HomeMy WebLinkAbout- PH-1 - Matkins Letter - 5/15/2012PH -1
f__ r- E7 OMD
C " IV E U C r
ITT CLERK
zq�2A� Phi 4� Alden Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Allen Maw eys at Law
1900 Main Street, 5'e Floor I Irvine, CA 92614-7321
i_,� �.t y» , p n �el .Ione: 949.553.1313 1 Facsimile: 949.553.8354
€_= ' `W J i A � v5,ww•allenmatkins.com
IJ'°1
Suzanne E. Skov
E-mail: sskov@allenmatkins.com
Direct Dial: 949.851.5418 File Number: 999903-40000/OC954875.01
Via Messenger
May 14, 2012
Eric R. Bever, Mayor
James M. Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Leece, Council Member
Gary Monahan, Council Member
Stephen M. Mensinger, Council Member
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: City Council Hearing for the Appeal and Review of Zoning
Application ZA-12-10 Minor Conditional Use Permit for a Drive -
Through Coffee Shop and Future Restaurant ("Project") at 450
East 17th Street
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
This firm represents Toby Walker, owner of the property located at 462 East 17th Street,
Costa Mesa, California. Mr. Walker's commercial property is immediately adjacent to the Project.
This letter is submitted on Mr. Walker's behalf and I request that this letter be made a part of the
City's administrative record for the Project and Mr. Walker's appeal thereof.
The Project consists of the re -construction of an existing vacant 4,541 square foot former
credit union building as a new a 2,546 square foot Starbucks with drive-through service, and a new
2,185 square foot "future restaurant tenant use." The only existing access to Mr. Walker's property
is by virtue of easement rights for ingress and egress purposes over the Project site. Mr. Walker
also has easement rights to three parking spaces on the Project site.
The City Council is expected to consider Mr. Walker's appeal of the Planning Commission
decision to uphold the City Zoning Administrator's approval of the Project at its May 15, 2012
meeting. In support of Mr. Walker's appeal, Mr. Walker submitted a document titled "Grounds for
Appeal," and a traffic and parking analysis of the proposed Project prepared by RK Engineering
Group, Inc., dated May 11, 2012 ("Traffic Analysis"). These documents are attached as Exhibit A
and Exhibit B, respectively, and the contents are incorporated herein.
Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights I Walnut Creek
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Eric R. Bever, Mayor
James M. Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Leece, Council Member
Gary Monahan, Council Member
Stephen M. Mensinger, Council Member
May 14, 2012
Page 2
The City Council should grant Mr. Walker's appeal and deny approval of the Project for the
reasons set forth in Exhibits A and B, and because the City has not satisfied its obligations to protect
the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. The Planning
Commission upheld the City Zoning Administrator's finding that the Project was exempt from
CEQA as a Class 1 Existing Facility. (April 23, 2012 Planning Commission Agenda Report for the
Project, pp. 5 and 40.) As discussed below, the Project is not exempt from CEQA. Further, there is
substantial evidence in the record that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment
(parking, traffic, noise, air quality, and land use compatibility), and therefore the "unusual
circumstances" exception to any applicable CEQA exemption applies. We respectfully request that
the City Council remand the Project back to the Zoning Administrator in order that an Initial Study
be prepared and the appropriate CEQA determinations made.
1. The Project Is Not Exempt From CEQA.
The Class 1 exemption relied upon by the City Zoning Administrator and Planning
Commission applies where the issuance of a permit involves "negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.)
Here, the City is issuing a Minor Conditional Use Permit for re -construction of an existing building
that has been vacant for approximately two years to be re -used as a drive-through Starbucks and an
undetermined future restaurant use. Clearly, M new use is an expansion beyond what the current
vacant use is. Even if the City were to make the exemption determination based upon the prior use
of the Project site as a credit union, the City's zoning requirements recognize that the proposed
Starbucks and future restaurant uses are more intense than the bank use because the City requires
approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit for the Project, whereas no discretionary approval
would be required if a new bank or commercial office building were to be developed.
Further, a drive-through Starbucks and "future restaurant use" will be more intense uses than
a drive-through credit union is, and traffic patterns and parking demand will be vastly different. A
credit union operates during normal business hours, for example 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., whereas a
Starbucks is open from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., with more intense use at peak traffic periods.
There is no information about what type of restaurant and/or hours of operation is proposed for the
future restaurant tenant, but it is likely to be as intensive, if not more intensive, than the Starbucks
site. The Project brings new traffic circulation at peak times, parking, noise, air quality, and land
use impacts than are currently present with a vacant former credit union. This is especially the case
given the adjacent residential uses that are not necessarily compatible with the intense commercial
uses proposed.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Eric R. Bever, Mayor
James M. Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Leece, Council Member
Gary Monahan, Council Member
Stephen M. Mensinger, Council Member
May 14, 2012
Page 3
The Project applicant did not prepare any traffic analysis to support its application. The
Project applicant submitted a response to Mr. Walker's appeal dated April 17, 2012, that purports to
address traffic concerns raised by Mr. Walker, but does not constitute a traffic study, because it does
not analyze the total number of vehicle trips that will be generated by the project (only a.m. and
p.m. trips are analyzed), and its does not analyze the impacts to the area surrounding the Project
site.
Further, the applicant's April 17, 2012 traffic analysis used a trip generation rate from
another traffic study prepared in 2000 for a Starbucks in a different location to determine the trips
for the Starbucks proposed here, and applied a trip generation for "High Turnover Restaurant" for
the proposed future restaurant use. The 2000 study relied upon by the Project applicant was not
available to Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker's Traffic Analysis (Exhibit B) is based upon the Institute of
Transportation Engineer ("ITE") 2008 publication for a coffee/donut shop with drive-through and
shows that the actual estimated trips for the Starbucks are significantly more than what the Project
applicant revealed. (See, Exhibit B.) At the least, there will be 98 more AM peak hour trips and 29
more PM peak hour trips than what the Project applicant estimated.
Notably, City Councilwoman Wendy Leece also appealed the approval of the Project based
upon comments from over 60 residents. Councilwoman Leece's appeal raises the same issues raised
here with respect to the intensification of the use, noting "[i]t is not reasonable to equate the volume
of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks."
Clearly, the Project is an intense expansion of the existing vacant use at the site, not
"negligible or no expansion of a use beyond that existing at the time of the [City's] determination."
(CEQA Guidelines § 15301.) For these reasons, the Project is not exempt from CEQA, and the City
is obligated to, at the very least, prepare an Initial Study to determine the environmental impacts of
the Project and whether an environmental impact report or negative declaration is required. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15365.)
2. A CEQA Categorical Exemption Does Not Apply Because There Is Substantial
Evidence in the Record That There Is a Reasonable Possibility Of A Significant Effect
on the Environment.
Even if the Project were otherwise exempt from environmental review, CEQA provides for
exceptions to categorical exemptions where "there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will
have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15300.2(c).) This exception is designed to address situations where further environmental review
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Eric R. Bever, Mayor
James M. Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Leece, Council Member
Gary Monahan, Council Member
Stephen M. Mensinger, Council Member
May 14, 2012
Page 4
is warranted for projects that would be categorically exempt. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main
San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.411 1165, 1206.) The Project applicant's own
traffic analysis indicates that during the a.m. peak hour, the Project will generate 188 more trips
than the current existing vacant use and 131 more trips than a hypothetical "financial" use would.
(Project Applicant's April 17, 2012 Traffic Submittal at Table 1.) The Project applicant does not
provide the total number of trips generated by the Project. Further, as discussed above, Mr. Walker
submitted evidence that the Project will have significantly more traffic impacts than the Project
applicant calculated for the drive-through Starbucks portion of the Project based upon the Project
applicant's improper reliance on an outdated and irrelevant traffic study. (See, Exhibits A and B.)
In addition, as indicated in the record by Mr. Walker and other residential and commercial owners
adjacent to the Project, parking, noise, air quality, and land use impacts would result from the
Project, none of which has been studied.
In a recent Court of Appeal decision, the Court held that "once it is determined that a
proposed activity may have a significant effect on the environment, [the City] is precluded from
applying a categorical exemption to the activity." (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of
Berkeley (2012) 203 Cal.AppAth 656, 672.) The Court further stated that the fact that a project may
have an effect on the environment "is itself an unusual circumstance" precluding the use of an
exemption. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, at 670.) The Traffic Analysis submitted by Mr. Walker,
which is discussed above shows that the Project will have a significant impact on traffic, parking,
and other environmental conditions in and around the Project site. As a result, the City is precluded
from applying a categorical exemption. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, at 670.) The City must still
study the Project under CEQA.
3. Approval of the Project Constitutes Impermissible Project Splitting And Does not
Analyze the Cumulative Impacts Caused By the Project.
CEQA requires the City to examine the "whole of an action" that may result in either a
direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) The City
should not "split" a project into multiple segments. Otherwise, the City runs the risk of chopping a
large project into many little ones and the City will not have evaluated the cumulative impacts of its
actions. (Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577,
592.) This is especially the case where the City is evaluating separate projects that are changing the
character of commercial uses in a specific area, which is the case along 17th Street where office,
professional, and institutional uses are being changed to more intense restaurant and, as here, drive
through coffee shop uses.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Eric R. Bever, Mayor
James M. Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Leece, Council Member
Gary Monahan, Council Member
Stephen M. Mensinger, Council Member
May 14, 2012
Page 5
Because the exact use for the 2,185 square foot portion of the Project proposed for "future
restaurant use" is unknown, the Project applicant's estimated trips and parking needs for that use is
speculative. The failure to analyze the environmental impacts from this future use constitutes
project splitting, which is impermissible under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) Further,
the City must evaluate the project in the context of its approval of other changes in use along 17a'
Street so it can properly assess the cumulative impacts resulting and to properly mitigate for those
impacts.
4. The Conditions of Approval Do Not Properly Mitigate the Project's Impacts.
The Zoning Administrator approval of the Project imposes several conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission added Planning Condition No. 16 when it upheld the Zoning
Administrator's approval. This condition is an attempt to address Mr. Walker's easement rights,
making the City's approval "expressly subject to the project being in full compliance with any
existing duties, rights and obligations set forth in any easements or other encumbrances recorded
against the property." However, this condition places the burden on Mr. Walker to protect his
property rights, potentially incurring legal fees and other costs to do so. The City should make the
issuance of its approval revocable if the Project applicant fails to comply with the easement
requirements.
Planning Condition No. 2 requires the Project applicant to "institute whatever reasonable
operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate" parking shortages. However, this
condition does not require a specific time frame within which to monitor parking shortages, and
does not set forth a specific metric by which to measure any parking shortfall. Further, the
mitigation is being put off until after the Project is developed, thus improperly deferring mitigation.
Planning Condition No. 3 requires the Project applicant to ensure the "quiet enjoyment of
the surrounding neighborhood," but does not specifically require any accountability to the
surrounding residents and commercial owners.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in Mr. Walker's previous
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Eric R. Bever, Mayor
James M. Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem
Wendy Leece, Council Member
Gary Monahan, Council Member
Stephen M. Mensinger, Council Member
May 14, 2012
Page 6
submittals, we respectfully request that the City Council grant Mr. Walker's appeal and deny the
Project as proposed.
Very truly yours,
Suzanne E. Skov
SES:pmc
cc: Mr. Mel Lee, Senior Planner
Mr. Toby Walker (via e-mail)
Grounds for Appeal
450 E. 17thStreet, Costa Mesa
Background
Over 30 years ago 450 (grantor) and 462 (grantee) E. 17th Street were one lot. The
owner, wishing to create two lots, created (Grant of Easement) a mutual non-
exclusive ingress/egress (Parcel 1) with additional non-exclusive parking for three
cars (Parcel 2). Document recorded is Instrument No. 82-297213 of Official Records
of Orange County. The grants under this easement are "mutual".
Generally speaking, egress and ingress are granted through a 20 -foot wide strip and
at the rear of the easement the three parking spaces referred to above. Please see
the attached copy.
Current Proposal
The applicant/owner of 450 E. 17th St., Burnham USA, is proposing to convert a
financial institution use to a coffee shop with drive through for a portion of the
building and the balance for a restaurant. In addition to the floor plan, there is to be
patio seating. Applicant has been granted "a minor CUP" for his plans to renovate
and greatly intensify the use of the premises.
Grounds for Appeal
Appellant's sole access to his property is over the aforementioned easement.
Appellant's access under this "minor CUP" grant will no longer be mutual but at the
expense of this greatly increased usage by the "grantor". This same CUP ignores. the
existing easement and presumes that it will be modified. The CUP greatly alters the
mutuality intended by the easement in as much as the intensity of use is so greatly
increased at 450.
1
There should be no CUP granted which changes this "mutuality". Put another way,
the uses which require parking and ingress/egress as practiced by both properties
for the past 30 years should be preserved and maintained. Allowing an increased
usage at the expense of either property should not be allowed. Appellant and his
tenants will be harmed by this CUP. This is a zero sum game; somebody wins and
somebody loses.
Look no further than the "minor CUP" granted to this same developer at 234 E. 17th
Street (Westminster and 17th St). An office use was intensified to accommodate a
restaurant and the repercussions severely negatively impact the restaurant users,
the tenants, and the adjacent property owners. During the midday lunch period,
there is no available parking at the site forcing restaurant users, tenants, and guests
to park on the street or illegally in the adjoining businesses' parking lots. The on -
street parking that was used by adjoining properties is no longer available.
Additional Grounds for Appeal
The following issues have not been satisfactorily resolved and it is again requested
the City withdraw its approval of zoning application ZA-12-10:
1. The owner of 450 E. 17th Street has never offered the owner of 462 E. 17th
Street a modification to the existing access and parking easement, therefore,
if the development is approved in its current configuration, 462 E. 17th Street
tenants will not be able to park in the area specified in the easement and
there will be a planter blocking use of the ingress lane. No resolution of this
issue has been proposed.
2. Of critical importance, the current site plan causes all of the following
conflicting ingress -egress activities to simultaneously occur in the same area
(directly in front of 462's sole access point to their parking). These
conflicting vehicle movements include:
a. Two-way ingress and egress in the 20 -foot wide easement.
2
b. Cars and delivery trucks entering the 450 E. 17th Street site crossing
to the left through the egress lane to enter angled parking.
c. Cars and delivery trucks backing out of the angled parking spaces
through the egress lane.
d. Cars in the drive through lane queue standing and occupying the
middle of the 20' wide ingress egress area.
e. Cars and delivery trucks entering and exiting 462 E. 17th Street. This
is the only means of ingress and egress for cars and other vehicles to
access the parking area for 462 E. 17th Street.
3. Appellant has provided the City a traffic report by RK Engineering Group that
states the parking required for the 450 project is grossly above that stated in
Burnham USA's report from LL&G.
4. The RK Engineering Group report also states the LL&G report has
understated the number of vehicle trips on the proposed 450 property.
5. There is the possibility that the standstill condition will cause cars and
delivery trucks to wait on 17th Street until space occurs for ingress.
3
engineering
group, inc.
transportation planning • traffic engineering
acoustical engineering parking studies
May 11, 2012
MR. TOBY WALKER
P.O. Box 8083
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Subject: Zoning Application ZA-12-10 Minor Conditional Use Permit for a
Drive -Through Coffee Shop at 450 East 17th Street, City of Costa Mesa
Dear Mr. Walker:
Introduction
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this Traffic Circulation Review
of the available documentation regarding the Zoning Application ZA-12-10
Minor Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through coffee shop, to be located at
450 East 17th Street in the City of Costa Mesa. This site was previously a bank and the
applicant has requested approval for a more traffic intensive drive-through coffee shop
(i.e. Starbucks) in addition to a quick -serve restaurant. The proposed uses will significantly
increase the amount of traffic generated by 450 East 17'h Street.
It is our understanding that you own the property adjacent to 450 East 17th Street, located
at 462 East 17`h Street. Your property currently has its access provided by a non-exclusive
easement within the 450 East 17th Street, which provides the only means of ingress/egress
to your property. Additionally, you have an easement for parking three (3) vehicles within
the easement area, defined in the attached Exhibit A.
It is our understanding that you are concerned with the potential impacts of the proposed
intensification of 450 East 17"' Street upon your ability to provide ingress/egress to/from
your property along with the adequacy of parking. RK Engineering Group, Inc. has
reviewed the project file, as provided by you, which includes a traffic assessment by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LL&G) (Appendix A), addressing several of the
previously raised comments regarding the project and the Shared Parking Study, prepared
by LL&G. RK has identified several issues that need further consideration prior to approval
of this project.
4000 mvesterly place, shite 280
newporl beach, california 92660
tel 949.474.0809 fax 9 19.474.0902
littp://\,vww.rkengineer.com
NIR. TOBY WALKER
May 11, 2012
Page 2
Modifications to the Easement Area
The proposed site plan will modify the existing 20 -foot access easement, located within
450 East 17" Street, which affects property at 452 East 17th Street. The site plan shows a
landscaped area encroaching within the easement serving both of the properties. The
landscaped area located within the easement makes the northern portion of the easement
unusable for two-way traffic flow for 462 East 17th Street. The encroachment of the
landscaped planter reduces the width of the easement to less than 20 feet which will not
provide enough width for two-way traffic flow for 462 East 17th Street to gain access to
the three (3) parking spaces designated within the easement area.
The proposed site plan does not respect the easement that has been in place for a number
of years to provide ingress/egress and access to the three (3) parking spaces within
450 East 17th Street. The proposed site plan would require vehicles accessing these parking
spaces to encroach within the private property of 450 East 17th Street, since the easement
width has a reduced width, because of the encroachment of the landscaping.
The remaining portion of the easement is not wide enough for two-way traffic flow in
this area.
Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of trips that are produced and attracted
by a development. The primary source of trip generation data comes from the
ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineer) in their publication, Trip Generation 8' Edition,
2008. This document represents a substantial compilation of trip generation rates for
numerous uses, including the previous bank, proposed coffee shop with drive-through,
and quick -service food facility.
In LL&G's traffic analysis, dated April 17, 2012, they identify the trip generation
characteristics, on Table 1 (page 16) of their report, for both the previous and proposed
uses. For all uses, they have utilized the ITE trip generation rates, with the exception of the
coffee shop with drive-through (Starbucks), where they utilized a separate trip generation
study for the proposed Starbucks at 8th Street / Pacific Coast Highway, prepared by
LL&G (2000). That study was not included in their report, so it is not possible to evaluate
its applicability to the 450 East 17th Street project.
The trip generation rates utilized in that study are significantly less than what was
identified by the ITE in their Trip Code 937 for a coffee/donut shop with drive-through.
A copy of the trip generation for the proposed Starbucks, utilizing the ITE rates, is included
in Appendix B. There is a substantial difference between what the ITE has identified and
what LL&G has identified in their trip generation analysis. RK would need a copy of the trip
generation study for the proposed Starbucks at 8th Street/ Pacific Coast Highway, prepared
RK: mn/RK9422.doc
JN:2311-2012-01
MR. TOBY WALKER
May 11, 2012
Page 3
by LL&G (2000), to validate the trip generation rates utilized. Also the various Starbucks
that were sampled should be representative of a "high -generation" coffee shop with
drive-through in a high traffic volume situation, which exists on East 17th Street. If the trip
generation rates identified by the ITE were utilized, it would significantly increase AM peak
hour traffic entering and exiting the Starbucks site. Verification of the appropriate trip
generation rates is of critical concern.
RK also reviewed several other trip generation studies for Starbucks that are included in
Appendix C. These published studies show that during the AM peak hour, the trip
generation rates were 64-89% higher than was used in the LL&G study.
Parkin
There are several issues with respect to parking regarding the proposed use. Based upon
the site plan included in the LL&G report, only 42 parking spaces are provided within the
site. The Costa Mesa Municipal Parking Code requires a total of 73 parking stalls, based
upon the building square footage and outdoor seating area, to serve the proposed
Starbucks and quick -serve restaurant use. The parking analysis by LL&G concludes that the
peak parking demand will only be 39 parking stalls or a 47% reduction in the parking
demand. Based on the easement agreement documents, a total of three (3) parking
spaces need to be reserved for the adjacent property. Assuming that the three (3) parking
spaces are occupied, the parking study provided by LL&G, indicated that the lot will be
100% occupied at 9:00 PM. Appendix D contains the City of Costa Mesa Municipal
Parking Code.
It should be noted that the parking demand calculations for the quick -serve restaurant use
do not take into account the hourly variations that are provided by the ULI, which indicate
that restaurants typically peak from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Based on the data provided by
LL&G, the peak parking demand calculations for this use are not consistent with the
ULI data and will most likely result in offsite overflow parking onto the property located
directly adjacent to the site. See Appendix E for the ULI Time -of -Day Factors for restaurant
uses.
LL&G utilized the observed parking demand data from a total of two (2) relatively smaller
Starbucks locations in April of 2000. The parking demand data is twelve (12) years old and
therefore does not provide for an accurate parking demand profile for a larger Starbucks
with a drive-through. The square footage of the observed Starbucks locations was
significantly smaller as compared to the proposed Starbucks location. Due to the old data
and difference in building square footage not using a Starbucks with a drive-through, the
parking calculations do not account for an accurate parking demand and may result in a
deficiency of onsite parking which would allow for overflow parking onto the adjacent
property.
RK: mnlRK9422. doc
JN:2311-2012-01
MR. TOBY WALKER
May 11, 2012
Page 4
Furthermore, according to the easement documents for 462 East 17th Street, three (3)
parking spaces need to be reserved for the adjacent 462 East 17th Street. They are not
indicated on the site plan. Based upon these facts, there appears to be a deficiency in
parking for the site.
It is not clear whether the Starbucks proposal is to include the drive-through as part of the
parking requirements for this project. This needs to be verified based upon the City's
parking code. The three (3) parking spaces specified in the easement need to be addressed
as part of the proposed site plan for the 462 East 17th Street property.
Drive -Through Queuing
The LL&G report indicates that the proposed drive-through will provide a total of eight (8)
spaces for queuing. While this may be adequate for typical fast-food restaurant, Starbucks
is a much more intense use, especially during the AM peak hour. LL&G needs to
demonstrate, based upon actual field studies, that a high-volume Starbucks facility with a
"similar" size can accommodate all of the queuing within the eight (8) parking spaces
identified the site plan. Although LL&G mentioned that it is adequate, no demonstration
by the use of actual empirical data is provided as part of the Traffic Circulation Review.
Diagonal Parking Spaces
The proposed site plan includes five (5) diagonal parking spaces, including two (2)
accessible parking spaces directly near the entrance of the shared access. These parking
spaces are directly adjacent to the main two-way ingress/egress to the site and the
adjoining property at 462 East 17th Street. These spaces will require vehicles to backup into
entering and exiting traffic, which is especially a difficult movement for those vehicles when
conflicting with a large amount of entering/exiting traffic, especially if the trip generation
for the Starbucks has been underestimated. Again, additional conflicts would occur at this
location that need to be considered.
Secondary Access
The westerly secondary access appears to be an exit -only access because of the
one-way flow from the drive-through and exiting traffic. Adequate signage and pavement
markings are necessary so that vehicles will not erroneously enter or try to use it as ingress
to the property. This would definitely create adverse impacts to the circulation within the
project site.
RK: mn/RK9422. doc
JN:2311-2012-01
MR. TOBY WALKER
May 11, 2012
Page 5
Conclusions
RK Engineering Group, Inc. has completed a review the Minor Conditional Use Permit for a
drive-through coffee shop, to be located at 450 East 17th Street, in the City of Costa Mesa.
RK has identified several items, including the use of existing ingress/egress easement, trip
generation, parking, queuing for the drive-through, backup diagonal parking conflicts, and
the need to adequately sign and mark the westerly exit driveway to the site. All of these
questions need to be answered prior to assuring that the project is adequate from a traffic
circulation standpoint.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please call me at (949) 474-0809.
Sincerely,
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, I
No. OM J
Robert Kahn, P.E. E• 12/3�/ 13
Principal ��l�, A'Ffr�if
Attachments
XC: Ms. Fanny Chen
Mr. Rob Hamers, Robin B Hamers & Associates, Inc.
RK: mn1RK9422. doc
JN: 2311-2012-01
Exhibits
0
Exhibit A
Traffic/Circulation/Parking Issues
with 450 East 17th Street
ZEN&,
Zoning Application ZA-1 2-10 Minor Conditional Use Permit, City of Costa Mesa, California
9 m-�
WN619A,
engineering
group, inc.
Appendices
Appendix A
LL&G Response to Appeal Comments
Engineers & Planners
April 17, 2012 Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Mr. Stephen K Thorp, Executive V_ice President
cGirlasa_*��4"arnsin�.W
Burnham.USA
15BU Corporate Drive
1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150
sake 122
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Caste Mese, CA 92626
below followed by LLG's response. Additionally, Mr. Walker included attachments
714.641.1567 r
LLGReference No, 2,12,3265.1
714541M i
wmdJgm9Irioers.com
Subject: Response to Appeal Comments by Toby Walker
Pasadena
Approval of Zoning Application ZA-12-10
Cosa Mesa
Remodel and Tenancy Modification for Former Orange County
san Diego
Teacher's Federal Credit Union (OCTFCU) Site
Las Vegas
450 E. 17'k Street
Costa Mesa, California
Dear Mr. Thorp:
At your request, we have reviewed the subject appeal package submitted by Toby
Walker, representing the property at 462 E. 17°i Street C"46T ). That property lies
immediately east of your property at 450 E. 17' Street ("450"), the latter being the
subject of a recent Zoning Application approval by the City of Costa Mesa.
The ZA-12-10 application addressed the remodel of your site, and re -tenancy with a
Starbucks drive-thru as well as unspecified fugue quick serve food use. The parking
aspects of the proposed plan were the subject of a parking analysis prepared by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) and dated March 1, 2012. That study
concluded a parking balance for the proposed plan based on the parking supply
revisions/increase at "450", the parking needs of the proposed tenancy types at "450",
and after accounting for a 3 -space supply component on "450" (responding to a non-
exclusive easement agreement executed in 1982 between the two property owners)
for the benefit of packers attributable. to "462".
+^"P AallrfVPB CarapenP landed lKb
NIP M. LMscnM PEJIm2"
Mr. Walker has cited seven grounds ("comments") as the basis of his appeal. This
JeckKOnrenspan,PEDW
letter was prepared to address each of those in anticipation of a fixture Planning
1M0aMA aKPpp4
Commission hearing on the appeal. Each of I& Walker's comments is repeated
PaUIW.W3dnson,M
below followed by LLG's response. Additionally, Mr. Walker included attachments
John P. Keatlng, PE
to his appeal (generally without explanation) that have also been• extracted and
DovidS.Shendar;PE
attached to this response package for further discussion by LLG.
Juba A. Bearman. P6
C2aroM.Laak-Jeeger,PE
11chard E. Darrattc, PE
Kett D. Me6arry, PE
+^"P AallrfVPB CarapenP landed lKb
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 2
LLG's prior submittal of March 1 was focuse4 to future parking demand, supply, and
balance at the "450" site. Mr. Walker's current comments go beyond the scope of that
prior analysis and include a focus to easement and site circulation issues. To facilitate
our responses, and to provide supporting technical information, attached to this letter
are the following:
Figure 1: Using an existing aerial photo as its base, provides a snapshot of
current traffic volumes along the easement area anal at the existing "shared
driveway" serving both "450" and "462. It comes from a March 10, 2012
(Tuesday) field study during the morning and afternoon periods when the
traffic for the combined sites would generally experience its peak. What
turned out . to be incidental traffic using the "450" exit -only driveway
(Location E) is also shown. The tabular summary further presents parking
demand by hour for the survey period, sorted between the "450" and "462"
addresses. From Figure 1, it is evident that existing "shared driveway" traffic
volumes are very light, and peak at 25 vehicleslhour in the AM period and 34
vehicles per hour in the PM period. Because "450" is now vacant, all of this
traffic can be attributed to "462". Additionally, parking demand peaked at 28
spaces (9AM and 4PM), again all presumably related to "462". It is interesting
to note that while all 28 spaces of peak demand can be attributed to "462",
only 19 of these parked. vehicles were actually in the "462" lot (which
provides an inventoried supply of 29 spaces). "462" parking in the "450" lot
ranged from 3 to 13 spaces, depending on time of day. Coincidentally, the
aerial photo base of this figure illustrates the typical location of "4-62" parking
demand in the "450" lot,
• Exhibits I through 4: Given Mr. Walker's concems relative to the easement,
these ground -level photos illustrate the existing actual condition at photo
locations as referenced in Figure 1. Exhibit 1 is the "long view" looking
northward from 17�' Street along the easement area; the "450" building is to
the left and the "462" building is to the right. Exhibit 2 coincides with the
portion of "450" towards the end of that "long view", with the can-iera location
adjoining the access connection to the "462" lot. Exhibit 3 is the Exhibit 2
view from a slightly different angle. Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate an. existing
pavement arrow near the "450"-"462" property line indicating an intended
one-way northbound flow passing to the right (east) of the 3 specific spaces
intended (by easement) for use by "462" parkers. Those three spaces are
"carved out" by the three parking stops appearing in the middle of the image.
Exhibit 4 shows the area of those three spaces in greater detail, and further
illustrates the mounting brackets for four surface -mounted boltards, which
would presumably "call out" these spaces in the midst of what appears to most
drivers as a travel aisle, although the actual bollards are missing. It is worth
noting that Exhibits 2. and 3 further illustrate "blacked out" pavement
Cv
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp LINSCOTT
April 17, 2012
Page 3 GREENSPAN
markings of a previous northbound directional arrow (near the left edge of the '
aisle) and angled parking (near the ai'sle's right edge). +
F..xhih& 5 and 6: These were attached to Mr. Walker's appeal without
additional explanation, and have been brought forward to this response -
package for further discussion. Exhibit 5 is the original easement "sketch"
from the .1982 Grant of Easements document. Parcel 1 of that "sketch" is, in
essence, the intended access and circulation area. Parcel 2 is the parking
"footprint'. Relative to Parcel 2, the actual spaces are not shown, but the 18'
x 27' rectangle provides for three standard spaces, side-by-side, with north -
south orientation.
The actual field location. of the 3 spaces in Parcel 2 (see Figure 4) is
consistent with the easement sketch of Figure 5. The Parcel 1 footprint is also
consistent between "sketch" and field except for an existing planter on the
"450" site along its eastern property line with "462".
The timing of the easement recordation versus the construction of this planter
is unknown. Its presence, however, reduces the aisle width immediately east
of the 3 easement spaces to 14 feet, making it conducive to only one-way
travel. Viewed in the context of the existing parking lot plan for "450", the
Parcel 2 spaces make for a "tough fit", and their presence adversely impacts
the parking and circulation continuity of the immediately surrounding area.
The parking and circulation improvements of the proposed site plan will
resolve that difficulty.
Figure 6 is also from Mr. Walker's package with the mark-up of the plan
presumably by Mr. Walker. The figure uses an unknown base which appears
consistent with the existing parking and circulation configuration of the site.
The area in green exactly corresponds to Parcel 1 of the easement. The
location of the 3 spaces in the red -shaded area corresponds to Parcel 2 of the
easement.
From .Exhibit "A" of the Grant of Easements document, Parcel 1 is described
as "An easement for ingress and egress over that portion of ...". No mention
of parking is included in the Parcel 1 description. Parcell is described in the
same document as "An easement for ingress, egress and parking purposes
over that portion of ...".
Referring back to Exhibit 6, and based on the excerpted Grant wording above,
the 3 spaces shown in the red area are consistent with the easement
description. The spaces .in the green area are not consistent with the Grant
wording, so the intent of the 11 spaces (in green) near the eastern border of
"450" is not known. They do not correspond with the existing condition, and
I
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 4
they are not shown on the proposed plan. If the spaces in green were added,
"red".spaces I through 3 would be in direct conflict with ".green" spaces 3
through 5; they could not function together. Additionally, it is important to
_note that the areas depicted in red and green are not exclusive easements. So
while the easement details are important, the easement ,and adjoining areas
should function cohesively, and the proposed site plan will take steps to
correct the shortcomings ofthe existing configuration.
• Table 1: Provides a traffic generation summary for both "450" and "462".
The top of the table presents generation factors for estimating likely future
trips in the AM and PM peak hours for each of the indicated uses. At the
middle of the table is a summary for the "450" project, indicating "zero" trips
for the current vacant condition, and the potential trips to be generated if
reoccupied at its current square footage with a ` ri've-in" bank use. The
proposed plan is also considered, and it will be noted that the Starbucks has a
dominant AM peak hour trip generation potential which amounts to roughly
80 vehicles arriving and then departing in the samb hour (typically involving
a short stay for drive-thm as well as many counter -service customers); the PM
peak hour trip -malting potential is much less.
The bott6m of Table 1 focuses to "462", and pulls forward the actual counted
volumes from Figure 1. From aerial images, "462" is estimated to have a
building area of about 7,000 sf. Field review indicates existing bank, salon,
and Pilates studio tenancies using an estimate 90°!o 'of floor area, with the
rng, 101/16 an existing vacancy. To represent a full occupancy condition,
that table presents an "Existing (Full Occupancy)" line item: The mix of uses
now at "462" are -not well represented in source information for trip
generation factors (like those at the top of the table), but a "benchmark"
calculation is presented to illustrate a total- bank versus total specialty tetail
characteristic. Other pezmutations would be possible in keeping with an
indication from Mr. Walker that a change 'of use for "462" may increase
demand on the ingress -egress ("shared driveway's easement.
Figure 2: Using the proposed site plan and count or forecast -based traffic
characteristics of Table 1, this figure presents a "snapshot" of .fature/fall
occupancy peak hour traffic volumes at key locations in the plan. The stacking
capacity of the drive-tbru lane, between the service window and the lane entry
point, is also illustrated. That equates to a total storage length of eight vehicles
before the cross aisle at the entry point would be a5mked.
The above materials are referred to in the responses that follow.
to
Ivlr. Stephen K, Thorp
April 17, 2.012
Page 5
Comment Na I
The owner of 450 R 17th Street has never offered the owner of 462 E. 171 Street a
modification to the existing access and parking easement, therefore, if the
development is approved in its current configuratioA 462 E. 17`h Street tenants will
not be able to park in the area specified in the easement and there Witt be a planter
blocking use of the ingress lane. No resolution of this issue has been proposed
Response to Comment No, 1
The easements established the light of "462" to circulate and park 3 vehicles on the
"450" site. The owners of "450" will continue to be obligated to that requirement,-
and
equirement,and have given thoughtful consideration to the access and parking rights of "462"
employees and visitors throughout the remaining term of the easement.
The proposed site plan will greatly enhance the flow of traffic and parking for the
"450" site and the "462" property. The parking "retrofit" configuration illustrated on
the proposed site plan anticipates that "462" packers (that would otherwise. use the 3
explicit but non-exchisive spaces within the existing recorded easement) would be
entitled to use 3 spaces anywhere in the "450" plan.
While the easement has been in place for many years, our technical review concludes
that it is An outdated arrangement and not a workable "footprint". Its literal
incorporation within a remodel/update plan at 11450" is not advised. Taken literally;
the, existing arrangement of these 3 spaces within the casement (at a perpendicular to
the long axis of the easement) permits residual width for only a one-way northbound
travel lane to extend past them so as to access the 3 spaces in the easement. A turn
from, that access lane to one, of the 3 spaces requires a "button hook" movement or
three-point turn, and once parked, there is- no way for thesa vehicles to Leave their
space without travelling the wrong way in that northbound access lane, or travelling
outside the easement. Additionally, the existing depiction of this configuration "on
the ground" is confusing to motorists (parking stops at mid aisle, missing bollards,
conflicting pavement markings). Only regular visitors to the site seem to sort things
out, and the Rgure 1 data and aerial photo as well as Exhibit 1 through 4 images
illustrate that those visitors routinely prefer the angled spaces outside the easement to
the 3 perpendicular spaces within it_
As such, the parking arrangement of the proposed site plan is the technical solution to
a challenging existing condition that would be made worse by re -occupancy of the
"450" site without the proposed parking and circulation enhancements.
Comment Na 2
Of critical Importance, the current site plan causes all of the following ingress -
egress activities to simultaneously occur in the .same area, thereby causing a
confluence" of conflicting vehicle movements:
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 6
a. 7Wo N ay ingress and egress in the 20 foot wide easement
b. Cars and delivery trucks entering the 4.50 E 17th Street site crossing to the left
through the egress lane to enter angled parking.
c_ Cars and delivery -trucks backing out of the angled parking spaces through, the
egress lane.
d Cars in the drive•-thru lane -queue standing and occupying the middle of the
confluence area.
e. Cars and delivery trucks entering and exiting 462 E. 17th Street in this same
confluence .area in the limited area allocated for this use. This is the only
means of ingress and egress for cars and other vehicles to access the parking
area for 462 K I7th Street.
Response to Comment No. 2
It is common ;For a mix of internal traffic flow patterns to "share" a common
`Ibotprint" within an on-site circulation configuration. While referred to as a
confluence, the area described in the comment is really an internal. "T" intersection
(there are three "legs" with approaching traffic) with a fourth leg carrying only
"leaving" intersection traffic as it enters the drive-thru lane. In this case, the "stem" of
the 'r' would be the exiting movement from the "462" parking lot, and as the side
approach, that movement would normally be subject to STOP control. It is expected
that the north south movements along the aisle would not be subject to STOP control.
Figure 2 illustrates forecast future volumes based on the existing ttaflic counts plus
adjustment for full occupancy at "462" as well a full future occupancy at "450". In
considering the above comment, it is important to understand not Just the pattern of
flows but the expected volume on each movement. Based on the Figure 2 peals hour
volume projections; it can be concluded that future traffic volumes at this int6mal
intersection will be consistent with its overall design configuration including the
presence of apossible STOP control an the "462 side street" approach.
Responding to the above individual comments by letter:
a) The Figure 2 volumes along the easement are consistent with a two-lane
parldng lot drive aisle including one with 20' overall width. The peak hour
northbound (entering) volume equates- to an average flow rate of roughly I to
2 vehicles per minute. The peak hour southbound (exiting) movement equates
to a rate of less than 1 vehicle per minute. While clearly measurable, th65e
volumes are not large and clearly within the capabilities of this traffic
configuration.
z
Mr. Stephen K Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 7
b) The angled parking spaces on the entering driver's left (west side of the aisle)
total three regular spaces and two handicapped (HC). The location of the latter
is consistent with ADA and Title 24 expectations related to building proximity
and path of travel, noting further that HC spaces tend to be used less
frequently (and have lower turnover) than regular spaces. The lower turnover
characteristic is a favorable one in reducing the potential for conflicts as
expressed in the comment. Related to the three regular spaces, parking to both
sides of a two-way parking lot aisle, carrying traffic with Sow rates described
in a), above, is a normal condition. Additionally, in our experience, delivery
vehicles will only rarely, if ever, use a conventional parldng space. Thus use
of these spaces will be by employee and visitor traffic in conventional
vehicles.
c) Given the volume projections discussed above, with the further clarification in
Response a above, significant issues are not anticipated.
d) The Figure 2 "snapshot" indicates an AM peak hour chive-thru lane volume of
24 vehicles per hour (representing the morning "surge',' of Starbucks customer
traffic). All of these vehicles would arrive in the drive-thru lane by making a
left tum within the site. That left turn would have an "opposing" southbound
volume (leaving the "450" parking lot and headed towards 17 Street) of 30
vehicles per hour. On a volume basis alone, we conclude that the potential for
conflict is minimal.
Also from Figure 2, the overall stacking (queuing) capabilities of the drive-
thru lane totals eight vehicles (three to the order board and five vehicles from
the order board to the service window). From prior research of "fast food"
sites, this stacking length provides sufficient storage distance for at least the
8P percentile confidence level. On that basis, a standing queue as stated in
the comment is unlikely and would certainly not represent a common
condition. It is acknowledged that the available storage at the order board
might be infmquently exceeded, but enough periods of lesser demand would
permit those instantaneous peak demands to clear. Additionally, it has been
observed that queuing at drive-tlhru lanes tends to be pelf regulating. That is,
arriving customers at the site will evaluate whether it would be faster to enter
the drive-tlua, or park their.car and walk in. Further, operators like Starbucks
are keenly aware of the experiences at their competition, and are therefore
focused to delivering the best possible service times to their guests, which in
turn translates to managed queue lengths.
For all of the above reasons, standing queues within the confluence area are
expected io be very limited in nature if they occur at all.
e) Please see responses, above.
13
' - t
i
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp LINSCOTT
April 17, 2012 '
Page 8
Comment No. 3
With the expected traffic generated from the applicant's proposed food service
establishments, which have high traffic vblumes, it is likely there will occur a
standstill condition and an inability to maneuver.
Response to Comment No. 3
Based on the site analysis details presented above, which consider the explicit trip-
maldug potential of the proposed "450" tenancies in the presence of exzstinglfull
occupancy "462" traffic,. a "standstill condition" is extremely unlikely. Conversely,
the on-site traffic volume conditions during peak hours are concluded to be withft the
operating capabilities of the "450" remodel and enhancement plan.
CommentNo. 4 '
The traffic study does not address the confluence area, which is a critically important -
consideration for continuing successful use of each parcel.
Resuonse to Comment No. 4
The. prior LLG submittal of March 1 was focused to a demand -supply parking
analysis of the combined "450" and "462" sites. It did not include a. traffic
assessment. This letter provides that assessment, with conclusions as stated above.
Comment No. S
Fire department access and response time is of concern because of the impact of the
confluence area.
Response to Comment No. 5
The confluence area conditions described/presumed above by the commenter were
not validated by the analysis that accompanies this response package. Reasonable
operating conditions are expected on site, and the potential impact on fire department
response times is expected to be negligible.
CommentNo. 6
There is also the possibility that a change of use for 462 E. 17m Street will increase
the demand on the ingress -egress easement and confluence area. Whereas 450 E. 17th
Street is considering a more upscale and active use, the use and traffic study should
include parallel improvements to 462 E. 1711 Street.
Response to Comment No. 6
A modestInwonable increase (to full. "462" building occupancy) is anticipated by the
above analysis. We can also conclude that farther reasonable increases in traffic
focused to the "462" site could also be possible in conjunction with the pending
14
Mr. Stephen K. Thorp
April 17, 2012
Page 9
"450" improvement plan, but in the absence of further "462" site plan details,
analysis of an intensification and/or change of use on the "462" site is not possible.
It is noted, however, that existing observed site parking needs for "462" peak at 28
spaces. Parking supply available to "462" includes its own lot of 29 spaces plus 3
"easement" spaces at "450", for a total supply of 32 spaces. Expanding the current
peak observed demand of 28 spaces by at assumed factor of 10% to account for.fu11
building occupancy infers a need of 31 spaces, for a theoretical surplus of 1 space.
Comment Not 7
There is the possibility that the standstill condition will cause cars and delivery trucks
to wait on 17th Street unfit space occurs for ingress.
Response to Comment No. 7
From the above analysis, we conclude that the indicated scenario is extremely
unlikely. Again, the traffic forecasting and analysis presented above leads us to
conclude that the ,traffic generating -potential of the combined "450"/"462" site would
be reasonably well served by the proposed traffic and parking.changa reflected in.the
pending "450" -site plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this supplemental traffic analysis and
response package for your "450" site. Should- you have any questions or need
additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Paul W. on, P.E.
Principal
Attachments
CC,. file
LINSCOTT
L A''' &
GREENSPAN-
engineer§.
a
TABLE
TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS'
ff)Z land Use Code /
AM Peak Hour
PM-Peak.Hour
Project Description
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
OmmatlonFactors:
• 814: Specialty Retail Center
0,61
039
1,002
1.19
1.52
2.71
(TFJ1,000 SF)
• 911: Walk-in Bank
_
_
5.34
6.79
12,13
(PFJ1,000 SF)
• 912: Drive4m Bank
6.92
5.43
12.35
12.91
12.91
25.82
(TPJ1,000 Ss)
• 932: High Turnover Restaurant
5.99
5.53
11.52
6.58
4.57
11.15
(TPJ4,000 Sly
Starbuo&
(M1,000 SFS
34,62
34.61
69.23
15.39
15.38
30.77
9-09M&O Forecast:
450 E:17"' Street (Site)
o bcisting (Vacant)
0
0
0
0
0
0
o B)dstin&TmoccupiedFinancial (4,619 SF)
32
25
57
60
59
119
Propped
o Coffee/Starbucks (2,356 SF)
82
81
163
36
36
72
'o Quick Smvice Food (2,1a5 SF)
13
12'
25
14
10
24
ProposedWfaiak
95
93
188
So
461
96
462 E. 17" Street (Neighbor)
o Existing (Counters)
25
1
26
17
18
35
a Existing (Fuss Occupancy)"
28
1
29
19
20
39
enchmarrk .
o Specialty Retail (7,000 Sly
4
3
7
8
11
19
o Financial (7,000 SF)
-
--
-
37
48
85
WobW
• TE/1,000 SF = Trip Pads per 1,000 kuam foot of development
Source, Trip Grnvrafiwr, 91 Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (17E), Washington, D,C, (2008).
3 AM trip rates are from CTB 820 Shopping Center.
Source; Trip Gemeraum Shedyfor the ProposadShvbuchs at 8° Stree0aCflc Coast kghwq prepared by LLG (2000). '
4 The floor area vwmncy was estimated to be 10%. so existing counts bave been increased by I09/a to reflect full occupucy condition,
IQ
SOURCE: COOGLE'FARTH q
COUNTHOTO1
DATE: CTAUESDAY, 4/10/12 FIGURE
KEY
RE SPA
(ANo SCALE = PHOTO LOCATION EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AND PARKING DEMAND
450 AND 462 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
17
Ai
c
yam.
31
vti'L
r
i. ti P;� S
C� .•'C '. {t�-`.
r1ru�
i-. ..�
•
l
4j
•
s -L :... JEW7
„~,•,`�-
462 FAST
�.—..lis
STREET6
%.J
AOL
{_.a _:._
__k.. _ l-__
""•::..-.:.;c•,�-.>.»:tY:.�.,...
-mss,-u :�'• � 2--._
_. _-. } _....
�•Y-
r
DOSING SITE TRAFnC SUMMARY
-EXIT ONL-r
DRIVEWAY
a<
SOURCE: COOGLE'FARTH q
COUNTHOTO1
DATE: CTAUESDAY, 4/10/12 FIGURE
KEY
RE SPA
(ANo SCALE = PHOTO LOCATION EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AND PARKING DEMAND
450 AND 462 EAST 17TH STREET, COSTA MESA
17
i `'
E-
0
tgm
Do Q
W
Q
H W
w Z�
H
»
O
�a
w
N
z
Z
d
Q
F
CO_ d
z
> >
YLu
. Or
0 W
he K
a =
N 10
U
N
6
z
a
le
a
x
,3W
Y
i
.}V
:
� itl
�
hiS
r
4
t sv
r• _ ,•.•n'. "x'c x 3.�i *ti`EeA
�'3�ff'Y7''Q
i `'
E-
0
tgm
Do Q
W
Q
H W
w Z�
H
»
O
�a
w
N
z
Z
d
Q
F
CO_ d
z
> >
YLu
. Or
0 W
he K
a =
N 10
U
N
6
z
flGf 80'
,o %
Al. m 08 x
N so'bo'tso W 4zW`
L 0 T 'q g £�
r_ie.t
� PM. ie
°, mac
� � . �►sa�co'q► � � ° i
IDA A4—Aae24—
ao
• �r�ar�ar.�►'w i.�.caor �
�3
SCE:LN TO �MA4/VyLECa�9L
OS-'<'/PrtOAi P -
WEU.$ FARISDNANK
._e �M+wwres.
AiiG.5,t�� Sob�CibGoo. � VY-tt'80
Exibit 5
Source: Walker 14
lip
No
Exbibit 6
Source: Walker Appeal
Background
For 30 years, both 450 and 462 E. 17th Street have had low demand banking
institutions and other low demand activities. In 1982, the two property owners
recognized that 462 E. 17th Street needed access over 450 E. 17th Street and an
ingress -egress and parking easement over 450 E. 17th Street was granted to 462 E.
17th Street by document recorded as Instrument No. 82-297213 of Official Records
of Orange County.
According to the easement, ingress and egress is granted through a 20 -foot wide
strip and the grant also includes the use of three specific parking spaces on 450 E.
17th Street. The limits of said easement are shown on the attached copy of the
proposed grading plan for 450 E. 17th Street.
Current Proposal
The applicant for 450 E. 171h Street, Burnham USA, is proposing to convert a bank
with drive through into a coffee shop with drive through while converting the
remaining building square footage into future restaurant use. The applicant
provided a traffic study that concludes there will be three surplus parking spaces
with these uses.
Grounds for Anneal
The following issues have not been satisfactorily resolved and it is hereby requested
the City withdraw its approval of zoning application ZA-12-10:
1. The owner of 450 E. 17th Street has never offered the owner of 462 E. 17th
Street a modification to the existing access and parldng easement, therefore,
if the development is approved in its current configuration, 462 E. 171h Street
tenants will not be able to park in the area specified in the easement and
there will be a planter blocking use of the ingress lane. No resolution of this
issue"has been proposed.
1
2. Of critical importance, the current site plan causes XU of the following
ingress -egress activities to simultaneously occur in the same area, thereby
causing a "confluence" of conflicting vehicle movements:
a. Two-way ingress and egress in the 20 -foot wide easement.
b. Cars and delivery trucks entering the 450 E. 17th Street site crossing
to the left through -the egress lane to enter angled parking.
c. Cars and delivery trucks backing out of the angled parking spaces
through the egress lane.
d. Cars in the drive through lane queue standing and occupying the
middle of the confluence area.
e. Cars and delivery trucks entering and exiting 462 E. 1701 Street in this
same confluence area in the limited area allocated for this use. This is
the only means of ingress and egress for cars and other vehicles to
access the parking area for 462 E. 171h Street.
3. With the expected traffic generated from the applicant's proposed food
service establishments, which have high traffic volumes, it is likely there will
occur a standstill condition and an inability to maneuver.
4. The traffic study does not address the confluence area, which is a critically
important consideration for continuing successful use of each parcel.
5. Fire department access and response time is of concern because of the
impact of the confluence area.
6. There is also the possibility that a change of use for 362 E. 17th Street will
increase the demand on the ingress -egress easement and confluence area.
Whereas 350 E. 171h Street is considering a more upscale and active use, the
use and traffic study should include parallel improvements to 462 E. 17th
Street.
7. There is the possibility that the standstill condition will cause cars and
delivery trucks to wait on 17th Street until space occurs for ingress.
2
Appendix B
ITE Trip Generation Calculations
for a Coffee Shop with Drive -Through
(Code 937)
C) Y4
450 17th St.
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 2.356 Th.Sq.Ft. GFA of Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru
April 30, 2012
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Average
Rate
Standard
Deviation
Adjustment
Factor
Driveway
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume
818.58
0.00
1.00
1929
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter
56.48
0.00
1.00
133
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit
54.27
0.00
1.00
128
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total
110.75
51.12
1.00
261
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter
21.47
0.00
1.00
51
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit
21.47
0.00
1.00
51
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total
42.93
18.28
1.00
101
Saturday 2 -Way Volume
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
Saturday Peak Hour Enter
42.26
0.00
1.00
100
Saturday Peak Hour Exit
42.26
0.00
1.00
100
Saturday Peak Hour Total
84.52
33.38
1.00
199
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Appendix C
Starbucks Trip Generation Studies
l —�.,� •� h mss+ Cr � � S�-
TABLET
j TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS'
A
Ste- C
M Land Use Code I
AM Peak Hour
PM -Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
Project Description
Generation Fact=.
• 814: Specialty Retail Center
0.61
0.39
1.00,
1.19
1.52
2.71
(TEI1,000 SF)
• 911: Walk-in Bank
_
—
5.34
6.79
12.13
(-IWI,000 SF)
• 912: Drive-in Bank
6.92
5.43
12.35
12.91
12.91
25.82
CIWI,000 SF)
0 932: High Turnover Restaurant
5.99
5.53
11.52
6,5$
4.57
11.15
CM. 000 SF)
,
Starbuok?
541-yf
1;6-43u
3.yL1
t Z -�D
1$-13
3 S. Y
34.62
34.61
6923
15.39
15.38
30.77
(TE11,000 M
GeneratFon Forecast:
4501±;:17" Street (Site)
o Existing (Vacant)
0
0
0
0
0
0
o ExistingMeoccapiedFinencial (4,619 SF)
32
25
57
60
59
119
Pro
o CofFed$tarbucks (2,356 SF)
82
81
163
36
36
72
- o Quick Service Food (2,185 SF)
13
12'
25
14
10
24
Proposed SubWal:
95
93
188
50
46
96
467, F_ 17" Street (Neighbor)
a Existing (Counted)
25
1
26
17
19
35
o E sting (Full Occupancy) t
28
1
29
19
20
39
Benchm
o Specialty Retail (7,000 SF)
4
3,
7
8
11
19
o Financial (7,000 SF)
-
—
-
37
48
85
Notes:
• TF .OM SF -Trip ends per 1,000 Sgttaze foot of development
Source: Trip Cwmervltoe, P Edition, Institute ofTranspmtation Engineers (1TE), Washington, D.C. (2005).
3 AM trip rates am from rM 820 Shopping GcnW.
3oorce: Trip an rdlon Study for fha Propo tad Slarbueks ol8m' SlreWPaey,c Coad Hlghway prepared by Id.G (2000).
{ The Boor area vacmwy was estimated to be 10K so existing counts bm been increased by 10% to reflect a fuq occupancy condition.
f�
3
TRIP GENERATION OF COFFEE SHOPS WITH COMBINATION
DRIVE-THROUGH AND SIT-DOWN FACILITIES
By the Technical Committee of the Colorado -Wyoming Section of ITE1
Abstract. A recent trend in the development of coffee shops incorporates a drive-through
facility in conjunction with the traditional sit-down coffee house. A new quandary enfolds
when transportation and traffic professionals plan new stores and search for the proper
category of trip generation estimates to fit this type of development. Should one use "Fast -
Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window", a category which contains a sufficient
sample of data necessary for reliability? Or, should an engineer use
"Coffee/Bread/Sandwich Shop", which appears as a subcategory of Fast -Food Restaurant
with Drive -Through Window, and for which only one study has been performed?
Many people, ranging from engineers and planners to politicians and the general public,
rely upon trip generation data and their resulting traffic impact studies. This diverse group
of personalities, each with its own unique perspective, would benefit from more reliable
estimates resulfing from further data collection pertaining specifically to the new breed of
coffee shop with drive-through facility.
The purpose of this study entails collection of new data on the trip generation
characteristics of coffee shops with a combination drive-through and sit-down facilities.
Furthermore, this study ties together two recent data collection efforts. This paper will
compare and analyze subtle differences in the results, differentiating between realistic
trends versus mere anomalies. The measured trip generation rates for coffee houses with
drive-through facilities are presented for use by the Transportation Professional. In
conjunction with this study, data was recently submitted to ITE for inclusion in a future
edition of Trip Generation2.
BACKGROUND
In March of 2006, Krager and Associates3 completed a study of six Starbucks coffee
houses located along the Front Range urban areas of Colorado. All six sites included a
combination of drive-through and sit-down facilities. At that time, the Technical Committee
of the Colorado/Wyoming Section of ITE (CO/WY ITE) received multiple inquiries
concerning a need for trip generation data of coffee shops with drive-through facilities.
Evidencing the broad need for data; requests originated from professionals in both the
private and public sectors. Following completion of their study, Krager and Associates
' John C. La Sala, PE, PTOE, City and County of Denver; Karl P. Packer, PE, PTOE, LSC Transportation Consultants;
William A. Hange, PE, PTOE, City of Loveland; Sean Kellar, PE, City of Loveland; Joseph Cordts, PE, City and
County of Denver; Kathleen Krager, PE, PTOE, Krager and Associates; Jessica L. Slaton, PE, PTOE, Carter and
Burgess; David R. Woolfall, PE, PTOE, Carter and Burgess; Bill Andrews, City of Greeley; Curtis D. Rowe, PE,
PTOE, Kimley-Horn; Pepper Wbittlef, PE, City of Pueblo
'Trip Generation, 7te Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
s Krager and Associates, Inc., Starbucks Coffee House, Study of Trip Generation Rates, Colorado Stores with both
Walk-in and Drive -Through Facilities. March 2006.
generously shared their study with the Technical Committee of CO/WY 1TE, who built upon
the data collection efforts by Krager-.
In addition to the study by Krager, the Fall 2005 edition of INCITER, the newsletter of the
North Central Section of ITE, contains an article by Mike Spack and Brian Bergquist4 which
summarizes trip generation rates for eight .coffee shops in metropolitan Minneapolis -St.
Paul, Minnesota. The study by the North Central Section counted four sites each of shops
with and without drive-through windows. All eight sites contained sit-down facilities. As
shown below in Table 1, for shops with drive-through windows, the trip generation rates
per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area correlated well between the two studies.
Study AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
In Out Total
INCITE, Minnesota, 2005 65 66 131
18 17 35
Krager, Colorado, 2006 59 59 118
18 20 38
Table 1: From Previous Studies, Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates per 1,000 SF GFA for
Coffee Shops with Combination Drive -Through and Sit -Down Facilities. Peak hours reference peak
hour of adjacent street traffic.
TRIP GENERATION MANUAL
Updates to the ITE Trip Geri eration5 manual occur on a cycle of approximately every five
years, with the most recent revision (7th edition) in 2003. When faced with a need for data
on coffee shops, a transportation professional would currently find limited information.
Within the category of Fast -Food Restaurant without Drive Through Window (Land Use #
933), one specialized land use contains two studies for Coffee Shop. Under the category
of Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window (Land Use # 934), one specialized
and very broad category of Coffee/Bread/Sandwich Shop is based upon only one study.
Under land use category # 935 (Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window and No
Indoor Seating), there exists a specialized listing of Coffee/Espresso Stand which also
contains only one study.
When attempting to analyze a combination drive-through/sit-down coffee shop, one could
possibly choose between the following categories from Trip Generation:
Coffee/Bread/Sandwich Shop or Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window. The
first category contains only one study, presumably conducted at a combination
coffee/bread/sandwich shop. Therefore, utilization of this specialized land use for a drive-
through/sit-down coffee shop would be conducted with caution. Perhaps, the closest land -
use category would be Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window (Land Use #
934)_ However, since coffee shops typically generate more morning trips than fast food
restaurants, -the selection of Land Use # 934 could produce skewed results in a traffic
study. Krager6 notes that inaccurate estimates have contributed to operational or
circulation problems when a site is built. Also, questionable data has occasionally caused
4 Spack, Mike and Bergquist, Brian, Coffee Shop Trip Generation Study. INCITER, Volume 22, Number 4, Fall 2005.
5 Ibid, Trip Generat#on, 7h Edition.
6 Ibid, Krager and Associates, Inc.
2
delays in access permitting where jurisdictions require more refined data. Table 2
summarizes the data available from Trip Generation for similar land uses.
ITE Land Use
Daily Trips
(# Studies)
AM
Peak
Trips
PM
Peak
Trips
Fast -Food Restaurant without Drive -Through
Window
716(l)
44 (2)
26 (4)
Coffee Shop
No data
73 (2)
29(2)_
Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window
496 21
53 59
35 110
Coffee/Bread/Sandwich Shop
No data
183 1
39 1
Table 2: Similar land uses from ITE Trip Generation manual, 7' edition, showing total trips
generated per 1,000 SF GFA. Plumber of studies are shown in parentheses.
METHODOLOGY
Because of the rapidly growing trend of combination drive-through/sit-down coffee shops, it
was decided to specifically focus our study on this land use. Also, since both the Krager
and INCITE studies counted land uses of this type, a more suitable frame of reference was
available. Since the Technical Committee was given access to the data from the Krager
study and since both parties were interested in expanding upon this study, it was agreed to
use similar methodology. Measurement of additional sites would provide a validity test of
the privately performed study. -
All traffic entering and exiting the sites were measured during weekdays (Tuesday,
Wednesday or Thursday). At a minimum, all sites were counted during the morning peak
period between 7:00 and 9:00 am. Evening peak counts were collected between the hours
of 4:00 and 6:00 pm. Since the peak hour of adjacent street traffic typically occurs during
those hours, unless a 24-hour count of the access driveways was conducted, it was
assumed that the one hour Beak obtained corresponded with the peak hour of adjacent
street traffic. If a 24-hour count of the site accesses was obtained, then morning and
evening peak hours of the generator could be determined. The Krager study obtained
counts through video taping all accesses and drive-through lanes. With the exception of
one site at which a 24-hour tube count was conducted, the Technical Committee manually
counted all vehicles entering and exiting the site, also differentiating between sit-down and
drive-through trips. As a result, both studies reported percentage of drive-through trips in
addition to entering and exiting trips.
Since the Krager study restricted their analysis to only the Starbucks brand of coffee shop,
the Technical Committee hoped to diversify the array of brands. However, within the
category of combination drive-through/sit-down facilities, no other brand was found along
the Front Range of Colorado. Perhaps, more diverse branding exists in other regions, but
other than one count taken in Chicago, Illinois, we did not have the resources readily
available to scout for shops outside of our region.
DISCUSSION OF DATA AND FUTURE NEEDS
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the trip generation data for the twelve shops included in this
study. Table 3 shows the location and characteristics for each site, while Table 4
summarizes the trip generation data. In Table 3, the final column differentiates between
stores located in-line with other facilities such as a strip -mall configuration, versus free-
standing (stand-alone) coffee shops. It should be noted that traffic was properly
differentiated in all cases with counts consisting solely of trips to and from the subject site.
As seen from Table 3, only site # 9 is located outside of Colorado. All counts were
conducted in either urban areas outside the central business district (non -CBD), or in
suburban areas. For this study, no counts were taken at stores located in rural areas.
Counts from six sites were taken from the Krager study while six more sites were counted
by the CO/WY ITE Technical Committee.
Tables 3 and 4 also represent the data which was submitted to ITE for a future edition of
Trip Generation. The averages shown at the bottom of Table 4 are weighted average trip
generation rates, calculated as specified by ITE in the Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d
Edition. The handbook states that the standard deviation should be less than or equal to
110 percent of the weighted average rate. Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
weighted average rates equal 113 total AM peak trips with a standard deviation of 23
percent, and 35 total PM peak trips with a standard deviation of 33 percent. Additionally,
for the two sites where 24-hour counts were conducted (sites number 1 and 10), AM and
PM peak hours of the generator were submitted along with the 24-hour counts. Since valid
data was available for only two sites, it is probably not considered reliable for the purposes
of trip generation estimates. When less than six data points exist, the Trip Generation
Handbook recommends usage of data with caution.
#
Street(s) or Address
City (Colorado unless
noted otherwise)
Square
Footage
In-line (IL) or Free
Standing FS
1
Kipling/Florida.
Lakewood
2,000
FS
2
Parker/Peoria
Aurora
1,916
FS
3
Leetsdale/Holly
Denver
1,798
FS
4
4465 Centennial
Blvd.
Colorado Springs
2,616
FS
5
Pearl/84th
Thornton
1,517
IL
6
Monaco/Evans
Denver
1,465
IL
7
Wildcat/Fairview
Highlands Ranch
1,750
IL
8
Sheridan/24th
Edgewater
1,520
IL
9
7101 S. Stony Island
Chicago, IL.
2,500
FS
10
Federal/44th
Denver
1,197
FS
11
1510 W. Eisenhower
Blvd.
Loveland
2,646
FS
12 1
4320 9th St.
Greeley
1,500
1L
Table 3: Sites included in this study.
' Trip Generation Handbook, 2°d Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004,
4
Site #
Square
Footage
Land Use
Trip Generation Rate per 1,000 SF GFA
PM
(Year reported)
Square
AM Peak Hour of Adjacent
Street
PM Peak Hour
Street
of Adjacent
Footage
Enter
Exit
Total
% DT
Enter
Exit
Total
I % DT
1
2,000
60
58
118
28
23
23
46
2
1,916
63
56
120
28
Fast -Food Restaurant with
53 (59)
35
3
1,798
73
81
154
26
Coffee/Bread/Sandwich Shop
183(l)
39(l)
4
2,616
44
49
92
44
16
20
37
51
5
1,517
40
42
81
81
11
13
24
73
6
1,465
81
76
158
61
18
25
43
64
7
1,750
77
70
147
66
1 17
17
34
50
8
1,520
73
73
146
63
18
18
36
54
9
2,500
33
28
60
46
14
14
28
151
10
1,197
50
67
117
22
14
36
11
2,646
37
36
73
73
12
11,500
83
181
164
62
Average
11,869 SF
56.81
156.63
113.44
50.8%
117.30
1 18.13
35.43
55.5%
Table 4: Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates per 1,000 SF. Peak hours reference peak hour of adjacent
street traffic. All data rounded off to the nearest integer. Blank cells designate an uncounted value.
Table 5 pools together all referenced data in order to provide one convenient reference. It
compares the data of this study with that of the previous studies of the identical land use of
combination sit-down/drive-through coffee shops. It also shows the data for similar land
uses from the most recent edition of Trip Generation.
Source of Data
Average
Land Use
AM
PM
(Year reported)
Square
Peak
Peak
Footage
Trips (#
Trips (#
studies)
studies
ITE Trip Generation
Fast -Food Restaurant without
44 (2)
26 (4)
2003
Drive -Through Window
ITE Trip Generation
Coffee Shop
73 (2)
29 (2)
ITE Trip Generation
Fast -Food Restaurant with
53 (59)
35
Drive -Through Window
(110)
ITE Trip Generation
Coffee/Bread/Sandwich Shop
183(l)
39(l)
INCITE, Minnesota
1,675
131 (4)
35 (4)
2005
Coffee Shop with Sit -Down and
Krager, Colorado
1,885
118 (6)
38 (6)
2006
Drive -Through Facilities
CO1WY ITE Technical
1,852
109 (6)
33 (6)
Committee 2007
Table 5: Data comparison of Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates per 1,040 5F. All values rounded off
to the nearest integer.
5
Table 5 clearly shows the close correlation between counts conducted at the identical land
use of Coffee Shop with Sit -Down and Drive -Through Facilities. It also can be clearly seen
that the existing data from Trip Generation differs substantially from the studies conducted
solely for Coffee Shop with Sit -Down and Drive -Through Facilities. Although the
independent variable is identified as square footage of gross floor area (GFA), perhaps the
presence of a store rather than its size more accurately determines trip generation
characteristics. Table 6 shows what happens when the factor of square footage is
removed from the trip generation values.
Source of Data
(Year reported)
Per store,
AM Peak
Trips
Per store,
PM Peak
Trips
INCITE, Minnesota 2000
219
57
Krager, Colorado 2006
223
72
COMY ITE Technical Committee
1(20071
201
57
1
Generation rates Per Store. All values round
Table 6: Data comparison of Peak Hour Tri p p ed off to
the nearest integer.
During the AM peak, there is little difference in variation of total trips from the average of
three studies: 6.5% for trips per 1,000 square feet, versus 6.1 % for trips per store. During
the PM peak, the variation is clearly higher for trips per store. The statistical significance
of this difference has not been analyzed. • However, this bit of study shows that trip
generation rates per store show 'no more correlation than rates per 1;000 square feet of
GFA. Also, when using 1,000 square feet of GFA as the independent variable, the
standard deviations of the AM and PM peak weighted average trip generation rates were
well within the 1TE's recommended tolerance limit'of 110 percent.
If further study is conducted on an in-depth basis, perhaps the question of the most
appropriate independent variable could be clearly determined. Further speculation
suggested that the number of drive-through windows could have more correlation.
However, at the time of this study, no sites were identified which had more than one
window while also having sit-down facilities. One site was identified with two drive -up
windows, but without accommodation for sit-down patrons. If a future trend leads to
development of a significant quantity of sit-down shops with multiple windows, then
number of drive -up windows could be analyzed as a potential independent variable.
One element not studied in this effort was the percentage of pass -by trips. As evidenced
by the tables presented in this report, coffee shops tend to attract a high percentage of
morning peak hour trips. Since the nature of coffee shop patrons is such that they stop for
coffee en route to work, it is likely that a large number of trips could be pass -by. Table
5.26 of the Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition8 depicts data for only three espresso
stands (drive-through window with no indoor seating) and shows an average pass -by
percentage of 89%. Table 5.24 of the same publication shows pass -by percentages
measured for 18 fast-food restaurants with drive-through window, with an average of 50%.
Although one could speculate that the pass -by percentage for coffee shops with drive-
through/sit-down facilities is likely at least as high as that of fast-food restaurants with
Slbid, Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition.
G1
drive-through, future study of pass -by trips at coffee shops is needed in order to identify
the appropriate percentage. Data needs for pass -by trips exist for all varieties of coffee
shops with sit-down andlor drive-through facilities.
Another aspect of facilities with drive-through facilities which interests transportation
professionals is queuing. Although queuing was not measured as a part of this study, it
could be another area of future research. To a degree, queuing can tend to be self-
regulating if drivers sense that spillback onto the street is occurring. In that case a driver
may instead park in the lot and become a walk-in patron. Other times, the driver may visit
a different facility rather than risk waiting in a long queue. However, in cases where a site
is inadequately designed, spillback onto the street can occur, thus hindering traffic flow. In
order to address this matter, it is suggested that the design incorporate sufficient parking in
order to handle potential overflow situations.
CONCLUSIONS
• The need exists for trip generation data at all types of coffee shops, involving all
combinations of drive-through and/or sit-down facilities.
• The study presented in this report focuses specifically upon coffee shops with a
combination of both sit-down and drive-through facilities.
• Data was reported per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), although further
study is needed in order to determine the most suitable independent variable. At
this time, square footage of GFA was determined to be the most likely candidate.
• Data from this study compares closely with that of two other studies of the same
land use. Using 1;000 square feet of GFA as the independent variable, AM peak
hour total trips between the three studies vary by no more than 6.5% from the
average. PM peak hour trips also vary by no more than 6.5% from the average.
• Percentage of drive-through trips for both morning and evening peak periods are
relatively consistent: 51 % during the AM peak, with 56% during the PM peak hour.
• Further study is needed in order to determine the percentage of pass -by trips at
coffee shops of all types of drive-through/sit-down combinations. Additionally, more
study could be conducted in order to measure queuing at these facilities.
• This study resulted in data submission to ITE for a future edition of Trip
Generation. The data submitted to ITE is shown in Table 4. Traffic counts
from twelve sites were submitted with an average square footage of 1,869.
Trip generation rates were reported as an average per 1,000 square feet of
GFA for both the AM and PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic.
Rounding off to the nearest integer, for the morning peak hour, the average
trip generation rate of twelve sites is 113 total trips with 50% entering and
50% exiting trips and a standard deviation of 23 percent_ For. the evening
peak hour, the average rate of eight sites is 35 total trips with 49% entering
and 51% exiting trips and a standard deviation of 33 percent.
Volume 22
Number 4
Fall 2005
• • i' " i i i •a 'i' • •
Coffee Shop Trip Generation Stud/
By Mike Spacl; PE, NCITE President and Brian Bergquist, Y1 afftc Data Inc.
E:
Coffee shops are being built at a prodigious rate. Unfortunately for transportation profes-
sionals, there is limited trip generation data on coffee shops in ITE's Trip Generation, 71,
Edition. There are two studies of coffee shops without drive-through windows and
there is one study of a coffee/bread/sandwich shop with a drive-through window in
Trip Generation. This lack of data makes it difficult for transportation professionals
to confidently assess the traffic impacts of a proposed coffee shop.
i7nEnerF
The purpose of this article is to present the results of new trip generation data col-
lected for coffee shops with and without drive-through windows. This data will help
planners and engineers assess the traffic impacts of proposed coffee shops. It will also
help them design. appropriate driveways, drive-through lanes, and parking lots for the
coffee shops.
Trip Generation
Trip generation data was collected manually by undergraduates of the University of Min-
nesota's College of Civil Engineering for their senior design project. Morning and evening
trip generation data was collected at four coffee shops with
drive-through windows and four coffee shops without drive ! INSIDE THIS EDITION
-
through windows in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan Events Calendar................................2
area of Minnesota. Data collection was performed from 6:
00 to 9:00 a.m, and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on typical weekdays in President's Message ..........................3
2005. The data was collated in accordance with ITE's Trip Meetings and Events........................4
Generation User's Guide, 7" Edition and Trip Generation
An Honor to Introduce Edward
Handbook, 2°d Edition. Bather, Past NCITE President ......... 5
The coffee shops with drive-through and sit down service
range in size from 1,200 square feet to 1,900 square feet.
The coffee shops with only sit down service range in size
from 1,300 square feet to 2,800 square feet. Three of the
coffee shops in this category are greater than 2,700 square
feet. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates for coffee
Shops with drive-through windows, and Table 2 presents the
trip generation data for coffee shops without drive-through
windows. Also presented are the trip generation rates for
the appropriate fast food service as published in ITE's Trip
Generation. The peak hours of trip generation for the cof-
fee shops occurred between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m, and 4:00 to
6:00 p.m.
continued on page 10
Roundabouts.....................................6
2006 Executive Board Election ....
7-8
Committee Updates .........................9
Membership...................... .............. l l
Student Updates ..............................I I
NCITE Award Nominations ...........
14
Current job openings can be seen on
the NCITE website at b1tp:.1/www.nc-
ite.ordiobs.btml.
Coffee Shop Trip Generation Study
...continued .6-om page I
Findings
• Coffee shops with drive-through windows have a significantly higher a.m. peak hour
trip generation rate than fast food restaurants with drive-through windows as well as
coffee shops without drive-through windows.
• The a.m. peak hour trip generation rates for coffee shops are two to four times larger
than the p.m. peak hour trip generation rate.
• P.M. peak hour trip generation rates for coffee shops are similar to the trip generation
rates for fast food restaurants, both with and without drive-through windows.
• ITE's Trip Generation a.m. and p.m. peak hour data for a coffee shop without a drive-
through window is consistent with the data collected for this study.
• ITE's Trip Generation a.m. peak hour data for a coffee/bread/sandwich shop with a
drive-through window is approximately 50% higher than the data collected for this
study.
• ITE's Trip Generation p.m. peak hour data for a coffee/bread/sandwich shop with a
drive-through window is consistent with the data collected for this study.
Notes:
a Trips per 1,000 sq ft of gross floor area.
b 6:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.th., occurred between 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 am.
` 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
d From ITE Trip Generation, 71h Edition.
IQ
MEMM'-STUDENT UPDATES AND MEMBERSHIP Fall 2005
Conclusions
The practice of using trip generation rates for fast food
restaurants without a drive-through window will yield
acceptable results when estimating trip generation for
a coffee shop without a drive-through window. Us-
ing trip generation rates for fast food restaurants with
a drive-through window will also yield acceptable results
when estimating trip generation for a coffee shop with a
drive-through window in the p.m. peak hour. However,
it will not yield acceptable results when estimating trip
generation for the a.m. peak hour. The a.m. peak hour
trip generation rate for a coffee shop with a drive-through
window is approximately 2.5 times higher than the a.m.
peak hour trip generation rate for a fast food restaurant
with a drive-through window.
Using the limited data in ITE's Trip Generation for
either the coffee shop without a drive-through window
or a coffee/bread/sandwich shop with a drive-through
window will result in accurate forecasts except during
the a.m. peak hour for a coffee shop with a drive-through
window. The a.m. peak hour trip generation rate for
a coffee/bread/sandwich shop with a drive-through
window is approximately 50% higher than the trip
generation rate of a coffee shop with a drive-through
window.
References:
1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation,
7" ed. Washington D.C.: ITE, 2003,
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation
Handbook, 21 ed. Washington D:C.: ITE, 2004.
Membership
If you or a friend has changed jobs or moved we would like to stay
it) touch. Members, please update your information by visiting htty:
//wwmile.orntdlreciories/membenarea.aso_ Youwillneedloknowyom-
membership number to access this area. Tile "username" is yourmember-
ship number, and the 'password" is the fuu st S letters of your last name
(e.g Johnson =Johns). Non-members please contact Graig Rasmussen
via phone 763.591.5442 or email oaip rasnussen@hdd1zceont. Please
provide name, title, employer, complete street address (cf AfnfDOT, also
include mailstop), telephonef av munhers and e-mail address.
Movin' & Shakin'
Brian Sorenson, Traffic / Transportation Engineer in Scott County,
has recently joined NCITE.
Joe Gustafson of Scott County has recently joined NCITE. Joe is
a Graduate Engineer.
Student Organizations
North Dakota State University ITE
by Chris McKenzie, NDSU ITE President
The North Dakota State University chapter of ITE is doing very
well this semester. We are averaging 25 people at our meetings
which range from freshman to graduate students. We have also
continued to have some very good speakers, including speakers
from Kiewit Western out of Denver to talk about the $1.67 Billion
T Rex Project that is wrapping up in Denver. We are planning on
having the North Dakota DOT commissioner for our upcoming
November meeting.
We also recently finished up a field trip to Duluth on October 13
&14. It was a two day excursion that included Port Authority
presentations, harbor tours, Lift Bridge tours and some time at the
Lake Superior Railroad Museum. All of our activities provided
us with a behind the scenes glimpse of the inner workings of how
the Duluth transportation system operates as well as its history.
Things went better than could have been expected and a good time
was had by all.
Thanks to all of the people from Duluth for all of their help and
excellent presentations! Congratulate all of the December gradu-
ates!
Interdisciplinary Student Transportation Organization
by Nathan Aul,1TSO President
ITSO members returned to classes on September 6, and the 2005-
2006 board members were elected on September 23. The now
board includes: Nathan Aul, President; Norah Montes de Oca, Vice
President; Tyler Patterson, Secretary; Xiaozheng He, Treasurer; and
Phil Cici, Communications Director. The organization is going to
continue to hold TransTalks once a month as well as to plan group
tours at least once a semester. There will again be a student paper
conference in the spring. NC -ITE is always encouraged to contact
ITSO at itso@umn.edu umn.edu with ideas for speakers as well as possible
student tours. Also, students enjoy attending NC -ITE events and
appreciate the hospitality.
A new feature of ITSO this year is the posting of members' resumes
on the website. This feature will be available in the coming weeks.
Visit htW://www.tc,unui.edu/—itso for links to these resumes as
well as to view an events calender and photos from past events.
Again, the organization greatly appreciates NC-ITE's support in
its activities.
E -Learning
ITE offers affordable, convenient learning opportunites for
transportation professionals that can be accessed from of-
fice or home computers. For a catalog of courses, visit ht�t
/lwww.deakinprime.com/Clients/lTE/ITE tool/index.html.
WSB & Associates, Inc. was recognized on ZweigWhite's list of 1- ITE Online
100 fastest-growing A/FJP and environmental firms._ `::rr� Learning
Gateway
Appendix D
City of Costa Mesa Parking Code
for Non -Residential Districts
Costa Mesa Zoning Code
ARTICLE 2. NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sec. 13-88. PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to establish parking requirements for all nonresidential zones,
nonresidential components of the Planned Development Residential zones and to mixed-use
developments in all zones.
Sec. 13-89. PARKING REQUIRED
The minimum amount of off-street parking as established in Table 13-89 shall be provided at the time:
(a) Any building and/or structure is constructed;
(b) Any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity by adding gross floor area, gross
leasable area or seats;
(c) -A specific use is proposed for a building site; or
(d) An existing use is changed to one which requires additional parking.
At all times, with the exception of the provisions of Section 13-98 DECLARATION OF LAND USE
RESTRICTION , parking shall be provided according to the requirements of Table 13-89,
See. 13-89.5. REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Where it can be shown that the required parking for a nonresidential land use will substantially exceed
the demand of the actual use, the Zoning Administrator may, by minor conditional use permit, allow a
reduction in the amount of required parking. The Zoning Administrator may place the following
conditions on the approval of the minor conditional use permit:
(a) Allow such excess parking to be provided as landscaping, plazas, courtyards, or similar open
space feature.
(b) Require recordation of a land use restriction that restricts the future use of the property to
ensure adequate parking availability.
See. 13-90. PARKING FOR USES NOT SPECIFIED
The parking requirements for the uses not specified in Table 13-89 shall be determined by the
Planning Division. The determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable
use specified in this chapter or other appropriate sources.
pn
Sec. 13-91. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
General development standards for parking areas applicable to the nonresidential zones are contained
In ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of this chapter.
91 Chapter VI Off -Street Parking Standards
Nonresidential
Revised 11199 Ordinance 99-15
Costa Mesa Zoning Code
TABLE 13-89
NONRESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS
USE
PARIMG RATIO PER GROSS FLOOR AREA,
(except as noted otherwise)
Retail; Offices; Central Administrative Offices:
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet with a minimum of 6 spaces
Establishments Where Food or Beverages are Served with no
more than 300 sq. ft. of Public Area'
Office Buildings exceeding two stories in height and 100,000
3 spaces per 1,DD0 square feet
square feet in area
Banks; Savings and Loans; Credit Unions
5 spaces per 1,000 square feet with a minimum of 6 spaces
Medical and Dental offices; Acupressure; Massage'
6 spaces per 1,000 square feet with a minimum of 6 spaces -
Furniture and Appliance Stores with floor area greater than
2 spaces per 1,DDO square feet with a minimum of 20 spaces.
5,000 square feet
Churches; Theaters; Mortuaries; Auditoriums; Services and
Within the main auditorium or assembly area: 1 space for each 3 fixed seats or
Fraternal Clubs and Lodges; Amphitheaters and other similar
1 -space for every 35 square feet of seating area if there are no fixed seats. 18
places of assembly
lineal inches of bench shall be considered equal to one fixed seat.
Racquetball and Tennis Facilities
3 spaces per court plus parking required for incidental uses such as restaurants
which shall be calculated as noted below.
Establishments Where Food or Beverages are Served with
10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for the first 3,000 sq. ft; 20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
more than 300 square feet of Public Areal
for each additional 1,ODO sq. ft. above the flr% 3,000 sq. ft, r
Health Clubs; Spas; Figure Salons; Skating Rinks; Game
10 spaces per 1,000 square feet
Arcades
Bowling Alleys
3 spaces per lane plus parking required for incidental uses such as restaurants
which shall be calculated as noted under "Establishments Where Food or
Beverages are Served`.
Trade Schools; Business Colleges; Dancing and Music
'10 spaces per 1,000 square feet
Academies
Garden centers: Plant nurseries
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, and
2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor display area.
Motels
I space for each rentable unit without cooking facilities. Each rentable unit
with cooking facilities shall be governed by residential parking standards,
Hotels
1 space for each two rentable units plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. rt. for the first
3,000 sq. ft., and -20 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft. for each additional 1, DOD sq, ft,
above the first 3,000 sq. ft. for restaurant, banquet, meeting room and kitchen
spaces.
Establishments limited to searing for 12 or fewer persons prior to June 4, 1997 shall remain at that seating limit unless additional parking is
provided pursuant to this Zoning Code.
' Where die boundaries of an outdoor seating area can Int: readily established, the outdoor seating area shall be added to the gross floor area of the
building for purposes of determining the required parking. Where the boundaries for an outdoor seating area cannot be readily established, parking for
the outdoor seating area shall be provided at a ratio of one space per table.
When the approval of a use permit is required, the final review authority may require additional parking spaces at a ratio not to exceed 30 spaces per
1,000 squame feet of floor area of the entire building. Factors that may warrant additional parking include, -but are not limited to, the provision of
entertainment and/or dancing. -or substantial ratio of floor area devoted to bar as compared to restaurant use. The maximum parking rate shall be
applicable to uses that have substamially maximized the building's occupancy due to design and provision of concentrated uses.
Chapter A Off -Street parking Standards - 92
Nonresidential
Revised 3/913 Ordinance 98-5; Revised 3102 Ordinance 024
i
Costa Mesa Zoning Code
TABLE 13.89
NONRESIDENTIALPARIMG STANDARDS
USE
PARKING RATIO PER GROSS FLOOR AREA
(except as noted otherwise)
Establishments with live Entertainment, i.e, go-go dancers,
1 parking space for each patron for the first 100 persons as authorized by
topless dancers, bikini dancers
capacity signs posted by the fire department; 1 parking space for each 2 persons
for every 101 to 30D persons as authorized by capacity signs posted; I parking
space for each 3 persons for every 301 plus persons as authored by capacity
signs posted by the fire department.
Sbopping Centers with a minimum of 600,000 square feet of
contiguous gross leasable area:
kklana g irhym- or a�y�rrn nfahrrttirsv ctrnrhrrsl
Retail
5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area
Establishments where food or beverages are served
I space per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area
occupying 5%u or less of the total contiguous gross
leasable area
Establishments where food or beverages or served
5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area
in excess of 5%ofthe total contiguous gross
leasable area
Office Space occupying l0•/ or less of the total
None
contiguous gross leasable area
Office Space in excess or io% of the total
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet orgross leasable area with a minimum of 6
contiguous gross leasable area
spaces
Theaters (maulative)
•750 seats and less
5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area
more than 750 seats
5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable arca plus 3 spaces for each
additional 100 seats
rc ��in irrr;tan:ting srmrtnres
Establishments where food or beverages are served
10 spaces per 1,001) square feet of gross leasable area
AE others
Pursuant to this table
Mixed Use Developments
When there are mixed uses within a single development which share the same
panting facilities, the total requirement for parking shall be determined as
outlined in "City of Costa Mesa Procedure fin Determining Shared Parking
Requirements' which are included herein by this reference and which may be
amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council, A greater
reduction in parking then would be allowed under this procedure may be
approved by minor conditional use permit where it can be demonstrated that
less parking is needed due to the hours of operation or other unusual features of:
the users involved. -
Formixed use developments located in the Mored -Use Overlayzone, refer to
the applicable urban plan far parking rates.
Industrial
3 parking spaces shall be provided per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for
the fust 25,00D square feet of building,
Z parking spaces shall be provided per I,000 square feet of gross floor area
between 25,000 and 50,OOD square feet of building; and
One and one-half parking spaces shall be provided per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area over 50,001 square feet of building,
93 Chapter Vl Off-Streat Parking
Nonresidentlal
Revised 9103 Ordinance 03-8; 4106 Ordinance 0"
CITY OF COSTA MESA
PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
(Ail Zones except R1)
Revised November 1, 1999 per Resolution #99-74
STANDARD STALLS
1� F
dr PAINT
f9Y 11199
SMALL CAR STALLS
R �S7I
�i .
STANDARD STALLS
SMALL CAR STALLS
Stall Dimensions
Stall Dimensions
Parking
Angle`
Aisle Wtdih
1 way/2 way
D
(Commercial
-and Industrial)
W
(Residential)
Parking
Angle .
Aisle width
1 way /2way
D
W
30
15'120'
16'
18'
17'
30
15720''
13' 16 '/z'
45
15720'
18.1/
13'
12'
45
15'120'
14'%z' :
12'
50
15'12U.
19'
IT _
ill
50
15`120' "'
151.
11'
60
18'124'
20'
10'/2'
10'
60-.
15720'
16'
10'
70
21721'
.18 /z'
9 1/'
8' •
70 .
15'120'
16'
9'
80
23'/23'
18'
9'
8%,
SD18'!'120'
16'
8'
90
25725'
18'
9'
8 '/2'
90
22'!22'
16'
8'
*Other
parking angles
are also
permitted, Consult the Planning Division when proposing alternative dimensions.
STANDARD STALLS
1� F
dr PAINT
f9Y 11199
SMALL CAR STALLS
R �S7I
�i .
-'
v
PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
(All Zones Except Rl)
1. At parking areas containing more than 2 spaces shall provide forward motion access to and from the public street, unless an
exception is approved by the Planning Division.-
2.
ivision.2. Parting areas shag provide internal circulation or sufficient• designated tumaround space. Turnaround area, as shown on the
reverse side of this sheet, shall be provided at the end of ail dead-end parking aisles exceeding 100 feet in length: Other
ttmtaround arrangements providing the same maneuverabilitymay be approved by the Planning Division.
3. Of the requim d'slab depth, the maxiniu m allowance of bumper overhang Into a landscaped area is 2 -feet for standard and small car stalk. _
This area may not be tnduded In the futiiUment of the landscaping requirements for the site, nor may it encroach Into the necided street
setback.
4. Carports and stalls in padding stnrctures shall provide a dear inside dimension equal to the nequired width for open stalls; vertical suppors .
shall be messed 4 feet barn acoess aisle. Other deslgns providing the same accessibility may be appinved by lha Planning D•akisio.n.
5. Residential garage pardng slays shalt maintain an unobstructed Inside dimension of at least 10 feet In vddth and 20 feet ip length. Garages
shalt be provided vAh a minimum doorwidth of B feet for single garages and 16 feet for double garages.
6. Stalls (open and carports) with vertical restrictions at the "side (walls, fences, shrubs, etc.) shall be increased In width 1• fpot over the
width normally required.
7. When necessary due to constraints, minor redactions In the aisle width may be approved by the Planning Division, provided the
stall width is increased accordingly,
8. Site plans shall be drawn to scale.
9. Small car parting shall be reasonably distributed throughout the project situ and shall be subject to review and approval of the
Manning Division.
10. Parallel parking stalls shall be 18 feet in length and B feet wide, except that parallel parking stalls for small ppm stipQ be 1.5 €eat in
length and 7 feet wide. 4 feet shall be provided at each and of each parallel parking space or 8 feet shell be provided between
every other parking space.
STANDARD T -H i �8' --8' I F
SMALL" CAR jg� fir•7*
OR r
11. liandicapped stalls ship be provided according to Title 24, Part 2 of the 1995 California Building Code (shown below), or any
future amendment to the provisions.
Total Plumber of
Parking Spaces
1-25
26-50
61-75
76-100
101-150
151-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-1000
1001 -over
` 2 pencerd of total
20 plus i for each 100, or fraction thereof over 1 OD1,
Required Minimum Number of
Accessible Spaces
1
2
3
4
5
B
7
8 -
9
One handicapped stall shall be at least 18 feet In length and 17 feet wide. Additional handicapped stalls shall be at least 18 feet in
length and 14 feet wide. Haridicap parking destgn and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Division.
12, Where feasible, small car parking shall be provided according to the Drachman System (see below).
ax
WALL CAR
s. b
S
ill ' A
p tP
l
rev 1IF99 - - - - - - - • r
Appendix E
ULI Time -of -Day Factors