Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMariners Mile Gateway (PA2004-141) 100-600 W Coast HwyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 6— December 8, 2005 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department David Lepo, Contract Planner (949) 553 -1427 diepo@hogleireland.com SUBJECT: Mariner's Mile Gateway - Development Plan No. 2004 -001, Use Permit No. 2004 -025 and Modification Permit No. 2005 -117 (PA2004 -130) 100 -600 West Coast Highway APPLICANT: Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC RECOMMENDATION Review the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Development Plan, Use Permit and Modification Permit, receive public comments, either: a) adopt Resolution No. adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2005101141 and approving Development Plan No. 2004 -001, Use Permit 2004 -025 and Modification Permit No. 2005 -117 for development of a 56,000 square foot retail center with underground parking at 100 -600 West Coast Highway, or: b) deny the applications by making the Findings for Denial. DISCUSSION Background Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC submitted an application for a Development Plan, Use Permit and Modification Permit for construction of a 56,000 square foot retail center with underground parking on a 2.57 -acre lot on the northwest corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The site is currently developed with one and two -story commercial buildings which are to be demolished to accommodate the proposed retail center. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 3 of 30 The project site is designated Retail and Service Commercial in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and RSC (Retail Service Commercial) on the Zoning Map. These designations permit the proposed retail center. An Initial Study prepared for the proposed development indicated that the project could have significant environmental issues effects, but that mitigation measures included as conditions of project approval would reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. Consistent with this determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Project Setting The subject property is located at the northwest comer of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive in the area identified in the Zoning Ordinance as the Mariner's Mile Overlay District. The property is approximately 112,000 square feet in area and presently improved.with one and two -story commercial buildings. A fast -food restaurant abuts the west side of the property. Single- family residences are located to the north on a bluff above and to the south across West Coast Highway. The project site is situated at the base of the bluff that runs parallel to West Coast Highway and ranges in elevation from approximately 61' at the eastern end of the property to 77' at the western end. Nine curb cuts allow vehicular access to the site from West Coast Highway. One curb cut provides access from Dover Drive on the east. Project Description The 2.57 -acre site is proposed to be improved with a 56,000 square -foot retail center that includes subterranean parking. The retail center consists of a 43,000 square -foot, two -story structure mufti- tenant retail building set into the bluff at the north property line of the project site and a 13,000 square -foot drugstore building located adjacent to the wester property line. Approximately 7,300 square -feet of landscaping is proposed located in planters adjacent to rights -of -way, pedestrian walks, and the rooftop gardens. The project includes a surface parking lot of 53 stalls and a two-level subterranean lot with 356 parking spaces. An alternative single -level parking garage design under consideration by.the applicant would reduce the number of parking spaces to 294. Construction of the subterranean parking garage would require excavation and removal of dirt to a level 27' below grade. The project also proposes substantial excavation of the bluff. On the western 1/3 of the property, the bluff extends to within 55'. of the West Coast Highway property line. The applicant proposes to excavate the bluff to the north property line for the full length of the lot. It is anticipated that approximately 190,000 cubic feet (ft) of dirt would be excavated and approximately 90,000 cubic yards of dirt would be hauled off - site. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 7141) December 8, 2005 Page 4 of 30 The applicant describes the architectural theme of the project as a Mediterranean fishing village. The project proposes slate tile roofing, cement plaster walls and extensive use of stone veneer. Window features include arches, wooden shutters and fabric awnings. The overall architectural theme of the proposed project will complement nearby properties. Floor Area and Building Bulk A maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.5/0.75 for the project site is established in the Mariner's Mile Area (Statistical Area H4), Bayclub/Dover, of the General . Plan. The proposed project complies with the 0.5 base floor area allocation. Any future occupancy for a use in Table 20.63 of the Zoning Code that would cause the site to exceed the base development allocation would be subject to approval of a Use Permit. Because no part of the subterranean parking garage is above grade, the area of the garage does not need to be included in calculation of building bulk, and the project is, therefore, in compliance with the Zoning Code. On -site Vehicular Circulation and Parking Proposed vehicular access to the project site is to be provided via three driveways on West Coast Highway, each with one inbound and one outbound lane. Fifty -three parking spaces are provided in the surface parking lot, 47 of which are located in a row of parking adjacent to West Coast Highway. A second row of six spaces is located adjacent to the north property line of the site. As recommended by the City Engineer, access to these spaces will be taken from a one -way eastbound drive aisle so as to reduce potential conflicts with delivery trucks entering and exiting the drugstore loading space. Access to the subterranean parking structure is provided by two ramps. A two -way ramp is located between the multi- tenant retail building and West Coast Highway. A one -way down ramp is located at the. northerly property line west of the multi- tenant retail building. Two - way circulation is provided in the subterranean levels. A designated turnaround area with a five -foot wide hammerhead is provided at the end of dead end drive aisles as recommended by the Traffic Engineer (Condition of Approval #40). The applicant is proposing to relocate three of the existing vehicular access points at the project site and eliminate seven others. The westernmost driveway (Driveway 1) would be located near the proposed drugstore building approximately 810 feet west of the Coast Highway /Dover Drive intersection. The middle of the three driveways (Driveway 2) would be located approximately 580 feet west of the Coast Highway /Dover Drive intersection and the easternmost driveway (Driveway 3) would be located near the center of the main retail building and approximately 340 feet west of the Coast Highway /Dover Drive intersection. As conditioned, all driveways will be a minimum width of 28' (Condition of Approval #46). Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 5 of 30 The configuration of the main vehicular entrance and the drive aisle providing access to adjacent parking spaces is a concern to City staff. Conflicts between vehicles queuing to the signalized driveway exit and those backing from parking spaces into the drive aisle are likely. In addition, vehicles moving from the subterranean parking garage to the signalized exit must travel the entire length of the site via a drive aisle that provides access to adjacent parking spaces. In both instances, the drive aisle configurations result in inefficient, circuitous vehicular movements. West Coast Highway currently includes three westbound lanes at Dover Drive and narrows to two westbound lanes 280 feet west of the Coast Highway /Dover Drive intersection and adjacent to the project site. As a traffic mitigation measure and a condition of approval for the proposed project, the applicant would be required to dedicate right -of -way for West Coast Highway and to widen and improve the roadway at this location approximately two feet, plus a 50 to 1 taper (Condition of Approval #19). The dedication would extend a distance of 570 feet westerly from a point approximately 320 feet west of the West Coast Highway and Dover Drive intersection. Roadway widening and related improvements would result in two westbound through lanes and one westbound through /right -turn lane at the project frontage on Coast Highway. The through /right turn lane would taper and merge with the adjoining through lane at a point over 600 feet west of the Coast Highway /Dover intersection. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to install a traffic signal at the main driveway entrance to the retail center and to construct a raised median in West Coast highway that would define a dedicated left -turn lane on eastbound Coast Highway to accommodate signal - protected left turns into the center. The left -turn lane would be approximately 150 feet in length and accommodate left -turn queuing of up to six vehicles. A warrant analysis for the proposed traffic signal, based on projected traffic volumes, is included as Attachment 4. Based on Caltrans criteria, installation of the traffic signal in conjunction with operation of the proposed retail center is justified. An analysis of projected vehicle queuing between existing traffic signals on Coast Highway at Balboa Bay Club and at Dover Drive and at the proposed traffic signal is included with this report as Attachment 5. The queuing analysis indicates that sufficient vehicle stacking space would be available on both Coast Highway and on the project site such that no vehicles would be blocking opposing traffic at any of the three intersections at the end of any signal phase. Construction of the additional westbound through /right turn lane, the raised median and left -turn lane, and installation of the traffic signal are all subject to review and approval by Caltrans. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 6 of 30 Planning Commission Actions Mitigated Negative Declaration An Initial Study prepared for this project consistent with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) indicated "no impact" or "less than significant impact" in the following topical areas: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Utilities and Service Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance The Initial Study indicated the need for mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level in the following topical areas: • Air Quality • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Transportation/Traffic With mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval indicated in the Initial Study and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included with the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Potentially significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures and standard conditions for proposed residential subdivisions are paraphrased in Table 1. Supplemental explanatory text relating to traffic and air quality impacts is included as Exhibit 5. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 7 of 30 Table 1- Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Measure Air Quality Violation of air quality standard or contribution Condition AQ -1 to an existing or projected air quality violation. • During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specked in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rules and Regulations. • All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. • All material transported on -site or off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • These control techniques shalt be indicated in Project specifications. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. • Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the Project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. Condition AQ -2 Project grading plans shall show the duration of construction. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 8 of 30 Impact Measure manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City. Condition AQ -3 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial Condition AQ -1 pollutant concentrations. Condition AQ -2 Condition AQ -3 Creation of objectionable odors affecting a Condition AQ-4 substantial number of people. Restaurant uses (i.e., food processing and preparation operations) shall adhere to SCAQMD Rules 1131 and 1138. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to inspection by the City, and SCAQMD if applicable. Geology and Soils Location on unstable soils or soils that could Condition GEO -1 become unstable resulting in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse In coordination with adjacent property owners, the project engineer shall perform an assessment of the existing drainage control systems that discharge into the site from upslope locations. Consideration shall be given to a final project design that would incorporate runoff originating from the rear of the upslope properties into the project drainage plan. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 9 of 30 Impact Measure Condition GEO -2 A qualified geologist shall observe the excavations at the site to map the geologic structure and to verify that the geologic conditions exposed in the excavations are consistent with those anticipated within the geologic evaluations. The project shall adopt recommendations of the geologist. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Creation of a significant hazard through the Condition HAZ -1 use or disposal of materials. Any hazardous waste that is generated on -site shall be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with the appropriate State and Federal laws. Hydrology and Water Quality Violation of water quality standards or waste Condition HYD -1 discharge requirements The project applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of the Notice of Intent acknowledgement from the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board must be submitted to the City of Newport Beach before issuance of grading permits. Condition HYD -2 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be completed and approved by the City of Newport Beach for construction activities on -site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available at the construction site and the SWPPP shall be implemented at all times. The SWPPP shall outline the source control and/or treatment control BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the maximum extent practicable. Condition HYD -3 Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 10 of 30 impact Measure Prior to completion of the final construction plans, the Applicant shall submit a dewatering plan for review and approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works. The Applicant shall comply with the approved dewatering plan. Condition HYD -4 Prior to any dewatering activities, the Applicant shall obtain and comply with a general dewatering NPDES permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Condition HYD -5 The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) completed for the project, which identifies Nonstructural and Structural BMPs and the entities responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance and funding for all BMPs, shall be submitted for approval by the City of Newport Beach prior to the issuance of building permits. Potential for discharge of stormwater Condition HYD -1 pollutants. Condition HYD -2 Condition HYD -5 Potential for discharge of stormwater to affect Condition HYD-1 beneficial uses of receiving waters. Condition HYD -2 Condition HYD -3 Condition HYD -4 Condition HYD -5 Increase in erosion of the site or surrounding Condition HYD -1 areas. Condition HYD -2 Condition HYD -3 Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 11 of 30 Impact Measure Condition HYD-4 Condition HYD -5 Noise Exposure of persons to noise in excess of Condition N -1 standards. Limitation of construction activities to the hours between 7 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday and between 8 AM and 6 PM on Saturdays. No construction on Sundays or legal holidays. Condition N -2 During all project site excavation and grading, the construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufactures' standards. Condition N -3 The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Condition N -4 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging areas that would create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors . nearest the project site during all project construction. Exposure of persons to excessive vibration or Condition N -1 noise levels. Condition N -2 Condition N -3 Condition N -4 Permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Condition N -5 Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 12 of 30 Impact Measure The cooling tower structure (except the rooftop) shall be composed of a material that has a density of 3.5 pounds per square foot of surface area. Noise levels emanating from the cooling tower shall not exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA. Additionally, upon final design, the angle of the rooftop louvers shall be set so that noise is directed away from the residences on the bluff along Kings Road. Condition N -6 Upon final design, the project applicant shall orient the parking structure ventilation intake/exhaust components away from both residential and on -site uses. Substantial temporary increase in noise levels. Condition N -1 Condition N -2 Condition N -3 Condition NA Transportation/Traffic Substantial increase in traffic in relation to Condition TRA existing traffic. Balboa Bay Club Driveway/West Coast Highway (SR -1) — The project applicant shall make a fair share contribution to re- stripe /widen the westbound West Coast Highway (SR-1) approach from one left -turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right - turn lane to consist of one left -tum lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right- turn lane. Condition TR -2 Driveway 1/West Coast Highway (SR -1) — The project applicant shall re- stripe/widen the westbound West Coast Highway (SR -1) approach from two through lanes and one dedicated right -turn lane to consist of two through lanes and one shared through/right- Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 13 of 30 Impact Measure turn lane. West Coast Highway (SR -1) west of the Driveway 1/West Coast Highway (SR -1) intersection would need to be widened by approximately two feet plus a 50 to 1 taper to accommodate the additional through lane. Substantially increase in circulation hazards Condition TR -3 due to design. Any obstacles within the parking facility (i.e., building columns, mechanical building systems, reduced overhead clearances, etc.) shall be clearly marked to alert motorists to potential conflicts. Condition TR-4 Site access intersections shall be clear of any visual obstructions (i.e., landscaping, monumentation and /or signing, aboveground utilities, etc.) that could impair drivers' sight distance. Development Plan Review The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile Overlay District defined in the Zoning Code. Accordingly, proposed projects are subject to Development Plan Review to determine consistency with the policies set forth in the Zoning Code for this district and with the architectural design guidelines in the companion "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework." Findings that reflect policies applicable to development within the Mariner's Mile Overlay District are set forth below. Findings that reflect policies applicable to development within the Mariner's Mile Overlay District are set forth below. If the project is to be approved, the Planning Commission must be able to determine that the project, based upon the Commission's understanding of the relative project features or "facts ", is consistent with all required findings. If the facts set forth below are consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding of the project, the Development Plan may be approved: Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 14 of 30 Finding: 1. To assure that development of properties in Mariner's Mile Overlay Area will not preclude attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies. Facts: Policy D of the Land Use Element states as follows: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Although the applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow increased building height for both structures, the main retail structure will be set back from the street so as not to obstruct views from traffic on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive of the Bay. The proposed drugstore will be located near the property line rather than the bluff in order to place the store's loading zone between the bluff and the public right -of -way. The applicant proposes to construct a retaining wall along the north property line to maximize the building area on the site. The retaining wall will require a substantial portion of the bluff to be excavated; however the majority of the excavation will occur at the western 1/3 of the site. At this location, the property is approximately 145' in depth, and the north property line of the site is up to 90' north of the toe of the bluff. The largest extent of the excavation of the bluff would be approximately 85'. Without excavation, the developable area will be limited to approximately 55' in depth at the western end of the property. The applicant also proposes to excavate the bluff and install a retaining wall for the remaining 213 of the property however the excavation is limited to under 20' from the toe of the bluff toward the north. As proposed, the project is reliant on excavation of the bluff to proceed, and the policy discussion states that the City is committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. The Planning Commission may determine that the bluff is a unique natural resource and that excavation and retaining wall proposed would represent a significant alteration of this unique landform. Accordingly, the finding could not be made that the project is consistent with Policy D of the General Plan. Development of properties along Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Rocky Point required excavation of the bluff and construction of retaining walls, although few included walls at the rear property line that necessitated cuts into the bluff as Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 15 of 30 extensive as that proposed line. Also, many properties are developed to the point that the bluff is not visible from Coast Highway. At the subject site, the new retaining wall will not be visible for approximately 2/3 of its length, but will be visible between the retail building and the drugstore, and behind the drugstore. For the visible section, the applicant proposes a decorative rock covering and vines that will give the wall a natural appearance. Finding: 2. To protect and preserve the value of properties and to encourage high quality development thereof in Mariner's Mile Overlay Area where adverse effects could result from inadequate and poorly planned development and from failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, and will result in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. Facts: Design and materials will be of high quality commensurate with the highly visible location on the corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. Natural landscape features are preserved to the extent feasible. The Planning Commission may determine that the bluff at the northerly portion of the property is a natural landscape feature that should be preserved. In this event, excavation of the base of the bluff and construction of the retaining wall would not be consistent with this finding. Finding: 3. To ensure that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and public facilities within Mariner's Mile Overlay Area shall be protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of private buildings, structures and open spaces. Facts: Improvements to public facilities will be protected. The main retail structure will be set back from the West Coast Highway property line and situated at the base of the bluff, while the proposed drugstore will be set back from the West Coast Highway property line approximately 6' -7' with a landscape planter between the building and the right -of -way. Extensive landscaping is proposed throughout the site as are pedestrian walkways and seating areas Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 16 of 30 Finding: 4. To promote the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining Coast Highway, a thoroughfare of city wide importance; to ensure that the community benefits from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean; and to preserve and stabilize the grounds adjoining said thoroughfare, and to preserve and protect the property values in said areas. Facts: The multi- tenant retail structure will be located at the base of the existing bluff, however the bluff will still be visible behind the building. The drugstore building will be setback from the bluff, and the bluff and proposed retaining wall will be visible. The retaining wall will be constructed with a stone finish and landscaping will be added to give a natural appearance. Alternatively, excavation of the bluff may be viewed as substantial modification of the natural terrain thereby eliminating the community benefit associated with the view of the bluff. If the Planning Commission cannot affirm that these facts are an accurate representation of the project's conformity with "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework ", the request for Development Plan approval should be denied. Architectural guidelines set forth in the "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework" that promote achievement of policies of the Mariner's Mile Overlay District are indicated below. Guidelines are paraphrased below and are accompanied by brief statements relating to the architectural design of the proposed project. The Planning Commission must agree that the statements relating to the architectural design are indicative of compliance with the design policies if the project is to be approved. a. Architecture — building designs should be "five- sided'; meaning that attention to the design of the roof is important and buildings should respect views from above. Detail is provided on the roof with the inclusion of a rooftop garden and reflecting pool on the main structure and the screening of mechanical equipment from both the public right- of -wav and the residential Drooerties above. b. Color and Materials Palette — The Design Framework establishes a basic color scheme where the building color is neutral and is 90% of the building. Contrasting trim elements, being light or dark, are to be no more than 10% of the building. Neutral colors are proposed for exterior walls. Contrasting colors are subdued. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 17 of 30 c. Landscaping — The Design Framework establishes landscape guidelines, which are also incorporated into the Zoning Code. Three primary landscaping elements are required: 1) a 4 -foot wide planting area and palm row at the back of the sidewalk; 2) interior parking lot landscaping; and 3) bluff landscaping incorporating plant materials from a specific palette of species. The proposed project includes the required planting area behind the sidewalk with the exception of one section of frontage, for which a Modification Permit is requested. Staff has included a condition of approval related to compliance with all other landscape standards including vegetation on the bluff and required parking lot landscaping. d. Signs — The Design Framework establishes sign guidelines, which are also incorporated into the Zoning Code. No signage is proposed at this time; therefore, staff has included a condition of approval requiring compliance with sign standards. e. Lighting - The Design Framework states that lighting should be purposeful and respectful". Staff has included conditions of approval that address lighting to ensure compliance with these guidelines. Walls — The Design Framework specifies the use of split -face block, textured concrete or crib -wall systems with landscaping for retaining walls. The applicant proposes to construct a retaining wall with a natural rock formation. g. Site Access — The Design Framework encourages the elimination of drive approaches to reduce potential vehicle conflicts. The site presently has eight drive approaches on West Coast Highway and one on Dover Drive. The applicant is proposing to eliminate six of the approaches to allow vehicular access to the site via three driveways on West Coast Highway. If the Planning Commission cannot affirm that these facts are an accurate representation of the project's conformity with "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework ", the request for Development Plan approval should be denied. Use Permit The project site is located in the 26/35 height limitation zone established by the Zoning Code. Buildings within this height limitation zone may be up to 26 feet by right and up to 35 feet in height after approval of a Use Permit. Approval of a Use Permit for the additional building height may be granted by the Planning Commission upon making Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 18 of 30 findings set forth in Chapter 20.65 of the Zoning Code and indicated below. If the Use Permit is to be approved, the Planning Commission must be able to determine that the site configuration and building design are sufficiently improved as a result of the additional building height, based upon the Commission's understanding of the relative project features or "facts ", and warrant approval of the Use Permit. If the facts set forth below are consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding of the project, the Use Permit may be approved: Finding: A. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts: The project will not interfere with public visual open space and views because the main shopping center building is setback against the bluff property line. View corridors from Coast Highway to the northeast across Dover Drive to the bay and from Dover Drive southwest toward Coast Highway are not interrupted because portions of the multi - tenant building that exceeds 26' are setback from the Coast Highway property line approximately 40'. At the corner of the property near the intersection of Coast Highway and Dover Drive, extensive landscaping is proposed to soften the building mass. The structure will also provide public open space on the second floor. Approximately 8,300 square feet of outdoor seating area is provided, in addition to rooftop gardens, a reflecting pool and a fire pit. The public spaces provided within the project site, however, could be viewed as those typical for a retail shopping center, and not represent an increase in public visual open space. Additionally, the main visual feature on the site, the bluff, is being eliminated if the project is built. An alternative to the increased height would be to eliminate the second floor of the structure and add an equivalent amount of building area on the first floor. This would result in less open space and landscaped areas. The increased height of the drugstore will not result in more public visual open space. The drugstore is one story and the additional requested height accommodates a parapet wall that shields the rooftop mechanical equipment from the public right -of -way. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 19 of 30 Finding: B. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts: The increased building height allows for more enhanced architectural character resulting from varying roof lines. Extensive use of wall planes enhances the elevation and provides visual relief and shadows along the entire frontage. Without the increased height, the second floor of the building would most likely be eliminated, and the applicant would not provide the proposed outdoor seating areas on the second floor if there were no shopping and dining areas. The design of the multi- tenant building includes varying ridge heights rather than a uniform height for the full length. 22 different height variations are proposed ranging between 20' and 35', for an average height of 29' Although the overall height of the proposed drugstore measures 29' -6 ", the portion that exceeds the height limit would screen the rooftop mechanical equipment which contributes to the five -sided architecture of the project. The ceiling measures less than 26', however the parapet extends approximately 7' higher. A canopy is also proposed to further screen the equipment from the residential properties on the bluff. The height increases to 34' -6" at the corner in order to provide a tower element that lends dynamic balance to the overall building appearance. Finding: C. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts: The site is bounded on the south and east by West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, on the west by a fast -food restaurant, and on the north by the bluff and single - family residences beyond. The increased building height would not result in undesirable scale relationships to the south because the West Coast Highway right -of -way is over 100 feet wide; there is no building within 120' and the majority of the multi- tenant building is set back more than 25' from the Coast Highway property line. To the east the Dover Drive right -of -way is over 200' wide. The increased height will not result in undesirable scale relationships to the north but serves as a vertical transition to the top of the bluff. The top of the bluff ranges between 1 1' and 36' above the roof lines of the buildings. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 20 of 30 A one -story fast -food restaurant is located to the west of the property and is approximately 21 feet in height. This structure is located on the eastern half of the lot approximately 30' from the side property line. The drugstore parapet height adjacent to the restaurant property is 28' -6 ". The height variation between the two structures is not abrupt because the difference in height is only T -6" and the buildings are over 30' apart. Finding: D. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts: The proposed floor area ratio of the project is 0.50, which is permitted in the RSC District; therefore, the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. Because the applicant proposes subterranean parking, more surface open space is provided than could be achieved with an above - ground parking structure. The applicant proposes approximately 7,300 square -feet of landscaped areas on -site, most of which would be eliminated with an above ground parking structure. The applicant proposes 53 surface parking stalls and large pedestrian walkways, seating areas and landscaping in areas around the surface parking lot. A parking structure would eliminate much of the open areas. Because the proposed drugstore exceeds the height limit in order to screen the mechanical equipment and add to the building appearance, a second floor is not proposed and no additional floor area is gained by the increased height. If the facts set forth above are not consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding of the project, the Use Permit should be denied. Modification Permit Reduced Building Setback The applicant requests a Modification Permit allowing the 43,000 square -foot mufti- tenant retail building and integral retaining wall to encroach into the required 5' setback adjacent to residential properties abutting the north property line of the project site. The nearest residential structure is approximately 40 feet from the proposed retaining wall. The Planning Commission may grant a modification permit upon making findings as in Chapter 20.93 of the Zoning Code and indicated below. If Modification Permit is to be Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 21 of 30 approved, the Planning Commission must be able to determine that the physical limitations, based upon the Commission's understanding of the relative project site features or 'facts", are sufficiently restrictive as to warrant waiver of the respective development standards. If the facts set forth below are consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding.of the limitations of project site, the Modification Permit may be approved: Finding A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts: The practical difficulties associated with the property involve the limited lot depth between West Coast Highway and the bluff property line and the further reduction in lot depth resulting from dedication of additional right -of -way for Coast Highway improvements. The property depth near the intersection of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway is approximately 85', and gradually widens towards the west. As a condition of developing the property, the applicant is dedicating an approximate 7,854 square - foot strip of land for West Coast Highway widening. The dedication will reduce the lot depth from the current 137' at the central portion of the property to approximately 115'. On the eastern half of the lot, the multi- tenant building is set back from Coast .Highway to provide pedestrian areas and surface parking although the RSC District does not require a building setback along Coast Highway. In addition, providing a 5' setback along the bluff would create an unused "dead space" that could become an attractive nuisance. Required minimum setbacks are intended as buffers between commercial and residential uses. In this case, the retaining wall and bluff provide significant vertical separation of the differing uses. Finding: B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8. 2005 Page 22 of 30 Facts: The requested modification will not be incompatible with existing development because the properties that would be most affected are shielded from the commercial building by the bluff Alternatively, the height of the proposed incompatible with existing development in property to the west is only 15' in height. Finding: retaining wall (55') may be found to be that the retaining wall on the adjoining C. The granting of such application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts: Granting the modification will not affect the health or safety nor be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. As stated, the setback is intended to provide a buffer between the commercial land use and adjacent residential uses. The bluff provides a vertical buffer as the elevations of the residences above the site are between 35' and 40' higher. If the facts set forth above are not consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding of the limitations of project site, the Modification Permit should be denied. Modification Permit Reduced Landscaped Setback The project is located in the Mariner's Mile Overlay. A minimum 4 -foot wide planting area along Coast Highway is required, measured from the back of the sidewalk across the entire frontage except where either buildings or driveways are proposed. The applicant is requesting a Modification Permit to allow a 64 linear foot section of the landscape planter to be developed at less than 4' in width. The proposed Modification Permit may be approved by the Planning Commission upon making findings set forth within Chapter 20.93 of the Zoning Code and indicated below. If the Modification Permit is to be approved, the Planning Commission must be able to determine that the physical limitations, based upon the Commission's understanding of the relative project site features or "facts ", are sufficiently restrictive as to warrant waiver of the respective development standards. If the facts set forth below are consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding of the limitations of project site, the Modification Permit may be approved Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 23 of 30 Finding: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts: The practical difficulties associated with the property involve the limited lot depth between West Coast Highway and the bluff property line and further reduction due to the right -of -way dedication. The section of landscape that is less than the 4' required is located near the widest area of the dedication. In order to provide for the dedication and provide the highest number of surface parking stalls, the landscaping is reduced to between 2' and 3'. Finding: B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood Facts: The modification will be compatible with development in the neighborhood because the reduced landscape depth is only a small percentage of the overall landscaped setback. The applicant is proposing over 4,000 square feet of planter area behind the sidewalk along Coast Highway, which results in an average depth of 5.6' in the planter area along the property frontage. The applicant could eliminate one row of surface parking to provide the required planter width, however staff feels that maximizing the surface parking stalls is a greater benefit than the additional width of planter. Finding: C. The granting of such application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts: Granting the modification will not affect the health or safety nor be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 24 of 30 development will provide over 700 linear feet of landscaping along the public sidewalk consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover while there is currently only one small pocket of landscaping provided along Coast Highway. As proposed, the section of reduced landscape will still provide a buffer between pedestrians and the surface parking lot. If the facts set forth above are not consistent with the Planning Commission's understanding of the limitations of project site, the Modification Permit should be denied. Traffic Phasinq Ordinance Based on trip generation rates in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element, the project is expected to generate approximately 2,570 trips per day. This traffic is offset by the traffic generated by existing uses on the project site. This results in a net increase of 1,683 trips per day. A traffic analysis prepared indicated that the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D or better for forecast year 2007 with the exception of the westernmost proposed driveway on the site (Driveway 1/West Coast Highway) which would operate at a Level of Service E in the PM peak hour. To eliminate the impact, the following mitigation measure is proposed: Driveway I/West Coast Highway- The project applicant shall re- stripe/widen the westbound West Coast Highway approach from two through lanes and one dedicated right -turn lane to consist of two through lanes and one shared through /right -turn lane. West Coast Highway west of the Driveway 1/West Coast Highway intersection would need to be widened by approximately two feet plus a 50 to 1 taper to accommodate the additional through lane. Conclusion Development of the retail center, as proposed, requires that the Planning Commission affirm all of the findings set forth for the Development Plan Review request, for the Use Permit, and for both components of the Modification Permit. If after reviewing, plans for the proposed project and considering the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Development Plan Review, Use Permit, and Modification Permit requests, the Planning Commission finds that the facts as presented are consistent with and accurately represent the Planning Commission's understanding of the project, the Planning Commission may adopt a resolution setting forth findings and facts in support of approval of the Development Plan Review, Use Permit, and Modification Permit and including Conditions of Approval to allow development of the proposed 56,000 square -foot retail center on West Coast Highway at Dover Drive. If the Planning Commission determines that the not all of the facts in support of findings set forth for the Development Plan Review request, for the Use Permit, and for both Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) December 8, 2005 Page 25 of 30 components of the Modification Permit can be made, the Planning Commission may deny the applications by adopting Findings for Denial. A third option for Planning Commission is to provide direction to the applicant for specific design modifications that are needed to receive an approval. If this is done, the item should be continued if the changes are reasonable easy to incorporate. If substantial changes are directed, the item should be removed from calendar, to allow for redesign of the project. Prepared by: David Lepo, Co "t Planner Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Findings for Denial 3. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 4. Queuing Analysis 5. RBF Memorandum Submitted by: ")Tamd Patricia L. Temple, Plan ding Director 6. Correspondence 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously distributed) 8. Project Plans TORIMM CONSULTING MEMORANDUM To: David Keely, City of Newport Beach From: Paul Martin, RBF Consulting Date: September 21, 2005 JN10103821 Subject: Newport Gateway: Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis As you requested, RBF has prepared a Caftrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 California Supplement Traffic Signal Warrant analysis for the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection created by the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project in the City of Newport Beach utilizing the following two traffic signal warrant methodologies: • Existing Volumes Warrant • Future Planning Level Warrant The proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project consists of a 56,000 square foot commercial project with a 100,000 square foot subterranean parking garage, displacing 19,700 square feet of existing auto, boat, retail, and office land uses. More specifically, the commercial center would consist of 33,050 square feet of specially retail, 9,950 square feet of medicalloffice land use, and a 13,000 square foot drug store. The proposed project is scheduled to open in year 2006; therefore per the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) the analysis year is 2007. The proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project would consolidate 14 existing uncontrolled access locations serving the project site into one signalized access location at Gateway Drive and two right - in /right -out access locations on West Coast Highway. The proposed signalized access at Gateway Drive is located approximately 810 feet west of the West Coast Highway /Dover Drive intersection. West Coast Highway is also planned to be widened as part of the proposed project in the westbound direction from two through lanes to three through lanes along the project site frontage. No project site access is planned at Dover Drive. The Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway study intersection is analyzed for forecast year 2007 with project conditions (required for TPO analysis). Attachment A show forecast year 2007 with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed Mariner's Mile project driveway locations. 9�p Existing Volumes Warrant This section determines whether the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies the existing volumes traffic signal warrant using Figure 4C-101 as provided in the 2003 California supplement to the MUTCD. Attachment B shows the Peak Hour Volume signal warrant curve and the potted points corresponding to the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on an average day. Since the p.m. peak hour point lies above the 2 or more lanes & 1 lane curve, the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. Attachments C through F show the traffic signal warrant worksheets for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. As shown in Attachments B and D, the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies the MUTCD Peak Hour warrant for forecast year 2007 with project cond'it'ions. As shown in Attachment F, the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection does not satisfy the MUTCD Roadway Network warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. Future Planning Level Warrant This section determines whether the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies the future planning level traffic signal warrant using Table 4C-101 as provided in the 2003 California supplement to the MUTCD. A Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 California Supplement Traffic Signal Warrant was prepared to determine if signalization would be warranted at the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. Table 1 summarizes the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis for the proposed Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection; Attachment G shows the detailed MUTCD future planning level traffic signal warrant calculation sheet. P Table 1 Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions Intersection Signal Warrant Analysis As seen in Table , the proposed Driveway Mast Coast Highway (5R -1) intersection satisfies the MUTCD Interruption of Continuous Traffic signal warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. A traffic signal warrant analysis for forecast cumulative with project conditions is not necessary because cumulative projects will further add to the average daily traffic on West Coast Highway (the major street), with no change made to the project trips (or minor street volumes). Thus, the intersection will continue to warrant a signal for subsequent scenarios. Conclusions The Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies MUTCD traffic signal warrants for forecast year 2007 with project conditions, based on both the existing volumes traffic signal warrant methodology and the future planning level traffic signal warrant methodology. �v Warrant Forecast West West Coast Warrant Forecast Required West Coast Highway Highway Required Driveway 1 Driveway 1 n Warrant Coast Highway (SR-1) (SR -1) Driveway 1 Warrant f Irate sects oWarntrant Type (SR-1) Daily Volumery Warrant Daily Volume Satisfied? d ?n Volume (2 directions) (1 direction) (% Satisfied) (2 (% Satisfied) (1 direction) Minimum Vehicular 6,720 57,141 Yes (100 %) 1,680 964 No (57 %) No Traffic interruption Of Continuous 10,080 57,141 Yes (100 %) 850 964 Yes (100 %) Yes Traffic As seen in Table , the proposed Driveway Mast Coast Highway (5R -1) intersection satisfies the MUTCD Interruption of Continuous Traffic signal warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. A traffic signal warrant analysis for forecast cumulative with project conditions is not necessary because cumulative projects will further add to the average daily traffic on West Coast Highway (the major street), with no change made to the project trips (or minor street volumes). Thus, the intersection will continue to warrant a signal for subsequent scenarios. Conclusions The Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies MUTCD traffic signal warrants for forecast year 2007 with project conditions, based on both the existing volumes traffic signal warrant methodology and the future planning level traffic signal warrant methodology. �v Existing Volumes Warrant This section determines whether the Driveway 1/West Coast Highway intersection satisfies the existing volumes traffic signal warrant using Figure 4C -101 as provided in the 2003 California supplement to the MUTCD. Attachment B shows the Peak Hour Volume signal warrant curve and the plotted points corresponding to the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on an average day. Since the p.m. peak hour point lies above the 2 or more lanes & 1 lane curve, the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. Attachments C through F show the traffic signal warrant worksheets for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. As shown in Attachments B and D, the Driveway 1/West Coast Highway intersection satisfies the MUTCD Peak Hour warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. As shown in Attachment F, the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection does not satisfy the MUTCD Roadway Network warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. Future Planning Level Warrant This section determines whether the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies the future planning level traffic signal warrant using Table 4C-101 as provided in the 2003 California supplement to the MUTCD. A Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 California Supplement Traffic Signal Warrant was prepared to determine t signalizatron would be warranted at the Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. Table 1 summarizes the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis for the proposed Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection; Attachment G shows the detailed MUTCD future planning level traffic signal warrant calculation sheet. Table 1 Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions Intersection Signal Warrant Analysis As seen in Table, the proposed Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway (SR -1) intersection satisfies the MUTCD Interruption of Continuous Traffic signal warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. A traffic signal warrant analysis for forecast cumulative with project conditions is not necessary because cumulative projects will further add to the average daily traffic on West Coast Highway (the major street), with no change made to the project trips (or minor street volumes). Thus, the intersection will continue to warrant a signal for subsequent scenarios. Conclusions The Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies MUTCD traffic signal warrants for forecast year 2007 with project conditions, based on both the existing volumes traffic signal warrant methodology and the future planning level traffic signal warrant methodology. �-O Warrant Forecast West West Coast Warrant Forecast Required West Coast Highway Highway Required Driveway 1 Driveway 1 n Warrant Coast Highway (SR -1) Daily (SR -1) Driveway 1 Daily Warrant f Intersects of Intersection Type (SR -1) Dairy Volume Warrant Warrant Daily volume Satisfied? Warranted? Volume (2 directions) Volume (1 direction) (% Satisfied) (2 directions) ( %Satisfied) (1 direction) Minimum Vehicular 6,720 57,141 Yes (100 %) 1,680 964 No (57 %) No Traffic Interruption Of Continuous 10,080 57,141 Yes (100 %) 850 964 Yes (100 %) Yes Traffic As seen in Table, the proposed Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway (SR -1) intersection satisfies the MUTCD Interruption of Continuous Traffic signal warrant for forecast year 2007 with project conditions. A traffic signal warrant analysis for forecast cumulative with project conditions is not necessary because cumulative projects will further add to the average daily traffic on West Coast Highway (the major street), with no change made to the project trips (or minor street volumes). Thus, the intersection will continue to warrant a signal for subsequent scenarios. Conclusions The Driveway 1NVest Coast Highway intersection satisfies MUTCD traffic signal warrants for forecast year 2007 with project conditions, based on both the existing volumes traffic signal warrant methodology and the future planning level traffic signal warrant methodology. �-O I/ b / b ` I o� / N / N I � J} ' It ie�ei ! ♦ N s a q CJ 0 W W O 3 ca e v a fQ w b 7 � m Z _ Y �O C a 3 w � ° u m 2 we m J Z s }� L ? 0 0 Y N CO L d M Q IN wg �d i o N aD LL v V d MKW 0 N y2 m k, a r 34! ffi U m vy/ Z b 4 h `8 O 2 5 U1 J} 1 ! W 1 0 I/ b / b ` I o� / N / N I � J} ' It ie�ei ! ♦ N s a q CJ 0 W W O 3 ca e v a fQ w b 7 � m Z _ Y �O C a 3 w � ° u m 2 we m J Z s }� L ? 0 0 Y N CO L d M Q IN wg �d i o N aD LL v V d MKW 0 N y2 m k, a r 34! ffi U m vy/ Z b 4 h `8 O 2 5 Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) x a S 400' U F- O w asoo Na � w 02 200 J 2O > W 100 x O M 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE "100 • PM Peak Hour *75 AM Peak Hour 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor - street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume of a minor - street approach with one lane. SOURCE: MUTCD 2003 California Supplement PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS FORECAST YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS men WO H:Wa 101=21IrrnedMn� WBA AuWOM Attachment B 3a II re 4C -101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet {,Sheet 1:of4j OU CALC JAW DATE 08/15/05 ST CO RTE —*;iT CHK DATE' _WEST COAST HIGHWAY.iSR -1) ., CTt<aia�raad.�aod uTA mwWzC EROJECTDRIVEWAY #1 CriecalApptoachf $ eed ..- Cr*w spew dd mtjoT sVw 1iaf6e >M torah {dU T> ony...:..... 10 RURAL 1Rd er"up weer of Fsabtsd wirfarAy of < 10.000 900- - . -•� .I p LIMM M WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A - Minimum► WhiCla VoiUWW U I R U I R 1 2Crwa Condition 13 urteffuPtion of Continuous Traffic. 100% SATISFIED YES .0 No 0 NIA 60% SATIVIED YES 0 WO 0 n,M IIGO 5ATI IED YES 0 NO 0` .dwei nA" ff1bv% Vito r-1 11A. rI Com4l tlan of Condition$ A B Holtz SAVIf Y64 0 No 0' SOURCE: MUTCD 2003 California Supplement NIA WFFORECAST YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS H dptla12H0/0382ikTMMdW.."W4ttC.81 AUGrIM Attachment C 33 i ffi el SOURCE: MUTCD 2003 California Supplement NIA WFFORECAST YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS H dptla12H0/0382ikTMMdW.."W4ttC.81 AUGrIM Attachment C 33 Figure 4C•101. Traffic Signal Warrants WoMsNat (Sheet.2 of 4) WARRANT 2 Four 4ourvehicular volumo luMewfborf Mbowd h"j 40WO.'* oks ris I , v, liq,u 4AH pMad pokift fall abma the curves In. MUT60 F"ACA or 4C-;2.. SATISFIE-0- Yts 13 NQ' E3 NIA Ho r. WARRANT 3 -, Peak k-How PAMA-orBAgT_ 'S'ATMMEP PARTA SATISFIED (Afivarb! 1, 2, and "3 bmw must be sstlAad) I- The WM dMay GMRftnMdI& "ft on OM minnr.streetap r awft4id :VrM5T0P'w' 22 The volug an he vi"" "Mkistmet i3 )aq'h',equ04 pr �t� 1 *)r **MOV or—' yph YE01P No 13 Yea b,,-NojI-: lm t7 ■� rmi� ■� PART B PIED Yei-W "El ,qqr.. qO Jf APPrzrtjLt-j44 AM1iFR C". U� V+:, The 0aft -d,PdM, M'' "R w'0Pw " t" Tr a INW I ", gAI Bwqq *%) aw the owrev * rMwI z6, a(A any#15mlift ww). lz;M& = crM mlN I D Ft ej4Z3 SOURCE: MUTCD 2003 California Supplement a A-O FORECAST YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS H.WaWM0IDMIIT udWammAMA AUMM5 Attachment D 5A Fiff 4C-101. Traffid signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3of 4) JAW DATE 08115105 DIST CO' RTE KPM CHK _ DATE - " hf*rst WEST COAST HIGHWAY (SE-1) cridcalAppro2ch,Spad kmOr PROJECT DRIVEWAY I CridcalApproach Speed krnM .rNtll gp@ad & majgt3treet 64,160 (4Q mph) .:.Fe ) RURAL (R) 1n,buift up area of isolated community of � 10,1m0 population ...... cl j WARRANT 4'- P6d4aWbn:VbIuTnei (AB O .1 padastrianvoturno I I I I I AdaW;ne Crossing :G8p8 11 1 1 1 1 tn th Id tr trm - met along the nrajoy anuara,,ta r9q. MI AND -Ttionswiraffk agnW %Al not sadouqtv dkruWPM9 61ve 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ NIA Any hour 1 190 . R4h.UM> 160 AND 4 60 gap0hr As 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 No 13 yod 0 No 13 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ NIA :(All Paris Must Be iatiAed) N*Wbf Ggps c MIW*s SATISFIED YES. 13 NO Ell Adowsba Ckwe.. C , hi SATISFIED Y.1E9.[] NO, El DjUbanee-to, Nearest Controlled CrOSMIng I , a, i kearewConlrolied I Crossirq Libre Than-188 M (60 1 0 It) awaly T SATISFIED :,YES; ❑ No. ❑. SOURCE: MUTCD 2003 California Supplement FORECAST YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS MF H.XpdaWl 01=2"Tr WW�nWME.al AUGMM Attachment E ■ ■ Figure 4C.101. 7raffic Signal Warrants Worksheet {Sheet of 4). WARRANT 6 - CoOrdInattod Signal :*tam (All Parma Must SATISFIED D nbl bljho [3, N/A MINNUM RFOUIREMEWS bl,STwrz TO NEMEST FULFILM 3W-MI16060) N M. 8—M, F--ini W. M — .: Yeso 14160 On one wry isoltitteds0ob, prStmets V*h one bvM6,signiftenceand ac#went ,way 82l! 9 are w a Pon 1114 TTITILY 11gand Vbdd corift," . . . I at, do not tr o+dannosssai :b :speed flestillwaft b WARRANT 1. Cmah Warrant (A11 Parts Must.89'9atitfied) SATISFIED YlEt—[T.W. [I: N/A REQUfREMEOS WARRANT FULFILLED - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - OR ...... we"rit 2 • IrKNIXOM 0 Ccftroms Traft Yes [],ME] ,signal -welisid Seriously 43j5w'P.M"sjve TM11116 Pow C1 Adequate T11A of Less RmMcWe Remedies Has Failed to Feed Accident Frequency ACC, Within a 12 Month Period susceptibb 1br COMA' Invoty ft MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. NUMBER 6PACCIC04fil .5 orillore 1000 veh" Fn6DufirQ:EichdAny,6Hr&of4:,c PA93FIED N0:01:00'91 4617 vith" X X The &a warrant l I a" , nec-emaTilylos I i . Mcat I ic I n W, a triad; 1 -04w, 9- a iioirtem wMist SOURCE: MUTCD 2003 Caftmja Supplement HAPdsW101W8211TmMaMrt ft1AftFA FORECAST YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS AUW Attachment F 34 4C -101 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING TrafFic Manual Table 4G101 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other bcatiais where it is not reasonaoie ro Count acwa aamc w11-1- �; - A-4 Attachment G 0 a ' Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions CON 5 U LTI N G Driveway IlMest Coast Highway 31 Minimum Requirements URBAN RURAL X EADT 1A- Minimum Vehicular Traffic West Coast Highway Driveway 1 Satisfied Not Satisfied X Vehicles per day on major Street (total of both approaches) Major Street Volume Vehicles per day on higher - volume minor street approach (one direction only) Minor Street Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach 57,141 964 Major Street Minor Street 1 1 2 or more 100% 1 57% 2 or more 2 or more 1 2 or more Urban Rural 8,000 5,600 9,600 6,720 9,600 6,720 8,000 5,600 Urban Rural 2,400 1,680 2,400 1,680 3,200 2,240 3,200 2,240 1B- Interuption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on major Street (total of both Vehicles per day on higher - volume minor street approach Satisfied X I Not Satisfied approaches) Major Street Volume (one direction only) Minor Street Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach 57,141 964 Major Street Minor Street 1 1 2 or more 100% 1 100% 2 or more 2 or more 1 2 or more Urban Rural 12,000 8,400 14,400 10,080 14,400 10,080 12,000 8,400 Urban Rural 1,200 850 1,200 850 1,600 1,120 1,600 1,120 1A &B- Combinations Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied, but the following warrants fulfilled 80% or more .............. 1 2 NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other bcatiais where it is not reasonaoie ro Count acwa aamc w11-1- �; - A-4 Attachment G 0 a ' Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions CON 5 U LTI N G Driveway IlMest Coast Highway 31 too do 10� CONSULTING August 23,2005 JN 10- 103821 Mr. David Keely Associate Engineer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject Proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway Project West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive Queuing Evaluation As you requested, RBF has prepared an operational analysis of the proposed West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection and the West Coast Highway Corridor related to Bic proposed Mariners Mile Gateway project. The proposed Mariners Mile Gateway project consists of a 56,000 square foot cemmeroial project that includes a 10,000 square foot medical office component, with a 100,000 square foot subterranean parking garage, displacing 19,700 square feet of exis*V auto, boat, retail, and office land uses. More specifically, the commercial center would consist of 33,050 square feet of specialty retail, 9,950 square feet of med'roaltolike land use, and a 13,000 square foot drug store. The proposed project is scheduled to open in year 2006; therefore per the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) the analysis year is 2007. The proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project would consolidate id existing uncontrdled access locations serving the project site into one signalized access location at Gateway Drive and two rght4rdrigttout access locations on West Coast Highway. The proposed signalized access at Gateway Drive is located apprw*natsly 810 feet west of the West Coast HghwaylDover Drive intersection. West Coast Highway is also planned to be widened as part of the proposed project in the westbound direction from two through lanes to three trough lanes along the project site frontage. No project site access is planned at Dover Drive. Project Trip Generation r' i - •. • e -r - r � • rr a a• • t/ ..• ra c ra: r : a :.rA - . i > i .•� •_r. •=r- - •aoc1AN4 tie 111.611. :r:..`•a-•c.-ro••i-•a , a 3� JN: 10-103821 To calculate trips currently being generated by the existing site, the City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) trV generation rates were used. Table i sunimartzes the NBTAM try generation rates used to calculate the existing number of trips generated by the exisbelg site. Table 1 Existina Prolect Site Trio Rates Land Use Units AM Peak tow PM Peak Hour Daily Trip Rate In Out Toth M Out Total General Commercial let 1 0.50 0.50 1.10 1.90 1 2.00 3.90 45.00 Source: Newport Beady Traffic Analysis Modef Note: tsf = thousand square feet Table 2 summarizes the trips generated by the existing site using the trip rates contained in Table 1. Table 2 Euxis ng Pro act Site Trio Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total in Out Total 19.7 tsf General Commercial 12 10 22 37 t 39 76 057 Note: tsf = thousand square feet As shown in Table 2, the existing site is currently generating approximately.887 daily trips, which includes approximately 22 a.m. peak tour trips and approximately 76 p.m. peak flour trips. Table 3 summarizes NBTAM trip generation rates used to calculate the number of Gips forecast to be generated by the proposed Mariner's Mite Gateway project. Table 3 Pmnncad Mariner'c Mile Gateway Prolact Trio Rates Land Use Units AM Peak Harr PM Peak Hour Daily Trip Rabe in Out Total in Out Total General Commercial tsf 0.60 0.50 1.10 1.90 2.00 3.90 45.00 Medical Office tsf 2.40 0.60 3.00 1.50 3.50 5.00 50.00 Table 4 summarizes the trips forecast to be generated by the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project utilizing the trip generation rates found in Table 3. Table 4 Proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway Protect Trip Generation JN: 10-103821 Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips natty Trips In Out Total In Out Total 46 tsf General Commercial 28 23 51 87 92 179 2,070 10 tsf Medical Office 24 6 30 15 35 50 5110 TOTAL 52 29 81 102 127 229 2,570 Note: tsf = thousand square feet As shown in Table 4, the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project is forecast to generate approximately 2,570 daily trips, which includes approximately 81 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 229 p.m. peak hour hips. Table 5 shows the net new trips forecast to be generated by the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project accounting for trips currently generated at the project site. Table 5 Forecast Mariner's Mile Gateway Project Net New Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Existing Site (displaced) -12 -10 -22 -37 -39 -76 -887 Proposed Project 52 29 81 102 127 229 2,570 TOTAL NET NEW 40 19 59 65 88 153 1,683 As shown in Table 5, the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project is forecast to generate approximately 1,683 net new daily trips, which includes approximately 59 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 153 rat new p.m. peak hex trips. Project Trip Distribution Exhibit 1 slows the forecast trip percent distribution of project generated peak hour trips. Project Trip Assignment Exhibits 2 and 3 show the corresponding assignment of project - generated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips assiamkng the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 1. David Kelly .Mt: 10- 103821 ar=2005 Page 4 Forecast Year 2007 Traffic Volumes Exhibit 4 shows forecast year 2007 without project a.m. and p.m. peals hour traffic volumes. Ex hbb 5 and 6 show forecast year 2007 with project a.m. and p.m. peak Four traffic volumes. INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS To determine the vehicular queuing forecast to occur at the proposed West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive Intersection, an intersection queueing evaluation has been prepared using the City of Newport Beach provided Synchro model. The analysis evaluates forecast year 2007 with the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway Project conditions at the following study intersection approaches: • West Goes( Highway /Gateway Drive; o Eastbound Left -tum Movement; o Eastbound Through Movement; o Southbound Shared Lett/Right -turn Movement; • Westbound Through Movement: and • Westbound Right -turn Movement. • West Coast Highway/Dover Drive; o Eastbound Left-turn Movement; and ... Optimal Signal Timing Assumptions As part of the queuing analysis, RBF determined the optimal traffic signal parameters (signal timing and phasing) to minimize vehicular queuing at the proposed West Coast Higtway/Gateway Drive intersection. Optimization of the West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection results In the following recommended traffic signal timing parameters: • Coordinate the West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection with tle West Coast Higillway/Dover Drive intersection uskV matching cycle langths of 120 seconds; • Provide protected greed -arrow left4urn operation from eastim" West Cosa Highway at Gateway Drive; • Recall mode for West Coast Highway Is coordinated -max, with no recall mode for Gateway Drive to provide maximum green time to west Coast Highway, and (A David Ke* nra: 10403srt Page 5 • Provide traffic signal offset of dd seconds for a.m. peak tom, and 35 seconds for p.m. peak hour between West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive intersection and West Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection. Queuing Analysts While the Proposed Projed includes widening westbound West Coast Highway Wong the project site frontage from two through lanes to three through lanes, this analysis conservatively assumes the westbound approach of the West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection consists of two through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn IBM. If desired at a later date by City staff, the dedicated right -turn lane can be re- striped to provide a U*d westbound through lane along the project site frontage. The analysis reports Synchro modeled queues for the forecast 95" percentile queue, and the available storage at each intersection movement. If 100 models were modeled, the 95'" percentile queue is the model with the 95"' highest traffic volumes. The 5e percentile queue would represent average traffic conditions. It is important to note the 95'h percentile queue model represents nearly saturated conditions. Synchro queue calculations are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, and are supplemented with additional published materials and vendor research to accommodate additional Input parameters and queuing scenarios. Available queue storage for through movements is based on the distance between Intersections and the available queue storage for turning movements is based on the length of tum- pockets. Available queue storage is quantified in length for each lane; for example, if the distance between Intersections is 500 feet, and two lanes are Provided, then a total Of 1,000 feet of available queue storage exists for through traffic. The available queue storage for through movements between the West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive intersection and West Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection is measured from the easterly curb line at the West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive intersection to the westerly curb line at the West Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection. The queue storage for the eastbound through movement at the West Coast HighwaylGateway Drive Intersection is measured iron easterly curb line at the West Coast Highway/Baibva Say Club Driveway to the westerly curb line at the West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection. Queue storage for the southbound Gateway Drive approach at the West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive intersection is estimated at 150 feet and assumes vehicular storage occurs onstte w" the drive aisle since the project site is limited depth -wise perpendicular to west Coast Highway. Table 6 summar®es the results of the queuing analysis for forecast year 2007 with project a.m. peak hour conditions; detailed queue analysis sheets are provided in Appendix A. it is worth noting approximately 60 Percent of West Coast HQhwaY try is traveling in the easitwu d direction during the a.m. peak hour. q David Ke* JN: 10-103821 srrerzoo5 Page 6 Table 6 Forecast Year 2007 With P ct Conditions AM Peak Hour Queui Conditions Note: EB = Eastbound, W 8 = Wesmobrxl, SB = w meouna. mA = not Appnuaum. As seen in Table 6, forecast queuing conditions do not exceed the available queuing storage for forecast year 2007 with project conditions for the a.m. peak tour at any of the study intemectibn approaches. it is worth noting the eastbound West Coast Highway through lane 9e percentile queue (692 feet) is approaching capacity (740 feet) at the West Coast HighwaylDover Drive intersection during the a.m. peak hour. Assuming the Industry standard of 25 fat per vehicle, the eastbound through storage available for vehicles exiting the Manner's Mile Gateway project is approximately two vehicles for each approach lard, providing a total storage available of four vehicles. Approximately 19 vehicles (one each three minutes) are forecast o exit the project site during the a.m. peak hour and traM east on West Coast Highway, which can be accommodated by the queue storage available. If desired by City staff, refinement to the West Crest Higtwray/Gateway Drive intersection traffic signal timing can prevent eastbound queuing at the West Coast Kghway/Dover Drive intersection to fully utilize fire queue storage dunng the a.m. peak hour o allow further opportunities for vehicles exiting the project site to travel east on West Coast Highway. Table 7 summarizes the results of the queuing analysis for forecast year 2007 with project p.m. peak hour conditions; detailed queue analysis sheets are provided in Appendix A. It Is WoM noting approxtmataly 60 percent of West Coast Highway traffo is traveling in the Westbowhd direction during the p.m. peak hex. Y� 95ei Percerme Queue Storage Quene Slbrage Intersection Approach Queue (feet per lane) Available (feet per lane) Fated? EB Left-turn 17 150 No EBThrough 66 1,794 No West Coast Highway/Gateway SB Shared L&VRight -tum 44 150 No Drive WBThrough 419 740 No WB Right tum 0 135 No West Coast ES Left -ran 136 450 No High way/Dover Drove EBThrough 692 740 No Note: EB = Eastbound, W 8 = Wesmobrxl, SB = w meouna. mA = not Appnuaum. As seen in Table 6, forecast queuing conditions do not exceed the available queuing storage for forecast year 2007 with project conditions for the a.m. peak tour at any of the study intemectibn approaches. it is worth noting the eastbound West Coast Highway through lane 9e percentile queue (692 feet) is approaching capacity (740 feet) at the West Coast HighwaylDover Drive intersection during the a.m. peak hour. Assuming the Industry standard of 25 fat per vehicle, the eastbound through storage available for vehicles exiting the Manner's Mile Gateway project is approximately two vehicles for each approach lard, providing a total storage available of four vehicles. Approximately 19 vehicles (one each three minutes) are forecast o exit the project site during the a.m. peak hour and traM east on West Coast Highway, which can be accommodated by the queue storage available. If desired by City staff, refinement to the West Crest Higtwray/Gateway Drive intersection traffic signal timing can prevent eastbound queuing at the West Coast Kghway/Dover Drive intersection to fully utilize fire queue storage dunng the a.m. peak hour o allow further opportunities for vehicles exiting the project site to travel east on West Coast Highway. Table 7 summarizes the results of the queuing analysis for forecast year 2007 with project p.m. peak hour conditions; detailed queue analysis sheets are provided in Appendix A. It Is WoM noting approxtmataly 60 percent of West Coast Highway traffo is traveling in the Westbowhd direction during the p.m. peak hex. Y� DM4d Ke* JN: 74103821 d7df M Page Table 7 Forecast Year 2007 With Prolect Conditions PM Peak Hour Queuing Conditions Note: 1 = Queue result based on SimTraffic output sheet since movement v/c > 1.00. EB = Easitmund, WS = Westbound, SB = Southbound. WA = Not Applicable. As seen in Table 7, forecast queuing conditions do not exceed the available queuing storage for forecast year 2007 with project conditions for the p.m. peak hour at any of the study intersection approaches. It should be noted the pm, peak tour try s time allotted to east -west movements in this analysis is approximately 100 seconds at the west Coast HOwsy/Gate%W Drive intersection, and 76 seconds at the West Coast Highway/Dover Drive Intersection; therefore, the West Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection effectively meters westbound through bafno and precludes westbound through queuing at the West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection. KKUpligil >9C�^F� The proposed Mariner's Mite Gateway project is forecast to generate approximately 1,683 net new daily trips, which Includes approximately 59 net new a.m. peak !tour "m and apprommat* 153 net new p.m. peak hots' trips when accounting for hips currently generated at the project sue. l g e percen6% Queue Storage Queue storage Mtersection Approach Queue Oset per lane) Avallabio &0 per lane) Exceeded? ES Left-turn 39 150 No EBTixough 749 1,794 Na West Coast Hghway/Gatsway Drive SB Shmred LeWRght -turn 129 150 No WBThrotgh 137' 740 No WBRghRum 0 135 No West Coast EB Left-turn 152 450 No Highway/Dover Drive EBThrough 740 Na Note: 1 = Queue result based on SimTraffic output sheet since movement v/c > 1.00. EB = Easitmund, WS = Westbound, SB = Southbound. WA = Not Applicable. As seen in Table 7, forecast queuing conditions do not exceed the available queuing storage for forecast year 2007 with project conditions for the p.m. peak hour at any of the study intersection approaches. It should be noted the pm, peak tour try s time allotted to east -west movements in this analysis is approximately 100 seconds at the west Coast HOwsy/Gate%W Drive intersection, and 76 seconds at the West Coast Highway/Dover Drive Intersection; therefore, the West Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection effectively meters westbound through bafno and precludes westbound through queuing at the West Coast Highway/Gateway Drive intersection. KKUpligil >9C�^F� The proposed Mariner's Mite Gateway project is forecast to generate approximately 1,683 net new daily trips, which Includes approximately 59 net new a.m. peak !tour "m and apprommat* 153 net new p.m. peak hots' trips when accounting for hips currently generated at the project sue. l DOw Key s+z3rM Pelee e JN: 10-103M It is worth noting the eastbound West Coast Highway through lane 9e percentile queue (692 feet) is approaching capacity (740 feet) at the west Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection during the a.m. peak hour. Assuming the Industry standard of 25 feet per vehicle, the eastbound through storage available for vehicles exiting the Mariner's Mile Gateway project is appraxnrnalely two vehicles for each approach lane, providing a total storage available of four vehicles. Appmx rnately 19 vehicles (one each tree minutes) are forecast to exit the project site during the a.m. peak hour and travel east on West Coast Highway, which can be aODOmmodated by the queue storage available. Please contact me at 949.855.7005 with any questions. Sincerely, A' A e V Paul Martin, PE, TE, PTOE Project Engineer RBF Consulting 4� w a D a� c� L Q LL O m a pe 3g X R` r F gt 8 r a I ! — EWE 1 II OLM— / I • ' - � Qy33��t• l O 1 L X76 ! � 1 + OQ- + + F� + rY + / I 9ZML -+ r I _ r•• e Mnaa zAAG LMdO Ave O a 3plgAve *a c m E c .N Q. �L L Q. Lo Y m O O 1 { IL L 9ZAL —� !Q+ LL 1 { � \ I I -* �bqh' \ � V ` 1 U4f 1 7 1 0 / r 1 I I f L G. a a �Y ll C_ 5 3 ID ■ lr�� I� ■ \/! $ ■ O Z ' Q �J-qAiOc i i t 611611 t 1 1 � t 1 1 ELM-,. I1 m � s 0 o ' Z i� of Q .E $ w g IL O LL �b s e m � s 0 o ' Z i� I "o R • Z - -_ m to C / t N °m ' X21&435 1 m t 1 f- 354!450 1 -- - - - - - - - - - - i 1 }yy r + II F 0 v m Z o 3 n+ E `2113 \`1 NOft aty / 1 r315 3177-X \ 36!77 77 -X g � °.Vl. 49 �-29MM x731106 / a ♦ \ OM2� v1��' 1 / inm$ 4501594 1 266426— 14152-x / !/ Nn lit .481518 1 1 �1 } � /x964F378 1 I i 1 z9/zaf r ' 52r36- g / Q 0 O A =) a) CO PO D P 00 (D O 0) C O rt 0 CD N 0 - ` 1116 1281274 Ct(/13 E/AU�B,,4y 1 79&1265 -r ! �' / N�Eyq X28747 \\ -.- .83611249 1 x168/214 11 1117Mi }pIIr 1 �DRVVY2 'DRWY3 O � i N \ / Q �� _A o BAYgIpE 1 ���t 91!8 1 \ 1 \ \ p ! raj "-713)1614 \\ 1 -l` 4 724rAg, •m !r / ht X-19/33 \ r }`/x19184 1 >/ g `\ / amr `30/A06 , 1 6MI170- + �m! f r .� .-.4571391 r \ 41r25� V'om / 1 367/1017J/ 1 \ / ! i 3961204 -► ! / 1 / rszoLrsae t 1 rig r �\ t 1 1 1 �b� / M \ t � i� �ruLLOLnos , 1 1 EtJ'!tr • t o • , o� 0 ^� R , � l � �--LOZt208 1 �� I �!'BEEPoCt 1 I , L E t , \ � a3�,Oai➢br �JL� �- E7ftOt ` 1- oot�sJ - � / e MIND Z AMMO L AnnkEa -Ave �81� �I LZOL/6p8 , r i = F q ao�O1�ba w OA U to m E (L O .0 > O Z N �a �d d' U V C G v Y 1 eLSrose� `1 t.r E I � i �. �sszBVZ ti t Letterz� `� t r I � ssr�s °L1 c� /,.iC3 �o szz rs�pas1 ��81 _N , \ t ri Lsc�f / \ r P*so L m 9 s m O Z 5� i N � 6triti } 1 �t o , m ! � AIN �� f t -\ r v M Z 46 m 0 0 'o L o. o .c > L 0 O N � M L a �a O U- a M t� m asa a� w' M m e f g m oli s 0 Z �1 /,T77� I �7 ►:�_1 Queue Analysis Sheets Forecast Year 2007 With Project 65 MARINERS MILE GATEWAY PROJECT 401: Coast Highway & Gateway Drwy 1 Queue Analysis Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 Link Distance (ft) 1176 360 453 Travel Time (s) 251 5.5 10.3 Volume (vph) 18 2325 1471 8 19 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 2527 1599 9 24 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.9 110.5 105.6 105.6 7.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.78 0.51 0.01 013 Control Delay 68.0 3.2 4.2 0.0 49.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.0 3.2 4.5 0.0 49.4 LOS E A A A D Approach Delay 3.7 4.5 49.4 Approach LOS A A D Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 2 327 0 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) m17 66 419 m0 44 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1096 280 373 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 120 3259 3115 1394 236 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 778 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.78 0.68 0.01 0.10 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 44 (37%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6: WBT, Start of Yellow Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.78 Intersection Signal Delay: 4.3 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. H:Wdata\ 10103821 \TrWttctSynchroWM_07 W P.sy7 Queues RBF Consulting MUM I. 5A MARINERS MILE GATEWAY PROJECT 164: Coast Highway & Dover Dr Queue Analysis Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 100 250 200 250 0 250 200 Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 44 44 Link Distance (ft) 450 661 505 519 Travel Time (s) 6.8 10.0 7.8 8.0 Volume (vph) 195 2137 12 33 1374 668 23 49 52 984 48 101 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow(vph) 212 2336 0 36 1493 726 25 110 0 1070 52 110 Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 62.9 7.0 58.0 120.0 7.2 7.2 30.8 30.8 30.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.52 0.06 0.48 1.00 0.06 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.88 0.35 0.61 0.46 0.23 0.44 0.84 0.11 0.23 Control Delay 91.1 26.8 52.2 28.4 2.7 57.8 32.5 39.6 25.3 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 91.1 26.8 52.2 28.4 2.7 57.8 32.5 39.6 25.3 6.2 LOS F C D C A E C D C A Approach Delay 32.2 20.5 37.2 36.0 Approach LOS C C D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 500 28 246 9 19 21 280 32 20 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#138 #892 m61 359 391 48 51 339 m55 44 Internal Link Dist (ft) 370 581 425 439 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 200 250 250 200 Base Capacity(vph) 229 2663 118 2458 1583 118 271 1280 478 488 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.88 0.31 0.61 0.46 0.21 0.41 0.84 0.11 0.23 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow, Master intersection Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysts Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. H:tpdata\ 10103821 \Traffic\Synchro\AM_07WP.sy7 8/18/2005 Queues Page 1 RBF Consulting �J � MARINERS MILE GATEWAY PROJECT 400: Coast Highway & Gateway Driveway 1 Queue Analysis Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Larne Group EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR Lam Configurations Ideal Flax (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 5o 5o 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 Link Distance (ft) 1175 366 447 Travel Time (s) 25.5 5.5 10.2 Volume (vph) 36 1787 2683 15 83 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 1942 2916 16 104 0 Act Effct Green (s) 7.5 100.2 92.7 92.7 11.8 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.06 0.84 017 0.77 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.66 1.07 0.01 0.59 Control Delay 50.3 11.8 47.7 0.0 54.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 104.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.3 11.8 151.9 0.0 54.3 LOS D B F A D Approach Delay 12.6 151.1 54.3 Approach LOS B F D Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 479 1417 0 74 Queue Length 95th (ft) m39 749n #1288 m0 129 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1095 286 367 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 122 2954 2734 1225 238 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 495 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.32 0.66 1.30 0.01 0.44 R17 �l 1i IiL Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset-35 (29 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07 Intersection Signal Delay: 94.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. H:\ pdata\ 101038211Traffic \Synchro\35PM_0-1.SY7 8118/2005 Queues Pagel RBF Consulting 6(P MARINERS MILE GATEWAY PROJECT Sim Traffic Report Signal Progression Analysis Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Intersection: 378: Coast Highway & Tustin Ave Movement EB EB ES WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R LR Maximum Queue (ft) 133 90 110 133 114 115 26 124 Average Queue (ft) 81 51 54 53 54 40 5 71 95th Queue (ft) 136 93 101 110 95 96 21 131 Link Distance (ft) 426 456 456 440 440 440 440 690 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Link Distance (ft) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 833 833 553 553 Queuing Penalty (veh) 438 658 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time ( %) 0.00 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 200 200 Intersection: 380: Coast Highway & Balboa Bay Club Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T TR L R LR Maximum Queue (ft) 29 453 416 26 92 112 96 87 105 52 Average Queue (ft) 7 178 174 8 36 27 27 25 45 26 95th Queue (ft) 26 426 395 26 79 85 82 64 99 50 Link Distance (ft) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 833 833 553 553 438 438 658 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0.04 0.03 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Intersection: 400: Coast Highway & Gateway Driveway 1 Movement EB EB EB WS WB SB Directions Served L T T T T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 72 415 415 137 160 108 Average Queue (ft) 27 118 145 63 81 61 95th Queue (ft) 68 309 374 137 154 109 Link Distance (ft) 1124 1124 303 303 387 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0.01 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 H:\PDATA\ 10103821 \TrafficlSynchro 8/18/2005 RBF Consulting MARINERS MILE GATEWAY PROJECT 164: Coast Highway & Dover Dr Queue Analysis Forecast Year 2007 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 0 250 200 250 0 250 200 Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (it) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Tom on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 45 45 44 44 Link Distance (ft) 444 661 505 519 Travel Time (a) 6.7 10.0 7.8 8.0 Volume(vph) 184 1661 25 46 2550 1130 23 63 36 973 51 144 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow(vph) 200 1832 0 50 2772 1228 25 107 0 1058 55 157 Act Effct Green (s) 8.5 63.2 7.3 60.1 120.0 7.4 7.4 28.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 . 0.53 0.06 0.50 1.00 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.69 0.47 1.09 0.78 0.23 0.44 0.91 0.13 0.32 Control Delay 79.6 14.7 62.1 71.7 11.9 57.7 39.6 46.2 27.6 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Delay 79.6 14.7 62.1 121.7 11.9 57.7 39.6 46.2 27.6 3.8 LOS E B E F B E D D C. A Approach Delay 21.1 87.6 43.1 40.2 Approach LOS C F D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 269 36 -905 198 19 26 284 22 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) #152 260 m39 m#924 m347 48 56 #357 m40 21 Internal Link Dist (ft) 364 581 425 439 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 200 250 250 200 Base capacity(vph) 243 2674 118 2549 1583 118 259 1164 435 490 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 62 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.69 0.42 1.20 0.78 0.21 0.41 0.91 0.13 0.37 Intersection Summary Are Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09 Intersection Signal Delay: 60.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue sh mm is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. H:lpdata1 1 01 03 82 1 1TraffW6ynchrW35PM_0 -1.SY7 8/18/2005 Queues Page 1 RBF Consulting 6� FBF CONSULTING MEMORANDUM To: Collette Morse, MS 455 From: Eddie Torres, MS 455 Date: December 2, 2005 Subject: Mariner's Mile Construction — Haul Trucks The analysis contained within Appendix B (Air Quality Assessment) of the Mariners Mile Gateway Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration reviewed and quantified the air quality related impacts resulting from the export of soil. The overall analysis anticipated construction activities to occur over a period of 16 months. The slope will be excavated to the property line (except at the westerly 175 -feet of the northerly property line) where the slope will be excavated to approximately 7 feet south of the property line. The retaining wall will be built against the excavated slope, with 90,000 cubic yards of soil being exported off -site. As the soil is being exported to an off -site location, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended utilizing the default South Coast Air Basin values on the URBEMIS 2002 model for export trip length, which is equates to a 20 -mile round trip. This resulted in approximately 1,078 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day for truck hauling activities. Construction equipment used would include rubber -tired dozers, a rubber tired loader, excavators, off highway trucks, a signal board, and a grader. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on -site or off - site. Fugitive dust from grading is expected to be short -term and would cease upon project completion. Additionally, most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health. Based upon the nature of the construction activities and export of soil, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance; refer to Table 1 (Construction Air Emissions). With implementation of standard construction practices and recommended mitigation measures to reduce dust (e.g., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adherence to standard construction practices (watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track -out requirements, etc.), impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. ' Per conversation with James Kozuimi (Air Quality Specialist), South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 5, 2005. PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 14725 Alton Parkway C Irvine, CA 92518 O 949- .472.3505 -= FAX 949.837.4122 OI Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada _ www RBF.conn y� tl Table 1 CONSTRUCTION AIR EMISSIONS I- Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 version 8.7.0 Computer Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Year 2006 includes demolition, graft, and building phases. 3. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in the URBEMIS 2002 version 8.7.0 computer model and as typically required by the SCAQMD thmVh Rule 403. The mrdgadon includes the following: properly mairdaint of mobile and other construction equipment replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces twice daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice dak; and, Omit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. However, to lessen the traffic- related impact of the haul trucks during soil export, the following Standard Condition of Approval would be implemented: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. EON Page I of I Varin, Ginger From: JSkinnerMD @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:34 PM To: Varin, Ginger Cc: Daigle, Leslie; JHFF @aol.com; Nichols, Dick; Ridgeway, Tod; Rosansky, Steven; Selich, Edward; Webb, Don Subject: Potential New Traffic Signal on PCH I think it would be a mistake to add a traffic signal on PCH between Dover Drive and the Bay Club. I don't live in Newport Heights but I do believe that that residential community would feel the negative effects of such a signal. I, for one, would probably choose to detour around PCH by traveling up Cliff Drive from Dover Drive and returning to PCH at Riverside (this assumes that I am driving toward PCH on Dover Drive -- which is the way 1 usually go from where I live). Isn't there some other way that cars can safely access and leave a high - volume business along PCH without adding another signal? If not, then maybe that isn't an appropriate commercial use for that particular area. Nancy Skinner 1724 Highland Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 11/30/2005 k9� Message Varin, Ginger From: Bob Barry [bob.barry@jbateam.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:16 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: no on another traffic light at Mc Donalds Bob Barry John Barry & Associates 3020 Newport Blvd. Newport Bead, CA 92663 (949)675 -3551 phone (949)675 -6756 fax Page 1 of 1 11/30/2005 U3 Page I of 2 Varin, Ginger From: Ed Van den Bossche [edvanforte @adelphia.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:32 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Proposed development requiring another signal on PCH November 29, 2005 To: Chairman Michael Toerge and Members of the Planning Commission From : Ed Van den Bossche, citizen of Newport Beach RE: Another traffic signal on PCH between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club 1 oppose the addition of another signal on PCH at the McDonalds location for a 56,000 sf project between Dover and Balboa Bay Club. This traffic light will adversely impact traffic flow. The followings issues for this project need to be addressed by the Planning Department: It appears that the anchor tenant, a retail drug store company, is demanding a stop light be installed at the far west end of the project (near McDonald's) directly at their location. In essence -- no signal, no deal. It's their choice to do the deal or not. I don't care if there's another drugstore or not, but 1 do want to be able to get down the road smoothly. If a development cannot be made without screwing up the traffic, it's the wrong project. People are already sitting in traffic on PCH at Dover St. and beyond in both directions during peak hours. Adding another traffic light will worsen that. The non- quantitative factors that affect our quality of life in regards to traffic must be valued vs. 11/30/2005 (A Page 2 of 2 traffic studies and light synchronization. I see that there is a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration from city planner James Campbell stating that there will be no environmental impact. Saying it doesn't make it so, viz.; This two story underground parking structure construction will be done all during day light hours since the city has ordinances against construction at night due to excessive noise. The environmental impact on the air pollution generated by the project due to excessive exhaust fumes and higher than normal air pollution from the project. The residents across the highway from the project in Bay Shores and above the project on Kings Road will bear the brunt of this. The estimated amount of dirt to be removed is 90,000 + plus cubic yards which will require over 10,000 truck trips including turnarounds to complete the project. The planned direction to remove the dirt is west to Newport Blvd. or east to Jamboree Blvd. There will be an estimated one thousand additional truck trips to bring concrete and building materials to the site. The estimated time to complete this project is well over 12 months and it will certainly cause a significant amount of traffic tie ups as well as additional impacts to the cities already daily grid lock at that location. I am opposed to yet another development project in our community that will exacerbate traffic further along PCH and degrade our quality of life. I request that the Planning Commission require deletion of the proposed traffic light. 11/30/2005 �5 Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger From: christopher.budnik @mindspeed.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:31 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Another traffic signal on PCH between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club Dear Planning Commission, I am opposed to any additional traffic lights on PCH between Dover Drive and Newport Blvd. Surely if a traffic light is required for this project, the impact on traffic must be high enough to require a Greenlight vote. If the traffic impact of this project and the new square footage are below the limits requiring a Greenlight vote, then why install yet another traffic light? Its time for the city of Newport Beach to stop trying to discourage drivers from using PCH by restricting the traffic flow. The flawed strategy from the early 1960's whereby we would reroute PCH up Dover Drive and across E. 16th Street into Costa Mesa is a complete and total failure. What were we thinking? Now we have a stagnant business environment on Mariners Mile and Newport Heights is practically ruined due to the excessive traffic pouring into the neighborhood as people tire of sitting in traffic on PCH. It's time to get traffic on Mariners Mile moving!! The number of PCH traffic lights should be reduced, not increased! While we're at it, we should widen PCH to 6 lanes as is currently shown on the Master Plan of Highways. Please consider this as an opportunity to change direction for the better. We need to turn Night - Mariners Mile into a free flowing stretch of highway so both commuters and businesses can coexist. Any further steps taken to restrict traffic flow on PCH will further stagnate the business environment and nobody wins when that happens. Thank You, Christopher L. Budnik 11/30/2005 kO Message Page I of 1 Varin, Ginger From: Liebermann, Richard [Richard.Liebermann @Grubb- Ellis.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:05 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: New Traffic Signal Between Dover and Balboa Bay Club Dear members of the Planning Commission: I am strongly opposed to the new signal being proposed at the above location. Such a signal will impede flow on PCH, especially at peak times, and appears to NOT benefit the citizenry or the city, but a retail drug company demanding the signal as part of their lease negotiation. While I believe the tract in question deserves some type of project, any project requiring this type of signalization is not appropriate for PCH, or the community, as traffic flow will be tortuous with a new signal, especially during the Summer and peak commute hours. Richard R. Liebermann Newport Beach 11/30/2005 1B� Page I of 1 Varin, Ginger From: John Kraus Ukraus @krausconst.comi Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:37 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Proposed traffic signal My name is John Kraus, 518 Riverside Ave., Newport Beach and have been a resident homeowner in Newport Beach since 1972. 1 have watched signal after signal be installed on PCH and this one finally breaks the camels' back. The traffic is all -ready moving too slow through this stretch. Alternative parking flow and design should be looked at and if that can't be resolved then the tenant should reconsider the location. 11/30/2005 6 Page I of 2 Varin, Ginger From: Gil Lukosky [gil@nikkisflags.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:39 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: RESIDENT ALERT: A traffic signal on PCH is in the works between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club From: Gil Lukosky [mailto:gil @nikkisflags.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:32 PM To: 'gvarian @city.newpor- beach.ca.us' Subject: FW: RESIDENT ALERT: A traffic signal on PCH is in the works between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club November 29, 2005 To: Chairman Michael Toerge and Members of the Planning Commission From : Resident of Newport Beach RE: Another traffic signal on PCH between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club Please include these comments in the record as being sent prior to the close of requested comments. I would like to add to the comments made below: • Traffic — How can another traffic signal decrease the flow of traffic or better yet improve the flow so that that a positive impact is made to drivers using PVH? • Air Quality — What assurances does the citizens of Newport Beach have to insure that we maintain our current standards? • Future Development — What precedent does approval of this project mean to any future development on PCH? It is of great concern that a traffic signal is being proposed on Pacific Coast Highway at the McDonalds location for a 56,000 square foot project between Dover St. to the east and Balboa Bay Club to the west. Installing this traffic light will have an_ adverse impact on our community and be a major irritant to our residents who drive that stretch of road daily. The followings issues for this project need to be addressed by the Planning Department: It appears that the anchor tenant, a retail drug store company, is demanding a stop light be installed at the far west end of the project (near McDonald's) directly at their location. In essence --no signal, no deal. This is wrong. Don't let a developer or anchor tenant dictate what is best for them but worst case for the residents. • A traffic signal is not justified. The design the developer is proposing is faulty With two right hand only turn -ins and one right out exit. Two equal access driveways that are two - directional for ingress /egress would greatly improve the flow of traffic there. Simple rerouting and re- design with full access driveways for entering and leaving would eliminate any need for a traffic signal. • People are already sitting in traffic on PCH at Dover St. and beyond in both directions during peak hours. Adding another traffic light will greatly exacerbate that. The non - quantitative factors that affect our quality of life in regards to traffic must be valued vs. traffic studies and light synchronization. 11/30/2005 �� Page 2 of 2 I see that there is a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration from city planner James Campbell stating that there will be no environmental impact. How can that be? • This two story underground parking structure construction will be done all during day light hours since the city has ordinances against construction at night due to excessive noise. • The environmental impact on the air pollution generated by the project due to excessive exhaust fumes and higher than normal air pollution from the project. • The residents across the highway from the project in Bay Shores and above the project on Kings Road will bear the brunt of the noise, filth and bad air. • The estimated amount of dirt to be removed is 90,000 + plus cubic yards which will require over 10,000 truck trips including turnarounds to complete the project • The planned direction to remove the dirt is west to Newport Blvd. or east to Jamboree Blvd. There will be an estimated one thousand additional truck trips to bring concrete and building materials to the site. The estimated time to complete this project is well over 12 months and it will certainly cause a significant amount of traffic tie ups as well as additional impacts to the cities already daily grid lock at that location. I am opposed to yet another development project in our community that will exacerbate traffic further along PCH and degrade our quality of life. I request that the Planning Commission deny the project design as proposed. Sincerely, Gil Lukosky Owner, Nikkis Flags Resident, 441 Prospect St, N.B. 11/30/2005 �� Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger From: rene powers [gpanda26 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:57 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: traffic light I have to write regarding ANOTHER obstacle on PCH. To put a light between McDonalds and Dover is ridiculous. This is just to satisfy a store that will not locate until this is approved? How crazy, besides, NO BUSINESS LASTS ON THAT STRETCH so we would be put into further traffic problems for this ? ?? ENOUGH already. Rene' Powers Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over I million songs. Try it free. 11/30/2005 �` Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger From: Deborah Calvert [debdeb2080 @hotmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:23 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Dover & PCH Project City of Newport Beach, I'm strongly opposed to this project for the simple reason it will create more traffic. Additionally, I'm concerned about the fact it's in a liquefaction zoned area with a cliff above, near sea level and a 2 story underground parking garage is proposed. I do believe in the event of a major earthquake that will jeopardise the homes on the top of the cliff. Those are my concerns. Thank you, Debbie Calvert, Newport Beach Resident PO Box 11221 Newport Beach, CA 92658 949 548 -2080 11/30/2005 13-- Varin, Ginger From: win fuller [wfullerl @pacbell.net) Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:35 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Proposed new traffic signal Between Balboa Bay Club & Dover Please no more traffic signals on PCH through NewportBeach . The enhancement of traffic flow is of utmost importance to the majority's quality of life . This traffic light proposal , if passed by the Planning Commission would most certainly obstruct traffic flow. Please vote against this proposal. Thank You, Win Fuller -1�) Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger From: Al Beimfohr jabeimfohr @knightsb.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:41 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: More traffic lights ..... PCH between Dover and BBC More lights? Is this the solution to every problem? Zero to 30 mph to zero every 100 yards? How about CONTROLLED ACCESS ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? Alan T. Beimfohr Knightsbridge Asset Management, LLC 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 460 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 644 -4444 — abeimfohr @knightsb.com The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. 11/30/2005 nq Varin Ginger From: Iryne Black [ayeblack @sboglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:54 PM To: Varin, Ginger this is really crazy... traffic is backed up during rush hour all the way to Jamboree as it is. All PCH merchants should oppose it because all drivers simply avoid PCH by turning up Dover to 17th. There are plenty of drug stores there. Iryne Black, Newport Beach �5 Page I of I Varin, Ginger From: barbara126 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:48 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Traffic light on Coast Highway between Dover and the BBC Dear Sir: The traffic in that area is already unbearable for those of us who must drive through there often. We absolutely do not need another development there. It would not benefit residents as we already have a dizzying number of vendors of various kinds to choose from in Newport Beach. Barbara Nielsen 440 Villa Point Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 11/30/2005 1(P Varin, Ginger From: Ted Mumm [3mumms @brats.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:24 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: PCH trafffic light I can't believe you are considering the idea of another traffic light on PCH near McDonald's. This is insane! Have you ever gone out and looked at the huge daily traffic jam on PCH, or worse yet, had to sit in it like I do every day? Another light would only make the problem worse. Please don't let some developer dictate our traffic patterns - do what is best for the residents!!! No new traffic light! Sincerely, Carl W. Mumm 319 Cedar Street Newport Beach 1 Varin, Ginger From: Don Harvey [harveydonw @juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:37 AM To: Varin, Ginger Cc: newporters_frg @earthlink.net Subject: Proposed traffic signal on PCH between Dover St and Balboa Bay Club November 29, 2005 To: Chairman Michael Toerge and Members of the Planning Commission >From : Don Harvey, Newport Beach resident re: Opposition to proposed traffic signal on PCH between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club It is of great concern that a traffic signal is being proposed on Pacific Coast Highway at the McDonalds location for a 56,000 square foot project between Dover St. to the east and Balboa Bay Club to the west. Installing this traffic light will have an adverse impact on our community and be a major irritant to our residents who drive that stretch of road daily. The following issues for this project need to be addressed by the Planning Department: * It appears that the anchor tenant, a retail drug store company, is demanding a stop light be installed at the far west end of the project (near McDonald's) directly at their location. In essence: no signal, no deal. This is wrong. Don't let a developer or anchor tenant dictate what is best for them but worst case for the residents. * A traffic signal is not justified. The design the developer is proposing is faulty with two right hand only turn -ins and one right out exit. Two equal access driveways that are two - directional for ingress /egress would greatly improve the flow of traffic there. Simple rerouting and re- design with full access driveways for entering and leaving would eliminate any need for a traffic signal. * People are already sitting in traffic on PCH at Dover St. and beyond in both directions during peak hours. Adding another traffic light will greatly exacerbate that. The non - quantitative factors that affect our quality of life in regards to traffic must be valued vs. traffic studies and options such as light synchronization. * I see that there is a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration from city planner James Campbell stating that there will be no environmental impact. How can that be? o This two story underground parking structure construction will be done entirely during daylight hours since the city has ordinances against construction at night due to excessive noise. o The environmental impact on the air pollution generated by the project due to excessive exhaust fumes and higher than normal air pollution from the project. o The estimated amount of dirt to be removed is 90,000 + plus cubic yards which will require over 10,DOD truck trips including turnarounds to complete the project. o The planned direction to remove the dirt is west to Newport Blvd. or east to Jamboree Blvd. There will be an estimated one thousand additional truck trips to bring concrete and building materials to the site. * The estimated time to complete this project is well over 12 months and it will certainly cause a significant amount of traffic tie 1 f� ij ups as well as additional impacts to the cities already daily grid lock at that location. I am opposed to yet another development project in our community that will exacerbate traffic further along PCH and degrade our quality of life. I request that the Planning Commission deny the project design as proposed. Don Harvey Newport Beach W: 714/288 -9130 2 1 Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger From: Joe Rybus Doe @camcomgroup.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:20 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: traffic light on pch Mr. Toerge, We don't need any additional traffic lights on PCH, especially just for a drug retailer by McDonalds. We already have adequate services on 17th St. with a Longs, Sav -on and a Rite - Aid. Traffic is already a nightmare now on PCH. Please deny this request. Best Regards, Joe Rybus PS Let's hook up with Guido for dinner, all the best. 11/30/2005 V� November 29, 2005 To: Chairman Michael Toerge and Members of the Planning Commission From : Tom Billings Resident of Newport Beach RE: Another traffic signal on PCH between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club It is of great concern that a traffic signal is being proposed on Pacific Coast Highway at the McDonalds location for a 56,000 square foot project between Dover St. to the east and Balboa Bay Club to the west. Installing this traffic light will have an adverse impact on our community and be a mninr irritant to nnr residents who drive that stretch of road dailv. The for this project need to be addressed by the Planning Department: It appears that the anchor tenant, a retail drug store company, is demanding a stop light be installed at the far west end of the project (near McDonald's) directly at their location. In essence — no signal, no deal. This is wrong. Don't let a developer or anchor tenant dictate what is best for them but worst case for the residents. A traffic signal is not justified. The design the developer is proposing is faulty with two right hand only turn -ins and one right out exit. Two equal access driveways that are two - directional for ingresslegress would greatly improve the flow of traffic there. Simple rerouting and re- design with full access driveways for entering and leaving would eliminate any need for a traffic signal. People are already sitting in traffic on PCH at Dover St. and beyond in both directions during peak hours. Adding another traffic light will greatly exacerbate that The non - quantitative factors that affect our quality of life in regards to traffic must be valued vs. traffic studies and light synchronization. I see that there is a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration from city planner James Campbell stating that there will be no environmental impact. How can that be? o This two story underground parking structure construction will be done all during day light hours since the city has ordinances against construction at night due to excessive noise. • The environmental impact on the air pollution generated by the project due to excessive exhaust fumes and higher than normal air pollution from the project. • The residents across the highway from the project in Bay Shores and above the project on Kings Road will bear the brunt of the noise, filth and bad air. • The estimated amount of dirt to be removed is 90;000 + plus cubic yards which will require over 10,000 truck trips including turnarounds to complete the project. • The planned direction to remove the dirt is west to Newport Blvd. or east to Jamboree Blvd. There will be an estimated one thousand additional truck trips to bring concrete and building materials to the site. The estimated time to complete this project is well over 12 months and it will certainly cause a significant amount of traffic tie ups as well as additional impacts to the cities already daily grid lock at that location. I am opposed to yet another development project in our community that will exacerbate traffic further along PCH and degrade our quality of life. I request that the Planning Commission deny the project design as proposed. November 29, 2005 Mariner's Mile Gateway Project MND- Comment and Question Letter Page 1 of 2 Project Description is vague. The document itself is difficult to read and information is not easily made available to the reader or is totally lacking. For example, the underground parking- one can see (not easily) that there is a visible entrance and exit in the front of the property_ The document does not clearly describe the ingress or the egress of the underground parking, i.e. # of lanes. Site Plan — Level One, exhibit 2.3a — it is almost illegible, but does shows 2 ways down & one way up. This appears to be confirmed on exhibits 2 -5a and 2 -5b. Considering this could become flooded, should there be 2 ways out? Also, the MND describes two different parking plans, but neglects to inform the reader as to which plan will be chosen and why? Is one a plan for if you find too much water, and the other plan of 2 sub levels for if you find no water? Geology& Soils: Recommendations made by the Krazan & Associates, site development engineers, are not incorporated into the MND. The Administrative Summary alone lists 8 recommendations that range from dewatering to tiebacks and shorings, none of which are incorporated in the MND, including a survey of the surrounding properties for cracks prior to any excavation and or building. Without incorporating any of the recommendations, the project will have a tremendous and significant impact on the surrounding properties. There are also drainage issues that are discussed which lead the reader to believe that there could be an impact on the stability of the slopes of the homes on Kings Road and the current drainage which they now have. The Drainage map is difficult to read and being of such importance to the entire site, more discussion is needed and should have been given. It was suggested that the water table could be much higher that the 11' to 12' feet as discussed, and that nobody will know until they dig. Where is the plan and where are the mitigation measures that discuss what changes will need to be made if they dig 5' and find the water table? And since this will most likely be seawater, what mitigations will be put in place to ensure the stability of the foundation and it holding up to the corrosiveness of the sea water /salt/sodium? Public Services: It has been suggested that the project will incorporate raised mediums, where is that discussion in the MND? Currently if (tire) there is an accident on PCH (prior to Tustin or Riverside) and PCH were to become closed for any reason, emergency or not, Fire Engines can easily make a U turn anywhere before Tustin Ave and go up Dover to Hoag Hospital. Once raised mediums are incorporated, there is not access, there is no.mitigation measure described as to how emergency vehicles will proceed to Hoag Hospital or get to the other side of the City for any reason. Where is that mitigation measure, which is significant for all of us who live south of Bayside? I understand that incase of an emergency the lights would be green and there allow for traffic fo proceed, however, there is always congestion on PCH and therefore even if the tights were green, G the Emergency vehicles could not proceed. It is not like in Europe, where if the Bus cannot pass, some of the people just move the Fiats or Scooters onto the sidewalks and the Bus moves on. There is no place for the cars to move to allow for Emergency vehicles to proceed. How an can the MND state there is no significance? Public Utilities: The document discusses excavating approx. 90,000 cyds. of material. More discussions needs to be given as to what type of material this will be: i.e. concrete, asphalt, dirt, clean dirt, wood, green waste, and how it will be disposed of and recycled. A project of this scope needs to have a recycling component and state where the information materials will go. Where is the plan? The City of Newport Beach has a Source Reduction, Recycling, Element, SRRE, in place will that ensures tlial�they comply with AB939 and ensures a 50% waste reduction, where does the document state that this excessive amount of tonnage and material will not impact our SRRE? The Truckloads of approx 5000 trucks at a minimum to haul away all this material will drastically increase if they recycle the materials as per AB939? The plan only states that the material will be taken to Prima Deshecha landfill, in South County, as opposed to Bowerman landfill in Irvine which is closer, and therefore will not add as much pollution to the air. Also, the Traffic Signal planned for McDonalds will only increase the congestion and make it more difficult for emergency vehicles and any public utility truck to proceed. Where is the plan that shows the project with a change in the driveways and no traffic signal? Parking - Where will the construction workers park? There is no real plan for the Construction Sta in and yet this project is of major significance and will impact thousands of people daily and needs.a plan. And lastly, there are two documents of importance that were not included in the MND and therefore not made available to the public. The RBF Consulting Memorandum dated September 21, 2005 which is the `Newport Gateway: Driveway 1 /West Coast Highway Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis', and the RBF Consulting `Proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway Project West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive Queuing Evaluation. With all the information that is missing or not properly mitigated, the project should really answer all the concerns of the public with all mitigation in place and it should be accomplished in the form of an EIR. It is not clear to me that the entire project has been described or mitigated to warrant going forward at this time due to the missing documents alone. It needs tome amended to include the above and at minimum recirculated to the Public with all the information. Respectfully, Dolores A. atting 17 Hillsborough, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 �i WY OF NEWPORT B1 ACH MlIrIGATED NEGATIVE DRCL.ARATION Proposed, Fit al CASE NO: PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT: PROTECT i�.A:Ti I. =4 ]city Council finds that the prdjebi and that a Mitigated i Mitigation measures [ I Are Not Required Prepared by. , on i'le Vest Coast Hift; A4A- A P4 YDri--e, F. "I I the do"d M; a es FF ill ike f, kc It: ion [Ming - (Wt&ss Sits re'v a r1i =I, a u uant to s4kaiL IS074 ofCEQ-A S jl�.Ax`e,��ab6d' Are Not Attached rames Campbsll/ S"Jor canner ;Name/Title) t Public Review Period October 2005 To Noy giber 29, 2005. Public Notice Givert On Qatober2g.2005 M Legal Advertisemeat,1 [X] Posting of Properties W i lritten Notice CERTIFICATION DATE, �5 GREENLIGHT PO Box 3362 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 721 -8227 j.i0V 2 9 20Q- 7 >18 0110 11112 ,1 12,3141516 November 29, 2005 Chairman Michael Toerge and Jim Campbell Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: % Patty Temple % Ginger Varin, Secretary Planning Department City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Reference: (1.) City of Newport Beach, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mariner's Mile Gateway Project Dated October 31,2005 prepared by RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Park3way, Irvine, CA 92618 (2.) RBF Consulting Letter "Proposed used Mariner's Mile Gateway Project West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive Queuing Evaluation" dated August 23, 2005 (3.) RBF Consulting Letter "Newport Gateway: Driveway 1 /West Coast Highway Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis" dated September 21, 2005 To: Chairman Michael Toerge and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: Jim Campbell % Patty Temple The below listed objections to the subject Negative Declaration justify its' rejection along with its accompanying studies. A full mitigation study based upon summer traffic, year 2025 traffic and mitigation of other significant environmental impacts is needed because of the below described omissions in arriving at the Negative Declaration. 1.) Construction truck traffic Construction truck traffic will have a major impact upon the city as an estimated 4,000 or more truckloads of dirt will have to be removed. Additionally an unknown number of additional truckloads will be required to remove the debris from the torn down existing buildings on the site. Then another large number of truckloads will be required to bring in the cement for the underground garage and construction materials and interior furnishings for the new buildings. No mitigation was included for this major impact on the environment and it is of concern that this factor was not even mentioned in the Negative Declaration. The intended route of these construction trucks through city streets was undefined. It is requested that a full set of mitigation measures be included for additional traffic congestion, noise and pollution in the revised full EIR including such factors as no traffic permitted during the peak summer months, etc. 2.) Summer Traffic The traffic studies do not adequately describe summer season problems that must be mitigated. The traffic studies seriously understate the levels of congestion that will be made worse by this additional traffic during the summer beach season. This is a special circumstance because the city experiences an estimated 100,000 daily summer visitors. As Pacific Coast Highway is one of only two arterial roads crossing the city, and particularly because it is the closest to the lower Bay and Beaches, the Negative Declaration should be rejected and a full mitigation study based upon the summer season traffic conducted. 13 3.) Traffic conditions beyond base year of 2007 The traffic studies do not adequately describe traffic mitigation required beyond the base year of 2007. The study should be projected at five -year intervals out to 2025. It is inevitable that additional traffic generating developments will be built and regional traffic routed through Newport Beach will increase. The Negative Declaration should be rejected and a full mitigation study based upon year 2025 traffic conducted 4.) Lack of public distribution of References 2 & 3. References 2 & 3 were not distributed to the public as a part of the proposed mitigated negative declaration. Therefore the public did not have the opportunity to adequately study all data needed to understand the environmental impacts of the project. These studies should be made a part of the environmental impact study, adequately mitigated and reported to the public as a whole. 5.) Summer traffic and traffic conditions beyond the base year of 2007 for References 2 & 3. References 2 & 3 will be seriously impacted by summer traffic and increased traffic beyond year 2007. These studies should be revised to accommodate these conditions. 6.) Circulation Element Improvements Various proposals have been floated in discussions of the widening of Pacific Coast Highway in the Mariner's Mile area to relieve traffic congestion on that major street and its intersections. However the TPO requires a firm circulation element improvement plan that is highly likely to be implemented within one year required (Appendix A, 3 c (i)). There is a huge amount of controversy over the widening of PCH. The local merchants do not want to lose their convenient on -street parking and do not want speeds increased in front of their businesses. The Coastal Commission requires replacement of any parking spaces that are removed from use by the public. There needs to be a more thorough evaluation of these factors in the EIR, as the Negative Declaration has not adequately considered them. Thank you for your services to the city and consideration of this matter, Philip L. Arst D0 yyk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed. [ ]Final C -; t `' �F 1. t.., t' ! EACH - - g N05 PM CASE NO: t ' ' .A20 ` gjgj9j10j11j12j1 }213j4}5j6 PROJECT NAME ,iGlann s *Re roject s- APPLICANT ' `r Man es s, Mt at y, LC PROJECT Based c ".require' City of Section 150.7( Beach ".1 [ ]City Council r� finds that the protect :as proposed orevik dµ and that a Ivhtigated Negatrve.Declaratioon sl�ta Mitigation measures.for this, project [ } Are.Not Required [X] Are 2 e7 acre site ppjec te' i ocated on the West Coast HigJ wa A-1)-an overDrive, > Mrle, tit the Ciiy�of�Newpo Seach�" � Mrs e�Gat�ewa'. mrect Dro1)0;;saA .a the the Me enviTanment, 15074 of CEQA. [ ] Are Not Attached Prepared 6yi James Camnbell/ Senior Planner �t/ C,�L4 '(Signature) : (Name /Title) Public Review Period From October 31, 2005 To November 29. 2005. Public Notice Given On October 28. 2005 [X] Legal Advertisement . [X] Posting of Properties (X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE:. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mariner's Mile Gateway Project LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Contacts: Mr. Jim Campbell 949.644.3219 PREPARED BY: RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Ms. Collette L. Morse, AICP 949.472.3505 October 31, 2005 JN 10- 103821 �jCP Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger From: Katherine Infantino (Kinfantino @gmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:51 AM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: proposed PCH traffic signal The proposed traffic signal between Dover Drive and BBC on Pacific Coast Highway will be detrimental to traffic flow in this area - an area that already experiences significant backup every day. If the hill - hiding new shopping center that is proposed between McDonald's and Dover Drive can't be scaled back or rearranged to work without a new light, it should not be approved. We in Bayshores and our neighbors in the Heights appreciate your consideration in this matter. Katherine Infantino 11/30/2005 qb Varin, Ginger From: Larry Vescera [larryvescera @yahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:02 AM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Another traffic signal on PCH Please do not approve the traffic signal for Mac Donalds, the congestion in the area is already quite great. Sincerely Larry & Sue Vescera 2026 Avenida Chico,NPB Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http: / /music.yahoo.com /unlimited/ H Street light Coast Highway Varin, Ginger From: Jim Carmack jjcarmack @carmackinsurance.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:30 AM To: Vann, Ginger Subject: Street light Coast Highway Page I of 1 I wish to state my objection to the proposed traffic light on Coast Highway anywhere between Dover and Newport Boulevard. As a neighbor, I utilize this section of PCH on a daily basis and live within 300 yards of the highway. This additional stop light will do further damage to the traffic flow on a stretch of highway that is currently severely impacted by traffic. In addition, the noise created in the neighborhood by cars stopped and idling at the light is obnoxious and unacceptable.Apparently this request has been made by a developer to appease their tenant. To approve this light to the benefit of a developer and the detriment of residents is simply unacceptable. James M. Carmack, AAI President CARMACK INSURANCE Celebrating our 80th Anniversary icarmack@carmackinsurance.com www. ca rma c k i n s u ra n ce. co m (949) 851 -3836 aa' 11/30/2005 Varin, Ginger From: Temple, Patty Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:41 AM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: From: Kiff, Dave Sent Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:40 AM To: Temple, Patty Subject: FW: Patty -- will you keep this for whatever Council agenda item addresses the Dover -PCH development? Thanks. Dave From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:32 PM To: 'David Harvey Subject: RE: Mr. Harvey — Thanks for letting us know. I will pass your thoughts along to the Council. Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager From: David Harvey rmal@Odharvev@harveyceo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:26 PM To: Kiff, Dave Subject: As a long time resident and an owner of a business in Newport Beach, I would like to voice my strong opposition to proposed traffic signal on PCH between Dover and Balboa Bay Club. Regards, Dave David W.M. Harvey Harvey & Company 5000 Birch Street, West Tower, Suite 9200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 502 -7516 - direct (949) 757 -0400 ext. 116 (949) 757 -0404 - Fax dharvev (d,)harveyceo.com www.harveyceo.com Confidentiality Statement This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the authorized use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure to persons other than the intended addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noted that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any attachments. Thank you. 1� Varin, Ginger From: Judy Weightman [judy2001cj @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:29 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: possible additional traffic signal? Dear wonderful city of Newport Beach, Thank you for taking such good care of us in the services you offer and the way you are sensitive to residents. So here's my question: who wants a traffic signal at McDonalds on PCH? Why would we want to further complicate the already congested area with an additional bottleneck situation? Please do not entertain such an idea. Judy Weightman 2001 Cliff Drive NB Thanks very much..... Yahoo! DSL — Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com, r i