PM Auto horn 33 8:19 PM Jet aircraft 34 8:22 PM Jet aircraft 35 8:25 PM Jet aircraft 36 8:28 PM People talb 37 8:34 PM Jet aircraft 38 8:37 PM Jet aircraft 39 8:44 PM Loud SUV 40 8:46 PM Jet aircraft 41 8:47 PM Electric boat 42 8 :49 PM Propeller afire 43 8 :51 PM Jet aircraft 44 8:55 PM Jet aircraft 45 8:58 PM Pro filer airs 46 8:58 PM Car horn in a 47 8:59 PM Kayakers rowi 48 9:00 PM Boat rower 49 9 :02 PM Car horn 50 51 9:04 PM Car horn in par 9:06 PM Loud car 52 9:08 PM Motorcycle 53 9:09 PM Loud car 54 9:09 PM Jet aircraft 55 9:13 PM Motorcycle 56 9:14 PM Jet aircraft 57 9:18 PM Pro ller 58 9:21 PM Aircraft 59 9 :22 PM Jet aircraft 60 9 :26 PM Jet aircraft 61 9:29 PM Jet aircraft 62 9:31 PM Jet aircraft Wieland Associates, Inc, !n parking lot of lot of 67 64 71 68 57 55 53 52 54 53 59 67 55 69 68 75 67 Table I -6. coat, Single Event Noise Level Measurements Project: 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant Date: 3/23/2006 Position: At rear of 104 Linda isle Time: 7.00pm to 11.00pm Wieland Associates, Inc. qt Appendix H Noise Level Analysis I • is ro al fN0 (ND g h ti- N M U-j V'� e� ((�� 'v co ONM MCD N N V U) '-t!1 d• TLo O U)7 po rNM McD T D1 N M T LO T co N T LO 1� T Ic') M (D O cD dol (D CD (n 0 Ln lC) Qtly' V O M M (D T .d. d' n N w � (NO (Op M � CppOO -oe � O co M co ,d N t0�LO N �R ID V OOCD cow M d' N m � M OOCD N Cd7 COjN McD N OD O ¢ u 0OJ CU In a .1 4 C •> 0'pD 0 C O U? (n N ®O "Mp - moo m C i3 o N v •r y � a a Op D m Fit O u! N m m 9� p 7 i OO N t 0-0 (0 7 7 p -0-0-0, •p 'p N : C N '(0 O C O C O C O 7 •6 7 T) G1 W 7N7 f� N 3 N it Lf al co 3 O N U d b C �l r m w r C d LD 3 N C O N W v d v Z a m w �e E W M Q ,N N C Q ti I M 50 EXHIBIT 4 1998 WIELAND ASSOCIATES REPORT AND MINUTES OF THE JULY 23, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5► • • ._11 To: The Planning Commissioners CC: Sharon Wood, Patricia Temple From: Janet Johnson Date: 07/20/98 Re: Noise Standards and Mitigation Methodologies Please find attached for your review a report prepared by David Wieland, of Wieland Associates, relative to Discussion Item A on the agenda for the July 23'd Planning Commission Meeting. r) a 7 Q� ct U Cif May 11, 1998 Project File 98010 (Revised July 17, 1998) Ms. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Review of Noise Standards In Relation to Intrusion from Restaurants into Residential Areas Dear Ms. Wood, It is our understanding that in the recent past the City of Newport Beach has experienced numerous citizen complaints regarding intrusive noise levels from activities at nearby restaurants. There are several noise sources associated with the operation of a typical restaurant. These include: mechanical equipment (fans, air conditioners, etc.), music, people laughing and talking in the restaurant and parking lot, plates clattering, kitchen activities, late night/early morning deliveries, and late night disposal of trash. Of these, it is our experience that most community annoyance is associated with music and speech (i.e., people laughing, talking, or singing). Because of the City's concern, a subcommittee has been formed to determine what, if anything, can be done to alleviate the problem. To assist in this effort we have been asked to review the City's noise standards, as well as those of several other communities, with regard to how they deal with noise intrusion from restaurant activities. The following report summarizes our findings, assesses the adequacy of the City's standards, and, where appropriate, suggests changes that will reduce the number of citizen complaints. City of Newport Beach Noise Standards With respect to controlling noise intrusion from restaurant activities, the City of Newport Beach has two sets of standards: Chapter 5.28 "Live Entertainment Establishments " and Chapter 10.26 "Community Noise Control. " The latter is commonly referred to as the City's noise ordinance. The standards of Chapter 5.28 apply only to those restaurants that provide live Wieland Associates entertainment. Noise from recorded entertainment, juke boxes, televisions, etc., is subject to the provisions of the Chapter 10.26 noise ordinance Acoustical Consultants standards. 23276 South Pointe Drive suite 114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Laguna Hills, CA 92633 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tel: 9491829 -6722 Fax: 949/829 -6670 JUL ` 01998 DLW1e1and @aoLc m AM PM www.wielandas wxom 71819i1011111811181S141B�8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project File 9x010 Chapter 5.28 Section 5.28.040, Paragraph B(3) of Chapter 5.28 states "The premises within which the entertainment is located shall provide sufficient sound absorbing insulation so that noise generated inside the premises shall not be audible anywhere on adjacent property or Public right -of -way or within any other building or other separate unit within the same building. " In addition, Section 5.28.050, Paragraph C states that the City Manager may revoke the operating permit for the establishment if "Music or noise from the establishment for which the permit was issued interferes with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. " It should be noted that the Chapter 5.28 standards are qualitative, or subjective, in nature. That is, there is no quantifiable limit on the amount of live entertainment noise that can occur outside of the restaurant, only that it can't be heard. Cha t� er 10.26 The City's noise ordinance standards (Chapter 10.26) state that the allowable average exterior noise level experienced in a residential area as a result of restaurant activities shall not exceed 55 dB(A) for any 15- minute period during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. During the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the standard is 50 dB(A). The maximum instantaneous noise level that is permitted is 75 dB(A) during the daytime or 70 dB(A) during the nighttime. Noise Ordinances Most communities, such as Newport Beach, recognize that noise is both a potential health hazard and a source of annoyance and so have adopted a noise ordinance to control intrusion between adjacent areas. The majority of noise ordinances have two types of standards: quantitative and qualitative. The former, quantitative standards, specify maximum noise levels that the community considers acceptable, usually based on the zoning of the noise receiver (residential, commercial, etc.). Qualitative standards are, by their nature, subjective and generally state that any noise, regardless of its quantitative U level, violates the noise ordinance if it causes annoyance to a "reasonable" person of "normal sensitivity." Q Quantitative noise ordinance standards vary from community to community but generally take two forms: • Those that limit average noise levels over a specified time period (e.g., the noise level rr4 shall not exceed 50 dBA when measured for 15 minutes), and • Those that establish "tiered" limits for various time periods (e.g., the noise level shall not exceed 50 dBA for more than 30 minutes in an hour, or 55 dBA for more than 15 r•�,i minutes in an hour, etc.). For the purpose of this report we have reviewed the noise ordinance standards of ten communities, including the City of Newport Beach, as well as the Model Community 5A U C) C/] W 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Pmject Fs1e 98010 Noise Ordinance developed by the State of California Department of Health. The following table classifies these noise ordinances by type: City of San Diego City of Los Angeles City of Irvine City of Huntington Beach County of Orange City of Costa Mesa State's Model Noise Ordinance As can be seen the majority of communities whose noise ordinances we reviewed have tiered limits. This reflects the fact that most communities in Southern California also have tiered limit noise ordinances. The tenth community whose noise ordinance we reviewed, the City of Laguna Beach, has only qualitative standards. Noise Ordinance Application to Intrusion from Restaurant Activities As indicated in the previous section, there are generally two types of noise ordinances (quantitative and qualitative), and two forms of quantitative noise ordinance standards (average noise level limits and tiered noise level limits). In addition, each community noise ordinance specifies corrections, prohibitions or other limits on certain noise- producing activities to minimize the potential for annoyance. This section of the report will examine these characteristics of a typical noise ordinance, their use in the ten community noise ordinances examined for this report, and their effectiveness in mitigating impacts from restaurant activities. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Noise Ordinance Standards A good community noise ordinance will have both quantitative and qualitative standards. The former provide an early warning to the architect, developer and City review staff that noise must be considered in the design of the proposed restaurant. Quantitative standards also provide an easy means of assessing compliance with the noise ordinance. The value of qualitative standards lies in the fact that quantitative standards do not always serve as an accurate barometer of community annoyance. Allowing a restaurant to generate 50 dB(A) of activity noise may not generate annoyance in a residential area that is exposed to high levels of traffic and commercial noise, but will likely generate annoyance in a quiet suburb where the ambient noise level is only 3040 dB(A). Qualitative standards give recourse to the citizens when the quantitative standards fall short. With the exception of the City of Laguna Beach, all of the community noise ordinances we reviewed for this report have both quantitative and qualitative standards. e,:5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Pwjmffile 98010 Average Noise Level Limits vs. Tiered Noise Level Limits For a continuous noise source such as a fan or air conditioning unit, noise ordinances with either average noise level limit or tiered noise level limit quantitative standards will be equally appropriate for assessing noise intrusion. However, when the noise source varies in noise level or is sporadic in nature, as in the case with restaurant activities, tiered noise level limit standards are more appropriate for assessing noise impacts. This is because tiered limits are specifically designed to account for and allow for varying noise levels and people's reaction to them. A sporadic noise source, even one that generates a very high noise level, will, over a long period of time, generate a low average noise level. Thus, the activities at a restaurant could exceed a tiered noise level standard, but comply with an average noise level standard. As indicated previously, the City of Newport Beach has an average noise level limit standard. Most communities in Southern California have a tiered noise level standard, which is the type of standard recommended in the State of California's Model Community Noise Ordinance. Corrections for LTe of Noise A number of communities apply corrections to their noise ordinance standards to allow for people's greater sensitivity to certain types of noise. Generally these types of noise are pure tones, impact noise, speech and/or music. When the offending noise possesses any of these qualities the standards are made 5 dB more stringent. Because restaurant activity noise usually possesses one of these qualities, this correction provides an effective means of addressing annoyance potential. The City of Newport Beach noise ordinance does not provide any corrections for noise -4 character. Of the remaining noise ordinances that were reviewed for this report, all of them provided corrections except for those of the City of San Diego and the City of Laguna Beach (which, as stated previously, does not have quantitative noise standards). ® Audibility Restrictions Some community noise ordinances provide restrictions on the audibility of certain types of noise, usually music or live entertainment. These restrictions address the increased annoyance potential associated with noise that contains music or speech at those restaurants that provide either recorded or live entertainment. This restriction is similar to the 5 dB correction discussed in the previous section; however, while the previously discussed correction is a quantitative standard, the audibility restriction is a qualitative �1 standard. Thus, it is difficult to enforce or design to. In addition, the audibility restriction applies only to music or speech noise associated with entertainment at a restaurant, not to restaurant or patron activities. A further complication associated with audibility restrictions is that, due to variations in atmospheric conditions, a noise source that is usually inaudible may on occasion be audible at some areas. 4 J Crry OF NEWPORT BEACH Project File 98010 -- The City of Newport Beach's noise ordinance (Chapter 10.26) contains no audibility restrictions. However, Chapter 5.28 of the City's code contains restrictions on the audibility of live entertainment, but not recorded entertainment. The following table summarizes the audibility restrictions provided in the noise ordinances of the ten communities we reviewed for this study: 1 • City of Newport Beach Live entertainment only. Noise shall not be audible anywhere on adjacent erty or ublic right -of -way. City of Irvine No restrictions. City of H ton Beach No restrictions. County of a No restrictions. City of Costa Mesa No restrictions. County of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles No restrictions. Live or recorded entertainment shall not be audible in excess of 150' from the property line of the noise source, within any residential zone or within 500' of a residential zone. City of San Diego Live or recorded entertainment shall not be audible 50' from the building between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m City of Lagtuta Beach Live or recorded entertairmtent sbail not be audibly 50' from the building between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and ?:00 am. State's Model Ordinance No restrictions. Assessment of the City of Newport Beach Noise Standards As indicated in the previous sections, noise ordinances can have many qualities and characteristics that make them more or less appropriate for addressing the potential impacts associated with the noise levels generated by restaurant activities. The following table lists each of the characteristics discussed in this report, identifies those characteristics that are most appropriate for assessing restaurant noise impacts, and identifies whether the appropriate characteristics are included in the City of Newport Beach's noise standards: In summary, the City of Newport Beach noise standards are not considered adequate for assessing the potential impact of restaurant activity noise levels for the following reasons: • The noise levels generated by activities at a typical restaurant vary considerably over time. In addition, a number of the noise sources associated with a restaurant are 5 Cis ct U C/1 r� V ct rat 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project Filo 98010 sporadic and of short duration. By addressing only average noise levels, the City's noise standards cannot adequately address the annoyance potential of these variable and sporadic noise levels. • The City's standards do not address the character of the intruding noise. People typically respond with greater annoyance to noise that contains speech or music, noise that is repetitive (e.g., a drum beat), that is impulsive (e.g., a drum beat or plate clatter), or that contains a pure tone (e.g., fans and air conditioners). • The audibility restrictions of the City's noise standards are inconsistent in that they apply only to live entertainment. Thus, a restaurant that provides live entertainment must often go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their music isn't audible, while those restaurants that provide recorded music only have to comply with the less restrictive noise ordinance standards of Chapter 10.26 which contain no audibility restrictions. Suggested Changes for Mitigating Restaurant Noise Impacts The City of Newport Beach faces two situations today with regard to restaurant noise impacts at residential areas. These are: 1) Impacts from existing restaurants, and 2) Potential impacts from future restaurants that have yet to be proposed or developed. The following are suggested changes to the City's standards and procedures that will mitigate these impacts: Both existing and future restaurant activity impacts would benefit from improvements to the City's noise standards. The City should consider including a correction to its standards for noise character (e.g., speech, music, etc.), and eliminating the inconsistency between the Chapter 5.28 and Chapter 10.26 standards regarding audibility restrictions on only live entertainment. Existing restaurants should be provided with a reasonable time in which to comply with the changes. As part of its permitting process, the City should require that all restaurant developers submit a study prepared by a recognized acoustical engineer showing compliance with the City's noise standards. The City should require that the report specifically address potential impacts from music, speech, patron activities, mechanical equipment, kitchen operations and other such activities typically associated with the operation of a restaurant. The report should also address the atmospheric and topographical characteristics typical of Newport Beach and the effects these characteristics have on the propagation of noise from the proposed restaurant to nearby residential areas. It is not suggested that the City identify specific restaurant design features in its conditions of approval for a proposed restaurant. These measures can be overly restrictive in some cases, and in other cases may not adequately resolve the potential problem. W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project File 96010 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there must be an understanding that noise impacts, particularly from existing restaurants that are in close proximity to residential areas, cannot be completely eliminated. Cooperation between the City, the restaurant owner, and the homeowners is essential in order to minimize annoyance. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this report. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 949/829 -6722. Sincerely, Wieland Consultant C/O Cti U O V) ct3 4� 3 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Presentation by David L. Wieland, of Wieland Associates, regarding City noise standards and mitigation methodologies. Discussion by Commission included: • City has average noise level standards. • City Noise Ordinance does not contain any corrections for noise character. • Quantitative versus Qualitative Noise Ordinance Standards. • Average noise level limits versus tiered noise level limits. • Corrections for types of noise. • Audibility restrictions. • Suggested changes for mitigating restaurant noise impacts. • Requirement of acoustical study of new applicants. • Compliance required by City of Newport Beach. • Boyfront Restaurant Regulations Sub - committee recommendation t acoustical studies. • Cost of study from $1,200 to $1,600. • Application of noise regulations to off -site noise such as parking and patrc exiting. • Sound travels the same over water and land • Noise Ordinance update is not adequate Robert San Miguel Residence 221, 223 and 225 Carnation Avenue • Variance No. 1222 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 24 Variance request Yg permit the construction of a new duplex that will exceed the permitted height ii iit by approximately5 to 14 feet on the north side of the property and i to 5 feef` en the south side of the property. Also included is a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) for the purpose of establishing project compliance pufsuan�__ the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law to Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. " Mrs. Genia Garcia, Associate Planner noted thN meeting was held between the applicant and the homeowners in the area oNVlednesday to discuss the project. Story poles were erected on the site Friday, a there is an additional exhibit for presentation this evening by the architect. , Commissioner Adams stated, for the record, that he between the architectand the homeowners. meeting Commissioner KranAey noted, for the record, that he was absent at the INDEX Discussion Item Item No. t V No. 1222 CRDP No. 24 R EXHIBIT 5 M ESTRE G REVE'S MEMO �p� Mestre Greve Associates May 31, 2007 Mr. David I.epo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: 333 Bayside Outdoor Dining Patio — Noise Issue (Report #07 -104) Dear David: Per your request I have prepared this letter regarding the potential noise impacts of the proposed outdoor dining patio for 333 Bayside. Wieland Associates, on behalf of the project applicant, has provided a noise study projecting the potential noise levels generated by the proposed project. The intent of this letter is to better describe how the noise levels generated by the proposed dining patio will be perceived by the nearby residents, and to aid the Planning Commission in their finding of whether or not the project will be intrusive for nearby residences. This requirement was instituted by the Planning Commission. The City had been receiving noise complaints from residents even when noise levels were below the limits in the City Noise Ordinance. The required finding for this project is that the project not "be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare..." of the residents. The requirement that the project not reduce the `peace' and `comfort' implies a level of protection from noise greater than provided in the City Noise Ordinance, and this is consistent with past experience in the City with this type of project. Therefore, any noise study conducted for the proposed project should go beyond what is simply required by the noise ordinance, and determine among other things whether the noise from the project will be audible at the nearby residential areas. The project will incorporate several features that are intended to minimize the noise impact of the project. These features are assumed to be in place in the following discussion of the potential noise impacts. The noise mitigation includes the following. 1. The capacity of the patio will be limited to 45 people. 2. There will be no live entertainment or pre- recorded music at the dining patio area. 27812 El Lazo Road • Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 • (949) 349 -0671 • Fax (949) 349 -0679 �V 333 Bayside Page 2 of 5 3. All activities will cease by 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. 4. The dining area will be enclosed on the southeast and southwest sides with barriers having an approximate height of 7'- 31/2" above the floor. The barriers will consist of a 2' -8" plaster wall topped with operable windows. The windows will be closed each night by 7:00 p.m. and will remain closed throughout the remainder of the evening. Noise Scales Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so forth. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terns of the "A- weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their typical A- weighted noise level. Noise levels at any location are constantly fluctuating. Therefore, noise scales are used characterize the fluctuating noise levels. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance uses two scales to characterize the noise exposure; the equivalent noise level (Leq) and the maximum noise level (Lmax). Leq is the sound level corresponding to a steady -state sound level containing the same total energy as a time - varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. It is the energy sum of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. Lmax is the loudest sound during a measurement period. It is the instantaneous peak noise level that is achieved. There may be other noise levels that are nearly as loud, but there is only one Lmax level for each measurement period. For residential land uses, the City of Newport Noise Ordinance limits noise levels generated by noise sources on nearby parcels to an Leq of 55 dBA and an Lmax of 75 dBA during the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). During the nighttime the limits are reduced by 5 dB to an Leq of 50 dBA and an Lmax of 70 dBA. IN 333 Bayside Page 3 of 5 Review of the Wieland Report The report prepared by Wieland Associates ( "Evaluation of Noise Levels Generated by Outdoor Dining Activities," March 30, 2007) uses noise measurements of existing facilities and uses standard acoustic calculations to project the noise levels to the nearby residences. Two sets of noise projections are presented; one based on noise measurements at the Blue Fish Grill, and the other measured near the Billy's and Charthouse adjoining outdoor dining areas. We feel that the noise projections based on the Billy's / Charthouse dining areas are the most appropriate to focus on. First, the dining experience and type of crowd anticipated for 333 Bayside is more similar to the Billy's and Charthouse Restaurants. Second, the crowd size during the measurement period is more similar to what would be permitted at 333 Bayside, and therefore, the noise estimates are probably more reliable because they source noise does not need to be scaled up for the larger crowd. The Wieland report projects noise levels at the nearest residential area (based on the Billy's/Charthouse measurements) of 39 dBA (Leq) and an Lmax of 47 dBA (with all mitigation measures discussed above in place). We agree with these projections as far as they represent an average situation for proposed dining area. The noise levels on a slow night could easily be 10 dB lower. Conversely, with a noisier crowd, special party, or special event (e.g., Cinco de Mayo) the noise levels could easily be 10 dB higher than those projected. Ambient noise levels based on measurements at residences across the channel from the restaurant are also presented in the Wieland report. Ambient noise levels were made at two residences. The measurements at 104 Linda Isle will be the focus on this analysis because it is the closest residence to the restaurant. Fifteen minute measurements were made from 7 p.m. until I 1 p.m. The Leq noise levels for the 15 minute periods ranged from 49.7 dBA to 60.6 dBA with the louder measurements in the early evening and the quieter measurements in the late evening. The Leq noise level, as discussed previously, represents an average noise level. Minimum noise levels were not presented in the Wieland report. However, for the period that had an Leq of 49.7 dBA and a corresponding Lmax of 64.7 dBA, noise levels during that period could have also been as low as the mid 30's for a portion of the measurement period. Maximum noise levels ranged from 59.7 dBA to 77.7 dBA. The predominant noise source in the area was reported to be traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. Other noise sources included boats, helicopters, and aircraft taking off from John Wayne Airport. It should also be noted that activities 333 Bayside were "occasionally audible ". Typical maximum noise levels due to the restaurant were 47 dBA due to people talking, and 52 to 64 dBA for car horns in the parking lot. Perception of Noise Impact Will the noise levels be below the limits in the City's Noise Ordinance? Yes, the noise levels generated by the outdoor dining area will be below the limits in the noise ordinance. �,` 333 Bayside Page 4 of 5 No violation of the ordinance is anticipated. The best noise projection estimates the noise levels to be an Leq of 39 dBA and an Lmax of 47 dBA. The corresponding standards are 55 dBA and 75 dBA. During certain loud events the noise levels could be much higher, but would still be under the noise ordinance limits. Will the noise generated by the patio dining area be audible? Yes, the noise levels from the patio dining will be audible a fraction of the time. The noise levels at the residences will continue to be primarily due to traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. However, during lulls in traffic, especially during the later portion of the evening, noise from the patio dining will be audible. Conversations from people entering and exiting the restaurant can currently be heard at the residences. The dining patio will have a noise barrier, but the noise barrier does not stop all of the noise and people talking in the patio dining area will be heard from time to time. Will the noise generated by the patio dining be perceived as loud? No, the noise levels generated by the patio dining will not be perceived as loud. Maximum noise levels at the residences due to the patio dining will generally be around 47 dBA. During loud events peak noise levels from patio dining could be as high as 57 dBA. These events could be clearly audible, but would not be perceived as loud. Currently at the residences, trucks on Pacific Coast Highway and aircraft overflights commonly reach noise levels in the 65 to 75 dBA range. Will the residences be annoyed by the noise from the patio dining area? Probably. The level of annoyance is often a very subjective response and not based on how loud the noise is. For example, the level of annoyance of a neighbor's barking dog is usually going be better correlated with your like or dislike of the neighbor. If you like the neighbor and like the dog, you will be much less annoyed by the dog's barking. In this case, the residents probably view the restaurant as inconsistent with the residential neighborhood. Therefore, if they can hear the noise from the dining area, and they most certainly will hear it from time to time, they will probably be annoyed. Additional Mitigation Measures The project proposes a comprehensive list of mitigation measures. The only measures that could also be taken would affect the design of the project. Specifically, reducing the capacity of the outdoor patio area would reduce the crowd noise. However, even with a reduction in the capacity the outdoor dining would be heard from time to time. Enclosing the patio with a sunroom type structure would reduce the noise levels significantly. The enclosure could have windows that could be open during the day, and closed during the evening similar to the current plan. The enclosure could reduce noise levels by an additional 10 to 15 dBA and would reduce noise levels to nearly inaudible. 0 333 Bayside Page 5 of 5 If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Mestre Greve Associates Fred Greve, P.E. Principal 6 I I 1..........._......_..... _.- ............ Mestre Creve Associates 1 i I i i Exhibit 1 Typical Noise Levels U1 Outdoor Indoor 0 dBA 0)0 threshold of hearing (0 dBA) 20 40 (, rustling of leaves (20 dBA) whispering at 5 feet (20 dBA) quiet residential area (40 dBA) refrigerator (50 dBA) 60 air- conditioner at 100 feet (60 dBA) sewing machine (60 dBA) normal conversation (60 to 55 dBA) j`J dishwasher (55 -70 dBA) \1(!► car at 25 feet at 65 mph (77 dBA) living room music or TV (70 -75 dBA) 80 diesel truck at 50 feet at 40 mph (84 dBA) garbage disposal (80 d8A) propeller airplane flyover at 1000 feet (88 dBA) ringing telephone (80 dBA) motorcycle at 25 feet (90 dBA) vacuum cleaner (60 -85 dBA) lawnmower (96 dBA) shouted conversation (90 dBA) backhoe at 5D feet (75 -95 dBA) 100 snowmobile 1100 dBA) pile driver at 50 feet (90 -105 dBA) t car horn (I 10 dBA) baby crying on shoulder (I 10 dBA) / rock concert (l 10 dBA) leaf blower (110 dBA) 120 ambulance siren (120 dBA) 1� stock car races ( 13 0 dBA) jackhammer (130 dBA) 140 Sdorces: league For Th. Hard Of Herring, www.lrh.org Hmmock or Hobe Comrot McGrew HI{ EdHOE byCyrll Hams, 1979 Mawremenw by Mave Gmae Asetlar 1..........._......_..... _.- ............ Mestre Creve Associates 1 i I i i Exhibit 1 Typical Noise Levels U1 EXHIBIT 6 LETTERS FROM LINDA ISLE RESIDENTS \X LAW OFFICE OF FRANK W. BATTAILE 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 719 -1120 Fax(949)719 -1326 AL�,.�� Email, bblaw@earthlink.net February 5, 2007 f��Y C ee /lYp c �Cy Re.: 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront; Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. OD 2007 -001 (PA2007 -004) Dear Planning Director: I am writing on behalf of the following residents of Linda Isle in Newport Beach: Don and Sandy McCalla (105 Linda Isle); Al Dubrow (104 Linda Isle); and Leann and David Benvenuti (106 Linda Isle). My clients vigorously oppose the referenced application for approval of an outside dining area at 333 Bayside Drive. Please be aware that the applicant made a similar application that was approved in February of last year. (PA 2005 -211). The applicant abandoned that earlier effort while the permit approval was pending appeal to the Planning Commission. Apparently the applicant realized that he could not address the noise concerns raised by my clients at that time. The new application does nothing to address those concerns. Indeed, the current proposal has even fewer noise controls and the noise study is even more unrealistic and biased than the study performed for the earlier application. I am enclosing with this letter copies of my clients' letters they wrote in opposition to the earlier application. (Attachments I & 2.) All of their concerns are fully applicable to the current application. We urge that the application should be denied. My clients want to make clear from the outset that they fully understand the use of real property to create economic activity and profits. However, they also fully understand their own property rights under the City's zoning code and noise ordinances. Their rights would be violated by this outdoor dining expansion due to the noise and the predictably obnoxious behavior of some of the patrons of any drinking/dining establishment. As the enclosed letters demonstrate, my clients have first -hand knowledge of the noise and obnoxious conduct that is already generated by 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront. They are entitled to protection from the City from an expansion that would make those problems worse. If this expansion is approved my clients' property values will be substantially and negatively affected, and the quality of life in their homes will be dramatically diminished. The Municipal Code includes noise standards specifically to prevent this kind of impact on nearby U11� Page 2 of 4 residential properties. The City Council recently re- emphasized the ongoing importance of those noise standards by re- adopting them in the new General Plan. The Noise Study Fails to Address Interior Noise Levels The Noise Study prepared by Wieland Associates for the current application makes no attempt whatsoever to address the City's interior noise standards. The standard is 45 DBA until 10:00 PM and 40 DBA from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Once again, the viability of that standard is emphasized by its inclusion in the new General Plan. The failure to even attempt to address it is reason enough to deny the application. The Noise Study attempts to establish an artificially high "ambient" noise level. It does so first of all by measuring "ambient" noise at 102 Linda Isle. 102 Linda Isle faces directly toward PCH and is on an oblique line from 3- Thirty-3 Waterfront. It is also substantially farther from 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront than my clients' properties. My clients' properties face at an angle to PCH and face directly across open water toward 3- Thirty-3 Waterfront. (See Area Map, Attachment 3.) 102 Linda Isle! is simply the wrong place to make the noise measurement. It is especially the wrong place from which to make any conclusions about interior noise levels. Each of my clients' properties have tear master bedrooms that face directly toward 3- Thirty-3 Waterfront across the canal. 162 Linda Isle does not. The "ambient" noise measurements were stopped at 9:00 PM even though the application is to keep the outside bar /dining area open until 10:00 PM. The importance of peace and quiet obviously increases later in the, evening. The Noise Study scrupulously avoids measuring impacts at the most important tame. The Application Makes No Attempt to Mitieate Noise. Conditions of approval of the earlier application at least included noise suppressing partitions. As previously apprdved, the applicant was required to use full- height plexiglass walls with windows that were to remain closed after 7:00 PM. (Condition 4 of the previous approval.) Those noise suppressing walls are absent from the current application. The current Noise Study assumes that the noise that will be generated by the outdoor dining area is comparable to the noise generated at the "Blue Fish Grill." That assumption is based on the completely subjective and biased opinion of the applicant himself. The acoustical engineer states that the noise is i "characterized by the client [i.e., the applicant] as like the Blue Fish Grill." Based on measurements of the noise at the "Blue Fish Grill" the Noise Study then concludes that there will be no significant noise impact above the improperly measured "ambient." One major problernI is apparent at the outset from the fact that there are only 12 - 15 people using the outdoor dining area at the "Blue Fish Grill." There will be up to 45 people 1b Page 3 of 4 using the applicant's outdoor area. The Noise Study fails to recognize that with 3 times as many people there will not simply be the addition of 3 times as many people speaking in a normal volume. With increasing crowds there will be shouting. The peak noise levels will be much greater than predicted. My clients' acoustical engineer, Mr. Sam Lane, previously explained: "The main consideration is the great variation in vocal effort and speech levels with background noise levels. In general, people talk louder as background noise levels increase. Data in the technical literature indicate that at background noise levels of 55 to 80 dB Leq [the levels applicable here] people talk with raised and loud voices. The nominal average of data samples for exterior and interior environments indicates a speech level of 75 dB Leq at 1 meter from the speaker. Note that this does not include shouting, which results in a level of about 90 dB at 1 meter." (Mr. Lane's opinion is set forth on the second page of the enclosed letter dated April 2, 2006. [Attachment 4.]) The applicant's own noise study for the previously approved project also makes this clear. (A copy is included as Attachment 5.) On pages 5-6 of the earlier noise study there is an attempt to determine potential project noise levels. The engineer comments in the middle of page 6 that "neither of the previous two approaches addresses the noise escalation that might result from the Many people talking " That engineer made measurements of actual noise inside the existing restaurant and then correlated those measurements to the proposed outside dining area. The analysis leads to a predicted 78 dBA Leq generated by the proposed outdoor dining area. According to the current Noise Study, and based on meaningless measurements at the "Blue Fish Grill," the noise generated by the project will be only 59 dBA. The current analysis is obviously a radical departure from the old analysis. At least one of them is wrong. The last page of the previous noise study gives the raw data measured by the applicant's previous acoustical engineer inside the restaurant. Peak noise levels, indicated as Lpk, range up to 91.0 dB, in total agreement with Mr. Lane's comment above about people shouting. Many of the measurements are in the mid to high 80's. These peak noise levels, if transferred to the outdoor dining area, create utterly unacceptable noise impacting the closest residential properties, particularly when considering interior noise levels at those residences. Furthermore, these high peak noise levels are consistent with the actual experience my clients have had to endure when current patrons of 3- Thirty -3 Waterfront leave the bar /restaurant. This project might be appropriate if located in a different place. But, the owner of 333 Bayside bought this property with full knowledge that it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. It is not reasonable to expect that potentially increased profits from the outdoor dining area should trump the legally recognized rights of nearby residents to maintain their quality of life and their property values. The application should be denied. J` Page 4 of 4 My clients will be happy to talk with you either at City Hall or in their homes if you desire to get an on -site appreciation of the problem. If you happen to be up at closing time on a Friday or Saturday night, stop by. You will see that my clients' concerns are legitimate. They are not hyper - sensitive, anti - development, no- growth people. Their rights are at least nominally protected by the Municipal Code. I urge you to give meaning to those protections by denying this application. Let me know if you have any questions or require any further documentation. cc: Clients /1a To: The Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd: Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Javier "Jay" Garcia From: Donald and Sandra McCalla 105 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 PL rar !; .- tip �.. CITY OF `,l Gc:3CFr AM OCT 0 7 2005 718191101111121112131415 DS This letter is written in regard to a Public Notice that we received in the mail today, October I, 2005. An Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit OD2005 -004 Application has been submitted to you to establish an accessory outdoor dining use to be used at an existing restaurant, 333 Bayside Drive. Our home is situated directly across the bay from the restaurant, as well as three of our neighbors here on Linda Isle. We STRONGLY object to the permit being granted to the restaurant if the permitted structure provides or increases the opportunity for further abusive noise than that which we are already enduring. At present we are continually awakened many week nights and most weekend nights with the yelling of the drunks in the parking lot long after the bar closes, and the noise continues until 3:OOAM and longer. The restaurant's designated smoking area with park benches for seating adjacent to the sea wall faces our home, (see diagram enclosed), and this area produces additional loud abusive conversational noise. When you combine the noise generated in the smoking, area with the drunken talking, yelling, cursing; etc, wTiicfi °'occurs `Ih3Jfe vicinity of the valet stand, re Rlied`to"1`�'e rWre oit}i "pat in§ lot directly across the channel from our home, it produces a noise level which varies from loud conversational talking to ear piercing yelling. Needless to say, when you are awakened by this _ ,sort of noise it is difficult to get back to sleep. We have lived in our home for 16 years, and dufmg tfla't'MVW-- b,have experienced too many sleepless nights due t6druftks continuing to party . .in the parking IoW We were hopeful that the new restaurant would be possibly more upscale, and therefore the patrons would perhaps be more moderate and considerate. During the time we have not been traveling, and have been home, we have discovered this not to be the case. The possibility of bringing the restaurant dining and drinking noise outside is totally unacceptable to us. The adverse impact of this restaurant issue on our property values is substantial. The existing noise. problems that this restaurant has created are most definitely negative disclosures for any peal state sale of any of the properties in this location on Linda Isle. Any addition of outdoor dining,"which would provide further opportunity for similar noise abuse as described above Would simply compound the existing problem making our lives that much more unpleasant. Please imagine what this could do in your neighborhood if you faced this same situation with your home. Our neighbors all are of the same opinion. Please take our concerns into consideration when making your decision regarding this application. We realize that it is your job to seek to balance the rights of the business owners and homeowners by establishing conditions of rise which will hopefully avoid an unreasonable outcome. Hopefully our input will be helpful to you in accomplishing that end. We want the restaurant to be successful, but not at the expense of both of us, as homeowners, being able to enjoy the reasonable use of our property. Thank you for your time. erely y� �/�p0 Donal D. McCa laa Sandra M. McCalla -t3 0,kit0ik 2 David Benvenuti, M.D., EA.C.S. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery PLANNING DEpA,YTMENT CITY OF NEVVPC,IT BEACH October 3, 2005 AM OCT 0 7 2005 PM 71819110111)1211121314,516 The Planning Department 3300 Newport B1vd,Building C Newport Beach, CA'92663 Re: Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit Number OD2005 -004 Dear Commission: My husband David and I live directly across the street from 333 Bayside Restaurant on 'Linda Isle and whole - heartedly object to the addition of an outside dining patio. We have been suffering for the past year with interrupted and sometimes sleepless nights because of this restaurant. Drunk, loud patrons continue to leave the restaurant at all hours of the late evening. The situation has become even worse since the valet stand has been moved from in front of the restaurant to the middle of the parking lot. This summer, instead of opening our windows and enjoying the nice, warm evenings my husband and I have become prisoners to our air- conditioned bedroom. Even with the windows closed, we are awakened by people leaving the restaurant and waiting for their cars. The valet crew does not quiet the patrons in fear of being stiffed on their tips. My husband and I have been remiss. We should have begun our letters of complaint when the restaurant opened its doors last November. We hoped that the noise would improve, but it has only worsened. We did not put up a fight when Mama Gina's extended its outdoor patio because we were told that it would be only for lunch. The increase in patron activity and noise during day hours did not bother us. Then, before you knew it, it was open for dinner as well. In addition, the bar area gets so hot that people go outside to smoke and cool off. They prop the door open allowing the pounding music to ricochet off the water. if I get out of bed, call over and complain, sometimes the staff will close the door. Clearly, allowing the extension at Mama Gina's was a,mistake. As a result, we must strongly object to allowing this same chaos to occur at 333 Bayside. Not only is the 355 Placentia Avenue, Suites 99 & 104, Newport Beach, CA 92663 A (949) 650 -2345 • FAX (949) 650 -6817 • Email: info@after- images.com 1 quality of our lives and our well being affected, but also our property values are most certainly being adversely affected. We can appreciate the owner's desire to further enhance his investment, but is it really `right that it be at the expense of the residents in the adjacent neighborhood? No, this situation waft iYts gerious discussion. Please feel free to call us at 949 - 650 -2345 during business hours, or e-mail us at dbenvenuti(�dslextreme. com. Thank you, David and Leann Benvenuti /�5 F-ICU�f Is Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit OD2005 -004 Project No. PA2005 -211 Site Address 333 Bayside Drive J� P,a V,�74 4 April 2, 2006 Don McCalla 105 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 9266D Subject: Review of noise studies for the 3- Thirty -3 Restaurant proposed outdoor dining deck. References: 1. Accessory Outdoor Permit No. OD2005 -004, Newport Beach Planning Dept. 2. Report 06/015, G. Bricken and Associates. 3. Report 06/215, G. Bricken and Associates. The reference noise studies and use permit approval report were incomplete and questionable. The analysis in the reports constitutes only a rough estiaulte of (lie expected noise levels from flue use of the proposed new dining deck. Consequently, the noise impact on the nearby residential properties was inadegimtely addressed. The conclusion that the noise from the deck area would not exceed the Newport Beach noise ordinance standards was invalid. The impacted properties are on Linda Isle which appears to be all residential use and thus would be in Noise Zone % I (residential only category). The reference permit and noise studies erroneously apply the more permissive limits of the Noise Zone III mixed -use category standards to the residential sites. They also ignore the stated conditions in the noise ordinance that (lie Zone III standards apply only to that portioa of the residential use that is within 100 ft of commercial property. Note that the Linda Isle residential sites in question are located across a private canal channel about 200 ft distant from the restaurant property boundary. In addition, even if the boundary of the residential property in Noise Zone I was contiguous to the restaurant property in Noise Zone III, the noise ordinance conditions state that the lower noise level limits applicable to Noise Zone I apply at the property line of the residential use. Thus, the allowable exterior noise levels at the residential property boundary are A- weighted Equivalent Noise Level ( for any 15 minute period) of 55 dB (not 60 dB) from lam to 10 pill, and 50 dB from 10 pm to 7 am. The reference noise reports estimate that the resulting project noise level for a location 250 n away on the residential property would be 56 dB Leq for the condition of an unenclosed dining deck (or with side walls with open windows and roof sections), and 50 dB Leq with the windows closed. Therefore, based on the estimates given, the project noise levels would exceed the 55 dB noise limit that applies before 10pm, and equal the 50dB noise limit that applies after 10pm. However, it should be considered that: (1) Based on the parcel map and site plans, the distance from the deck to the subject residential property line is 225 ft rather than 250 ft. Thus, the noise level would be about I dB greater. (2) The predicted noise level was based on 25 people (out of 50 people) oil the deck talking at any given time. Note that if there were continual episodes during a 15 minute period when 5 more people (or 30 vs 25) were talking at tine same time, the noise level would be about 1 dB greater. (3) Due to [lie above and other considerations that could apply, there is a likely uncertainty level of 3 dB or more associated with the project noise level estimates. Thus, the project noise levels could likely be greater that the estimates given, and the exterior noise standards would clearly be exceeded. (4) More importantly, the interior noise level standards for residences within all noise zones are given in (lie noise ordinance as 45 dB Leq up to i0pm, and 40 dB Leq after lopni. These noise limits apply within the window frames or openings of open windows nearest (lie source. The project noise levels will be almost the same at a window opening as at (lie property line. Thus, even if the estimated noise levels were 5 dB less, the interior noise standards would still be exceeded. It should be noted that a simple and straightforward estimate of the noise levels at the subject residential properties 11 due the operation of the project can be made using accurate analytical methods established by the science of acoustics. The uncertainty In, estimate or prediction is associated with the noise source strength. The questiop is, what not ieveis res" i tiB ilSgi It t drffbrent conditions? The mallrL6t9ld"9 t WiSVM*geeat vdfih roifIIt voce It lb ig ith`tfa le lb8ttlti M�tig€ i el$ ltt getrerhl (idapl ttrlkilaid" h9 °' s bitckground Horse levefs iticte � rta lnl�r e r9cdYrteratnre Indicate that at backgrouttd,fibiselevels of 55 tqg 8 e fSII<i`vit�i raised and loud voices lire n8rtllp9l tvtr e of slur evteygtsr riitd'ihrerJ. a s ear level of 75 dlj) e l tut 1 iileter from the speaker: ' >s dint t17 i &< n6l include ¢ r c t resu to a ievef oUouf gil d at i meter. Also, a standard deviation of about 5 dB is associated with the speech level samples which means that a stgntficant portion of the sample levels were considerably greater Ulan the nominal average. There were several samples with speech levels of 80 to 85 dB Leq at 1 meter from the talker. Based on the above, it might be considered prudent to assume a source strength of 80 dB Leq at I meter for each person. As previously indicated, it has been assumed that 50 people, 25 of them talking at any given time, would be on the dining deck which is about 25 ft square. The talkers are spread around the center of the deck area nt 5 to 10 fl from the center. The variation in distance front each talker to a residential property more than 200 It distant front the deck is insignificant. The observer at the residential site hears a composite noise from 25 sources all at the same distance away. In the case of an open deck area, for each talker the noise level would decrease from go dB at I meter (3.28 ft) to 43 dB at 225 ft. For 25 people talkin would be 57 dB Leq. g the resulting composite noise level at the observer Based on the above review, it appears likely that the operation of the proposed uew dining deck under various conditions (unenclosed to partially enclosed) will result in noise levels that exceed the exterior and/or interior noise standards specified by the Newport Beach noise ordinance for residential land use. Also, clearly audible noise from the people on the deck area could be judged by nearby residems as annoying and ininrsive even if the levels don't exceed the noise standards. Environmental Acoustics Engineer )u'60- S 06/252 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS April 5, 2006 1, S E C O N D A C O U S T I C A L R E V I S I O N A N A L Y S I S T H R E E- T H I R T Y - T H R E E R E S T A U R A N T A D D I T I O N C _I T Y O F N_ E W P O R T B E_ A C H 5 - Pre a ed. G on Bricken President /mrnb 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Phone (714) 835 -0249 1 Prepared for: MR. JOHN WELLS 2082 S.E. Bristol St., Ste. 216 Newport Beach, California 92660 Santa Ana, California 92705 -8518 FAX (714) 835 -1957 ffil 06/252 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS S U M M A R Y This analysis has been completed to determine the exterior noise exposure and the necessary mitigation measures for the proposed addition to the 3- Thirty -3 Restaurant. The project will comply with the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance, Noise Zone I providing certain steps are taken, which are as follows: 1. The occupancy of the deck shall not exceed 50. 2. There shall be no television screens, television equipment, or any music system. 3. There shall be no paging system or any outdoor loudspeakers, either permanent or temporary. 4. All noise provisions of the 1998 permit application shall be incorporated into the approval for this project with the exception that the provisions of Noise Zone I are considered to apply in this case. 5. There will be no bar on the outside deck. 6. The facility will close off the gable end of the roof structure and use a fabric roof covering. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705 -8518 Phone (714) 835 -0249 FAX (714) 835 -1957 2 N 06/252 3. Noise generated by the outdoor area shall be no more than that listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 ORIGINAL PERMITTED LIMITS LOCATION Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property DAY 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. 65 dBA NIGHT 10:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M The residential limits quoted for the residentially zoned Properties are for Noise Zone III residential portions of a mixed use project. On March 31, 2006, the City requested that the specifications for the project be changed to Noise Zone I. That specification is listed in Table 2. TABLE 2 REVISED PERMITTED IMITS DAY NIGHT 7:00 A.M. 10:00 P.M. LOCATION TO 10:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property 55 dBA 50 dBA The provisions of Tables l and 2 are taken from Section 10.26 of the Municipal Code. There are some added provisions which may apply. Those provisions are as follows: 1. The measured level is the Equivalent Noise level.) Level, Leq (also called the average noise 2. If the ambient noise level exceeds the standard. resulting standard, the ambient shall be the 4 D P, 06/252 3• The standard will apply for any 15 minute period. 4. The maximum instantaneous level will be the standard plus 20 dBA. The project will listing for NoiseZoneIwith Items 1, 2 in 3aandr4a(above)h the assumed to apply. 3.0 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS A measurement was conducted on the deck of 106 Linda Isle across the channel from the project site. The measurement was conducted from 6:30 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. on Thursday January 6, 2005. The printout of that measurement is contained in Appendix 1. The printout provides a summary each five minutes. Therefore, using that data, it is possible to construct eleven, 15 minute summaries each in five minute increments. The 15 minute average noise level samples would range from 54.2 to 55.9 dBA Leq. This level approximates the day level of 55 dBA Leq for this time period per the Noise Zone I listing shown in Table 2. 4.0 POTENTIAL PROJECT NOISE IAEVELS The project's plans depict nine tables with four seats each plus seven seats at a counter for a total seat count of 43. However, to be conservation, a total count of 50 people was used on the assumption that from time to time, additional patrons might be accommodated with additional chairs. The counter location is for restaurant service only. There is no bar on this deck. There will be no television sets. There are several ways to approach the determination of the noise produced by the people on the deck. One way is to assume all 50 chairs were occupied. One -half of the people were considered to be talking to the other half and the speakers were all male. When that is occurring, a single male person will Produce a level of 58 dBA at three feet which would be the distance to the listener. On the deck, a person will tend to hear the noise of the five closest people as well as the person speaking from across the table. While the tables are distributed over the deck, at 250 feet from the deck, (which is the distance to the nearest patio across the water), one theory is that they would be perceived as being one source. The effective total noise of 25 people talking would be equivalent to a level of 73 dBA at three feet. The level at any distance from the deck would be determined in this instance by the formula given on the following page. 5 (6 J 06/252 NL = 73 - 20xLog D1 /3 (1) where D1 is the distance from the deck. In this analysis, the nearest residential outside area was taken at 250 feet from the deck. The result is 35 dBA Leq. Two (2) dBA is added to account for other noise that results from the activity in the parking lot. Another way the effect of people on the restaurant deck can be calculated is to assume that the noise emission is being radiated by a line of sound 50 feet long (the length of the exposed walls with the windows) where the noise level is 73 dBA all along the line. This is as if the reference were 73 dBA at one foot. In this instance, the level at 250 feet is given by the formula: NL = 73 - 10XLog(250 /1) - lOxLog(A /180) (2) where A is the viewing angle. The viewing angle will vary with the position of the viewer and could vary from 30 degrees to 70 degrees. For the worst case, the assumed viewing angle is 70 degrees. Equation (1) reduces to 73 -24 -4. In this approach, the resulting level is 45 dBA Leq. With the two dBA for the parking lot noise, the result is 47 dBA Leq. Neither of the previous two approaches addresses the noise escalation that might result from the many people talking. So, the third approach was to conduct measurements inside the 333 Restaurant. These measurements will tend to be higher than those on the deck since the space is enclosed. Measurements were conducted of the average noise level (Leq) 'at four locations which were generally away from any particular table. The four readings were 78, 81, 79 and 79 dBA Leq. The highest level of 81 dBA Leq was adopted for this analysis. There were 108 people in the restaurant at the time. The equivalent level for 50 people is given by the following equation: NL = 81 - lOxLog (50/108). (3) The result was 78 dBA Leq. From that point, the rest of the calculation is treated the same as Equation 2 except that the 73 dBA Leq now becomes 78 dBA Leq. The result is 50 dBA Leq. However, if the angle correction of four (4) dBA is left out just to be on the safe side, the final level would be 54 dBA Leq. Adding two (2) dBA results in a level of 56 dBA Leq at the nearest residence. The question arises what would have occurred if the full complement of 185 people were in the restaurant at the time of the measurement? The noise level is computed using Equation 3 as given on the following page. 3 0A 06/252 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a noise impact and design study of the proposed addition to the 3- Thirty -3 restaurant located at 333 Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The report has been revised because the City changed the noise compliance specification from those approved in the previous approvals for this project. This report will contain a discussion of the expected exterior community noise environment and the recommendations for control of noise are included in this report. A vicinity map showing th% general location of the construction site is presented on Exhibit 1 -- Site Location Map. Exhibit 2 shows the site plan. The proposal is to erect a second floor, semi - enclosed, outdoor area at the southwest corner of the existing building at the location noted in the view shown on Exhibit 3. The deck has windows that may be folded open on three sides, an open truss area and a roof of sailcloth. The proposed project is across from Linda Isle. Exhibit 4 is a view of the area directly across from the proposed project. Exhibit 5 is a view showing the proximity of the project to Linda Isle. The nearest homes will be 250 feet from the proposed project. 2.0 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA The project was originally the subject of Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 44 in 1998. Several conditions were included in that permit, which are as follows: 1• Windows shall be closed after 7:00 P.M. except during daylight savings when the closure time would be 9:00 P.M. 2• The hours are limited to 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on Sunday through Thursday, and 8:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705.8518 Phone (714) 835.0249 FAX (714) 835 -1957 3 06/252 NL = 81 - 10xlog (185/108). (4) The result is that the level would be 83 dBA. However, when adjusted to 50 people the formula is: NL = 83 - 10xlog (50/185) (5) The result is still 78 dBA, or the figure previously used. The maximum noise level for the 81 dBA Leq reading in the restaurant was 84 dBA three (3) dBA higher than the average level. Hence the maximum level would be three dBA higher at the residential location, or 59 d8A Lmax. 6.0 MITIGATION ANALYSIS The project levels are a function of the various combinations of mitigation measures that can be considered. The various options are,as follows: 1. Windows are closed. 2. Gable end of roof structure closed. 3. Fabric roof. 4. Fabric roof with insulating core. referred to as an EIDE roof. The various combinations are listed in Table 3. TABLE 3 NOISE REDUCTION CHARACTERISTICS(1) WINDOWS GABLE ROOF NOISE HOME LEVEL CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED REDUCTION(dBA) Leg Lmax No No No 0 56 59 Yes No No 3 55 56 Yes Yes Part 6 50 53 No Yes No 3 55 58 No Yes Part 4 55 58 No Yes EIDE 7 49 52 Yes Yes EIDE 11 45 48 (1) a. Part means a fabric cover only, EIDE means a sandwich of two layers of fabric with Wonderboard core. b. Home means patios outside Linda Isle residences. C. Home level is the average noise level. Add three (3) dBA for the maximum level. 7 O 5 06/252 The conditions for compliance are 55 dBA Leq, 75 dBA Lmax before 10:00 P.M. and 50 dBA Leq, 70 dBA Lmax after 10:00 P.M. The project nearly complies with no roof and windows open before 10:00 P.M. The project will comply with the limits after 10:00 P.M. with windows closed, gable closed and a fabric roof. Any additional reduction would require the BIDE roof, or some similar product. 7.0 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The project can be made to comply with the Noise Zone I limits by various combinations of construction and roof material. Also, the City previously imposed limits on the operations which are still considered appropriate. There are some steps that should be taken to avoid conditions that might alter the assumptions about patron conditions, which are as follows: 1. The occupancy of�the deck shall not exceed 50. 2. There shall be no television screens, television equipment, or any music system. 3. There shall be no paging system or any outdoor loudspeakers, either permanent or temporary. 4. All noise provisions of the 1998 permit application shall be incorporated into the approval for this project with the exception that the provisions of Noise Zone I are considered to apply in this case. 5. There will be no bar on the outside deck. 6. The facility will close off the gable end of the roof structure and use a fabric roof covering. 8 0 a m m 0 0 M N _m x W Z J a 0 W 0 O CL O a i a Z g N N CO) el r W J a U N [7 t4. s a'. ri i i 1 w f i Sw 1� All r xTihi 1� r l �� .5j r.. r xTihi 1� r l �� T�- \�� yam \FE; d& 2 'Jy rti ............. 06/015 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS A P P E N D I X 1 i TEST DATA 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705.8518 Phone (714) 835 -0249 FAX (714) 835 -1957 7 1a INTti REPORT LARSON -DAVIS LABS -- MODEL 700 01/06/06 09:12:53 SN 700P3450 PAGE 2 Cnt LVL SEL Lmax Lpk Lmin Date Time Dur Ex Pk Ov 1 55.5 80.5 72.5 91.0 51.0 5 JAN 18:30:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 59.0 L08 = 57.0 L25 = 56.0 L50 = 55.0 2 55.0 79.5 65.0 76.5 50.5 5 JAN 18:35:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 61.5 L0S = 57.0 L25 = 55.0 L50 = 53.5 3 54.0 78.5 71.0 84.0 49.5 5 JAN 18:40:00 0:OS h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 57.0 L08 = 55.5 L25 = 54.5 L50 = 53.5 4 56.5 81.0 66.5 85.5 50.0 5 JAN 18:45:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 63.5 L08 = 59.5 L25 = 57.0 L50 = 54.5 5 57.5 82.0 69.5 82.5 48.5 5 JAN 18:50:00 0:05 h:m 0 D 0 L02 = 66.0 L08 = 60.5 L25 = 57.5 L50 = 55.5 6 54.0 78.5 62.0 85.5 49.5 5 JAN 18:55:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 57.0 L08 = 56.0 L25 = 54.5 L50 = 53.5 7 55.5 80.0 59,5 75.5 51.0 5 JAN 19:,00:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 58.5 LOS = 58.0 'L25 = 56.5 L50 = 55.0 8 57.0 82.0 66.5 80.0 51.5 5 JAN 19:05:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 64.0 L08 = 61.0 L25 = 57.0 L50 = 55.5 9 54.5 79.0 61.5 72.0 49.0 5 JAN 19:10:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 57.5 L08 = 56.5 L25 = 55.5 L50 = 54.0 10 53.5 78.5 59.5 74.5 49.5 5 JAN 19:15:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 56.5 L08 = 55.5 L25 = 54.5 L50 = 53.5 it 55.5 80.0 70.5 82.5 49.5 5 JAN 19:20:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 61.5 L08 = 58.5 L25 = 55.0 L50 = 53.5 12 54.0 79.0 64.0 88.0 48.0 5 JAN 19:25:00 0:05 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 62.0 LOS = 56.5 L25 = 54.5 L50 = 52.5 13 52,5 62.5 57.0 72.0 50.0 5 JAN 19:30:00 0:00 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 56.5 L08 = 55.0 L25 = 53.0 L50 = 52.0 99999 M9 Jb: Newport Beach Planning department RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 05 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Rcply to Public Notice Outdoor Dining Permit No:•OD2007 -001 (PA200.7 -004) at 333 Bayside. A request to allow the establishment of accessory outdoor dining use in conjunction with an existing full- service restaurant. Items to consider: !- Will the additional occupancy space exceed the Parking requirements for this location.? (it currently appears to lack sufficient parking during peak occupancy use). 2- Will the Alcoholic Beverage License issued by (ABC) allow Liquor service outside. ? 3- Will the noise level (Db) be tested at the property line to determine the ambient sound level.? "this should be verified by a representative of the City. No outside TV, Musicians or speakers should exceed this level during occupancy use. 4- Will the allowed Db level be posted and a test meter be available at the property ? Respectfully Submitted. dol 40"4a -4.-1 01 i IlUgh Randolph Resident 102 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 949 -233 -4774 abouebbmk 4q of 1 212/07 10:15 AM April 14, 2007 2044 Swan Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 7512949 Don McCalla & AI Dubrow 105 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Review of Wieland Associates Noise Analysis Report (Revision dated 3/30/07) for 3- Thirty-3 Restaurant Outdoor Dining Permit. A summary of the subject review is presented below. Details of the technical analysis can be provided if needed. The results of 3 previous reviews (April 2, 17, and 27, 2006) submitted to you regarding other noise studies for the Restaurant are still applicable and should be referred to. The subject report by Wieland understates the noise levels and impact due to operation of the proposed outdoor dining facility. The A- weighted average (equivalent) noise level of 53.3 dB measured on a hard surface at 24 feet from about 13 people dining at an outdoor area of the Blue Water Grill results from an average male /female speech level of 56.3 dB for 1 person in free space (no reflecting surfaces) at a distance of 1 meter. The technical literature (i.e., Harris, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements, and Kryter, The Effects of Noise on Man) indicates that this speech level is associated with casual to normal vocal effort in a quiet environment, not a normal to raised vocal effort as stated in the subject Wieland report. The A- weighted average noise level of 59.5 dB measured on a hard surface at 20 feet from about 42 people dining in enclosed, but open top, adjacent areas at Billy's and the Charthouse results from an average malelfemale speech level for I person in free space (no ground plane or reflecting wall) of about 65 dB at a distance of I meter. This corresponds to a raised vocal effort. The measured levels from these locations are used by Wieland to predict resulting "average" noise levels at residential locations on Linda Isle, 215 feet from the proposed 333 Restaurant outdoor dining area, of 46 to 53 dB for the windows open case at the dining room, and 33 to 39 dB for the windows closed case at the dining room. However, on busy weekend nights with 45 people in the outdoor dining area the vocal efforts are very likely to be greater, in the raised to loud range, with a resulting average malelfemale speech level of about 71 dB in free space at I meter distance. Thus, the corresponding noise levels at the residential locations would be 7 to 15 dB greater than predicted by the subject report. Assuming a nominal increase of 12 dB, the noise levels at the residential locations due to the people at the Restaurant dining area would be in the 58 to 65 dB, or greater during noisier episodes, for the dining room windows open condition, and in the range 44 to 51 dB or greater for the windows closed condition. These noise levels would potentially exceed the City of Newport Beach residential day time outdoor noise standard of 55 dB Leq (for a 15 minute period), and 50 dB Leq after 10 PM. It is important to also consider the corresponding interior noise limits specified by the City for noise propagated to the residential property from sources on other properties. These standards are 45 dB Leq and 40 dB Leq , respectively, for day and night periods. In interior of the Linda Isle residences near open windows facing the Restaurant the noise levels predicted by the Wieland report, and the likely higher noise levels that would occur (as discussed above), clearly exceed the interior noise standards. At this point, one of the discrepancies in the Wieland report should be noted. It is stated in the report that the maximum noise level measured at the Blue Water Grill was 57 dB. However, their data chart shows 57 dB as the 2 0 percentile level. Thus, the noise level of 57 dB was exceeded 2 % of the time (or for 36 seconds out of 1800 seconds). For the statistical distribution of measured noise levels shown on their chart, an Leq of 53.3 dB would result from including 3 noise vents with maximum levels of 70 dB, or from 1 noise event at 75 dB. Furthermore, it is importan "background" noise environyd combined with 10 67dB Lmax 47 dB. Thus, the Leq is 6 dB Most of the time, the noise lev median level. For example, in a.previous i from 6:30 to 7:30 PM were rel percentile level. The 50 perce were less than the Leq 75 % o greater than the usual more co against the lower background In addition, some of the 5 -min 59 dB (the noise levels were U the maximum levels were 62 t dB. In general, the backgroun between 48 to 53 dB 50 % of i to note that Leq is typically not the continuous noise level that characterizes the !nt. For example, a noise level of 45 dB, plus or minus 2 dB, for 290 seconds events results in an Leq of 53 dB. The 50 percentile level in this case might be about peater than the median level. The noise levels are less than 47 dB 50% of the time. -is are much less than the Leq, and the maximum levels are 20 dB greater than the Other important consideratiol Isle locations. In one case, durt operation (shouting, car horns, I noise events are clearly intrusiv, significant impact from expand[ In addition, the Leq values w period. The maximum levels wi during periods when there were corresponding background (or q that low level of background no operation would be judged as vt Sam R. Lane, Ph.D. Environmental Acoustics )ise study for the Restaurant, ambient noise levels measured at a Linda Isle location )rted for 5- minute intervals. The resulting Leq values were generally equal to the 25 tile noise levels were about 2 dB less. This indicates that the ambient noise levels the time. The point is that a few higher level noise events result in an Leq much dnuous background levels, and the intrusiveness of other noise events should judged evels that occur most of the time, and not against the Leq value. to samples had maximum levels of 71 to 73 dB with 2 percentile levels of only 57 to s than about 58 dB 98 % of the time). Also, during 15 to 30 minutes of the samples, 71 dB, the 2 percentile levels were 57 to 62 dB, and the Leq values were 53 to 54 noise levels which better represent what is heard on a continuous basis were e time. are indicated by the noise measurements reported by the subject report for Linda an 8 to 9 PM period there were about 20 noise events from the Restaurant chen noises, doors slamming) with maximum levels from 51 to 66 dB. These whether or not they exceed the City noise standards, and indicate the potential for operations at the Restaurant. dominated by a few aircraft noise events (I to 4) each 15 minute measurement generally 65 to 75 dB and the Leq values were 54 to 61 dB. More importantly, high noise level aircraft events the Leq values were less than 51 dB, and the isi- continuous) noise levels were probably in the range 40 to 47 dB. Compared to the 10 to 20 dB greater noise levels of 52 to 66 dB caused by the Restaurant intrusive. C>& 0 EXHIBIT 7 4J ECT PLANS a'� '� A99Z6tl�'HJV7A1�Od1d3W ➢� AhMQAQfSAVAEEEI VUNN66SLb gE 01, �' momasommotagN Jill a soli s n W v N M 0 � e 6 ���C�s�g: a•���.:.�s��ss�s €aalp�•:;. €k =$psi •xp9 StE 6E S8ag9 ii SS ES R•PPPPPFPFS EA 28 ES SE9r OPS PP G @Ef§ �ai�9a6�3a« �ay9§$ �EatA $spa�egs���¢�.as.E:s4��� €i�i4 .......Pea :A x A S FgEF EFEx86i pEA 9i4riPi445 iip .n.,...w.ew +'m�m.mmw... •..wuwwvna..awam .. w .avm.aakwwm.i.aa�nma..nrzmwmm� wua.. i, mimua +.�awm>ww.+nc....A...rv..... �..�...�.«.m........... Q�] Li. Q � s qq z ���gp6g ���w•�gppgU�t�ff��� YCi1 .7 g?i OSSU 8 g ��� Ap i6 C $ e•� €4 a F$i�$ A P E p e Pi "1 K6p� yp 4 pe 8 :1e• �x S "1 s 099ibdJ'NOtlEDMIOdAUN e ag HAIXaH�SAVHEffVdNV8aV15�`� s �r V rrd 1 w x S 4 : Y tL 8 gOg Sig S 0 k•bry i'CinT'w.mbuwa•MY�C»9iYW Uwa•�xuwv+R�ww•YSaM1'W bmMYiW Vu Y9�nMew4m'suawmOKVVYW mnIW {Vw�. W 0 /fdV wTVJw W YV6Ya 04wre•wYw�aww. w....mu �.u..n�x °� 099ZbYJ`}iJHH9180dMH1'I a y � ¢��� OhINaB�SAtl9 £££SYd1rtlIN1dJS�fdfklt[571Q � m � �4 o � � xaawmaaooamoim I <C 1 i v I I I I F-) t, mm E 811.1 �� �i�8 II I�— �qg - - - -- � {1 _ I l"I L I I _g ILs$`I 41 1= 3 v 1 0 ..h s 1 0 ..h