The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMariners Mile Gateway, LLC ( PA 2004-130)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 January 5, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department David Lepo, Contract Planner (949) 553 -1427 dlepo@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 and draft Responses to Comments, review responses to Planning Commissioner comments of December 8, 2005, receive public comments, and state the majority opinion of the Planning Commission on draft findings for Development Plan No. 2004 -001, Use Permit No. 2004 -025, and Modification Permit No. 2005 -117 relative to development of a 56,000 square foot retail center with underground parking at 100 -600 West Coast Highway. DISCUSSION Background On December 8, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on an application submitted by Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC 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. Because of the complexity and number of issues to be resolved, the public hearing was continued to January 5, 2006. The Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to return with specific, additional information that Commissioners believed necessary before taking action on the application. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 2 of 11 issues The Commission expressed the following areas of concern: Need for historical aerial photos of hillside and site plan showing existing bluff and proposed excavation. • Aerials provided by City and RBF Consulting and included with this report; Sheet A -1A showing existing topography as overlay on project site plan provided by applicant and included with this report. (See analysis below at Excavation of Bluff) Analysis of hillside excavation in Mitigated Negative Declaration does not indicate potential for significant impact. A potential impact in this circumstance would occur if the proposed project was found to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Without a previous determination that the subject hillside is a natural land form and proposed excavation is inconsistent with General Plan Land Use Policy "D ", there was no basis for a determination that the project would result in a significant impact. If the Planning Commission determines that proposed excavation, even with mitigation, would be inconsistent with Policy "D" but that the project should be approved, a focused EiR would need to be prepared and a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted. Analyze traffic impact of trucks hauling excavated materials from project site. Analysis of potential impacts of construction vehicle traffic on the local roadway system was determined to be infeasible (see Attachment 1). Since traffic impact analyses are based on peak hour traffic at intersections, no comparable comparison for existing plus project traffic limited to non -peak hours can be made. Limit truck traffic to non -peak hours. The applicant has agreed to a condition of approval limiting the number of VMT and truck trips per day and restricting truck trips to non -peak hours between 9 AM to 4 PM. Limit daily truck trips and vehicle miles traveled so as to remain below pollutant emission thresholds established by the Air Quality Management District. An additional air quality modeling run was completed to determine the maximum number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day by trucks hauling excavated materials without exceeding Air Quality Management District thresholds of significance for emissions of pollutants (see Mariners Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 3 of 11 Attachment 2). Accordingly, a total of 9,364 VMT maybe traveled without significant impact. The applicant has also indicated that excavation logistics will limit the number of trucks hauling dirt from the site to 55 per day with each round trip being no more than 24.8 miles (1,364 = 55 = 24.8). if the disposal location requires more than 24.8 miles round trip, the number of truck trips will be reduced commensurately. This limit will be included as a condition of project approval. Review potential impedance of emergency vehicles by raised medians on Coast Highway. • The City Fire Marshal reviewed proposed Coast Highway improvements including the median. The Fire Marshal's comments are included as Attachment 3 and indicated that the addition of a third westbound lane would eliminate a bottleneck and alleviate the need for emergency vehicles to cross over the median. Affirm the accuracy of Levels of Service projected at Driveway 1 and Bay Club traffic signals. • The Levels of Service has been reviewed and confirmed by RBF as being accurate. Consider possibility of one -way drive aisle and angled parking to minimize on -site queuing conflicts near main ingress /egress at signalized driveway. See Sheet A -9 provided by applicant and included with this staff report includes one -way drive and angled parking. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the layout and it satisfies parking layout standards. Feasibility of synchronizing traffic signal at main driveway entrance with signals at Dover Drive and Bay Club. Additional traffic flow analysis was prepared by RBF for the City Traffic Engineer to determine if the new signal would perform adequately. The analysis shows minimal impact to traffic progression with proper timing of the signal in sequence with the Dover and Bay Club signals. The Traffic Engineer has accepted the analysis, however, Caltrans has authority for the intersection design and sequencing of the signal to ensure optimal traffic flow. Potential for extending 3rd lane westward from project to Bay Club and extending 3`d lane eastbound from project past Coast Highway /Dover intersection. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 4 of 11 Planning Commission may consider this as a separate agenda item and recommend improvements to City Council for consideration during preparation of next years Capital Improvement Program. Noise and ground vibration associated with construction of tieback retaining wall. • Applicant has agreed to condition requiring coring method rather than pile driving method for installing tiebacks. Verify accuracy of amount of excavated materials to be exported from project site. Calculations of the number of days required to remove all excavated materials from the site will be based upon total material export of 90,000 cubic yards. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) reference to excavation of "190,000 cubic feet per day° was incorrect and the 90,000 cubic feet of export per day included in the MND is the accurate estimate upon which air quality calculations were based. Ensure adequate loading areas for all businesses. • Code - required loading spaces are provided and highlighted on Sheet A -4 provided by applicant and included with this report. Allow vehicle overhang into landscaped setback area along Coast Highway to maintain minimum 4' wide planter. Parking spaces modified to provide vehicle overhang for seven parking spaces at 90 degree angle to drive aisle as shown on Sheet A -1 provided by applicant and included with this report. Provide more detail on trash enclosure locations and operations. • Additional trash enclosures provided on ground level at northwest comer of two -story building as shown on Sheet A -1 provided by applicant and included with this report. Provide detailed elevation of proposed retaining wall. • Elevation to be provided by applicant at the meeting. Ensure adequate parking for project including public open areas. A minimum of 225 parking spaces are required for the range of uses identified by the applicant (the plans incorrectly indicate that 268 spaces are required). Parking for restaurants is not accounted for and there is no Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 5 of 11 parking standard for the plaza, with surface parking and only one level of subterranean parking, a total of 287 parking stalls will be provided; with surface parking and two levels of subterranean parking, a total of 407 parking stall will be provided. In either case, excess parking is available for the plaza, restaurants and potential medical offices. Require that employees to park in subterranean parking. Condition of project approval will require employees to park in lower subterranean parking levels. Ensure adequate turnaround areas on all levels of garage. Tumaround areas reviewed by Traffic Engineering and further refinement may be necessary that can be addressed at the plan check stage. Sign program should be reviewed by Planning Commission. Sign program review by Planning Commission will be included as condition of project approval. Project needs additional elevators. A total of six elevators are provided as required by California Codes. Excavation of bluff In order to achieve the goals of the Zoning Code related to Development Plan approval contained in Section 20.42.060 (Development Plan Review Required), the siting of the buildings and the extent of bluff alteration was considered in the context of General Plan Policy D that provides policy direction. If the project is found not to conform to Policy D, several of the purposes articulated in Section 20.42.060 will not be achieved and the project cannot be approved. The purposes of Development Plan review are: To assure that development of properties in Mariner's Mile Overlay Area will not preclude attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies. 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. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 6 of 11 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. 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. Land Use Element Policy "D" states: 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. The Planning Commission requested additional information before making a determination as to whether or not the slope on the northerly portion of the site is a "natural land form" and, if so, whether or not the extent of proposed excavation is consistent with preservation of the natural land form. Historical air photography shows that the bluff has been altered (Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2). The top of the bluff was flattened to allow for the development of the houses above. The relatively flat portion of the site was first part of Coast Highway until 1931 when it was relocated to the south close to its current alignment. The flat part of the site was first developed with a gas station and then with the existing commercial buildings. The existing development has cut the toe of the slope to create more usable area. How much of the remainder of the bluff is altered or is in its natural state is not readily discernable. Soils reports indicate that there are unconsolidated soils on the face of some of the bluff. The source of the soils is not known and it could be a result of filing the slope when the homes above were developed. It also could be the result of natural erosional processes. Staff believes that the existing topography resembles natural terrain although it is altered. If the Commission believes that the bluff is altered and not in its natural state, it can be found that this portion of the policy is inapplicable and the project can be approved without further consideration of this General Plan policy. Conversely, even if the bluff is altered, Policy D can be found to apply if it is believed that the policy was intended to apply to altered landforms that resemble natural terrain. In that case, does the project minimize its alteration to the extent practicable? The Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 7 of 11 project does rely upon significant alteration, but is it feasible to reduce the alteration? It is feasible to reduce the bluff alteration by reducing the size of the project to some level that the Commission could find the redesigned project consistent with the policy. To assist Planning Commissioners in reaching a majority opinion about the alteration of the slope on the project site, a contour map showing the existing and proposed topography is included on Sheet A -1A of plans included with this report. The contour map shows that the bulk of the excavation of the slope will occur on the westerly third of the project site. The most sizable cut into the slope would extend approximately 80 feet from the toe of the slope to the location of the proposed retaining wall. The exposed face of the slope after excavation would be a maximum of 55 feet in height at the westerly property line and would taper to a height of approximately 6 feet at the easterly end of the site. For purposes of comparison, the retaining wall on the adjoining McDonald's site is approximately 15 feet in height and resulted from a cut extending approximately 35 feet into the toe of the slope. Several alternatives to address this issue are available: The Commission could determine that the bluff is altered such that it is no longer a natural land form and in so doing, Policy D is inapplicable. The Commission could find that the bluff is altered but it remains sufficiently natural such that Policy D applies. If the Planning Commission determines that the extent of proposed excavation is greater than that which would be consistent with minimizing the alteration of natural land forms, the Planning Commission could direct staff to return with findings for denial of the Development Plan and the proposed project. Alternatively, the Commission could direct changes to the project to reduce alteration of the bluff such that the redesigned project is consistent with one or more of the four policies of the Mariner's Mile Overlay District and General Plan Policy D. b. The Planning Commission could determine that the amount of proposed alteration is minimized to the extent practicable in the light of the overall project, the site constraints and project benefits, and therefore, find that the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use policy. In this event, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare findings for approval. Modification Permit The project applicant has requested a Modification Permit waiving the required rear yard setback and allowing a reduction in width for a portion of the Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 8 of 11 landscaped setback along Coast Highway. The Retail Service Commercial zoning underlying the Mariner's Mile Overlay for the project site requires a minimum 5 -foot rear yard setback and a minimum 4 -foot landscaped setback along the street frontage. The site plan for the proposed project shows the combination retaining wall /north building wall located at the rear (northerly) property line with no rear yard setback. The landscaped setback abutting both Coast Highway and parking spaces along the right -of -way is proposed to range from 3 feet to 4 feet in width. Findings required for approval of a Modification Permit are included as Exhibit 2. Consistent with required Modification Permit findings, the Planning Commission may determine that required dedication of additional public right -of -way for widening Coast Highway results in a practical difficulty. Dedication would result in reductions in lot depths ranging from approximately 20 feet at the easterly property line to approximately 11 feet at the westerly property line. Accordingly, lot depths would be reduced to approximately 85 feet at the easterly end of the site and 146 feet at the westerly property line. The Planning Commission may find that reduced lot depths do not accommodate a functional retail center site configuration. A functional retail center is often characterized by two rows of surface parking served by a two -way drive aisle, situated between the retail storefronts and the roadway frontage. This parking configuration uses approximately 60 feet of the depth of the parcel. Elimination of the rear yard setback and reduction in the width of the street -side, landscaped setback would allow for development as proposed with parking stalls in two rows with access from a double - loaded, two - way drive aisle in front of the westerly half of the two -story retail building. The remaining lot area in front of the easterly half of the two -story building is too narrow to accommodate parking spaces and drive aisles. The balance of the minimum required parking will be accommodated on the northwesterly portion of the surface lot and in a subterranean structure. Based on the information provided, the Planning Commission may determine that the dedication of right -of -way and subsequent limitation on functional site design represent practical difficulties and the Modification Permit for both the reduced rear yard setback and the reduced landscaped setback may be approved with additional findings as in Exhibit 3. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may find that the reduced lot depth is not a practical difficulty and deny both the rear yard setback and the front yard landscaped setback reductions requested. In this event, the Planning Commission should direct staff to return with findings for denial of the Modification Permit and for denial of the Development Plan since construction of the combination building wall /retaining wall is dependent upon waiving the minimum 5 -foot rear yard requirement. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 9 of 11 If the Planning Commission finds that the reduced lot depth does represent a practical difficulty but believes a wider rear yard setback and /or a wider landscaped setback are appropriate, the Planning Commission may indicate appropriate setbacks, direct the applicant to reconfigure the project site accordingly, and continue this public hearing item. No action on the Modification Permit or the Development Plan would be taken in this case until revised plans were submitted for future Planning Commission review. Building Height If the Planning Commission determines that appropriate findings may be made for approval of the Development Plan and the Modification Permit, direction should be given as to the majority opinion on the request for a Use Permit. The project site is located in the 26/35 height limitation zone established in the Zoning Code. Buildings within this height limitation zone may be up to 26 feet by right and up to 35 feet with approval of a Use Permit. The two -story structure proposed as part of this project ranges in height from 20' to 35'. The single -story drug store building ranges in height from 28' -6" to 34' -5 ". Approval of a Use Permit for the additional building height may be granted by the Planning Commission upon making findings in Exhibit 4. Based upon the Commissions reaction to the project at the last meeting, the most burdensome finding for approval of a Use Permit for additional height appears to be: "[T]he 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." The increase in height for the second story on the proposed multi- tenant building may be deemed to result in additional open space between the easterly end of this building and Coast Highway. This additional open space is currently proposed as a pedestrian courtyard. If the Use Permit is denied, the proposed second story could be reconfigured as a larger first -floor building footprint possibly reducing the size of the pedestrian courtyard and reducing open space at the ground level. The second level of commercial space in the multi- tenant building is further setback from Coast Highway and therefore provides additional open space visible to the public. Moreover, the proposed project includes more than 2,000 square feet of landscaped area along Coast Highway above and beyond that required by the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission may consider this additional landscaped area together with the more than 7,000 square feet of right -of -way dedication for Coast Highway in making a determination. Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 10 of 11 Approval of a single -story drug store structure up to 34' -5" in height is included with the Use Permit request. The Planning Commission may consider the entirety of the proposed development in making a determination as to which, if any buildings, may be over 26 feet in height. In this instance, the additional public visual open space in the form of the pedestrian courtyard, additional landscaped setback, and right -of -way dedication may be trade -offs for allowing both the single -story drug store building and the two -story multi- tenant building to exceed the base height limit. After considering the merits of the Use Permit request, the Planning Commission may determine that the additional public visual open space provided warrants approval of the two -story building up to 35 feet in height and the single -story building up to 34' -6" in height. In this event, the Planning Commission should provide comment on the remaining findings required for Use Permit approval in Exhibit 3 and direct staff to return with findings for approval of the Use Permit. A variation on this action would be to approve the Use Permit with height limits less than proposed for either or both buildings to address specific concerns regarding the siting of the taller building masses. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may determine that the Use Permit should allow only one of the two proposed buildings to exceed the base height limit. This action could include a reduction in height of the proposed structure for which approval of the Use Permit is directed. The Planning Commission should provide comment on the reasons for this decision and direct staff to prepare appropriate findings for adoption at a subsequent meeting. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Planning Commission must consider whether or not the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for this project should be adopted. The MND is accompanied by an Initial Study that includes analysis of potential environmental impacts that could result from development and occupancy of the proposed project. With mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval indicated in the Initial Study and set forth in the mitigation measures included with the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Responses to comments received on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and are included as Attachment 4. Summary The Planning Commission should state the majority opinion as to the intention to approve or deny requests for approval of the Development Plan, the Modification Permit, and the Use Permit, and provide comment on the findings consistent with the majority opinion to be made on each request. Mariners Mile Gateway (PA2004 -130) January 5, 2006 Page 11 of 11 Staff will return with appropriate resolutions for approval, approval with further project modifications or denial, as directed, with findings based on Planning Commission comments. Prepared by: C Fo, avid Lepo Hogle- Ireland, Inc. Submitted by: 4�A,f e t*?t Patncia Temple Planning Director Exhibits: 1. Aerial Photographs — Years 1927, 1938, 1947, 1953 2. Oblique Photographs — 1930's, 1952 3. Required Findings for Modification Permits 4. Required Findings to Exceed Height Limits Attachments: 1. Memorandum — Truck Hauling Traffic 2. Memorandum —Truck Hauling Air Quality 3. Memorandum from Steve Bunting 4. Responses to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Additional correspondence received after the 12/8/05 hearing J a ■ Y •S' I 0 r w r i s v AW +' r i a ti Y •S' I 0 r w r i w v ti MZ Jw__` -gyp T»:Naa� • . r pp l 9t MAL 9 20.93.30 Required Findings for Modification Permits 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. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. C. The granting of such an 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. Z1 20.65.55 Required Findings to Exceed Height Limits 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. 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. 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. D. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 31 �4 9 1. ON MEMORANDUM To: David Lepo, Contract Planner, City of Newport Beach JN: 10- 103821 Jim Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Collette L. Morse, AICP Bob Matson Paul Martin Date: December 21, 2005 Subject: Response to Planning Commissioners' Comment Regarding Truck Hauling — Traffic The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and CEQA requirements utilizing AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes provided by City Staff. A traffic analysis reviewing existing plus construction conditions scenario is not typically required to satisfy CEQA requirements. Also, truck haul trips are likely to occur outside the morning and afternoon peak periods analyzed in accordance with City of Newport Beach TPO requirements; therefore, it would be inconsistent to analyze study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour based on mid -day peak hour truck trip data. The proposed project will be conditioned to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) with construction plans submitted to City Staff for review and approval; the TMP will be based on detailed construction phasing and staging plans including the path and frequency of truck haul trips. City Staff will review the truck haul trips information and TMP in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards and requirements. H:lpdata110103421VANMeepowe m CommertWlTwpk Haut Memo 12 21 05.dx PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618 -2027 • P.O. Box 57057, Inine, CA 926197057. 949.472.3505 • FAX 949.472.6373 Olficas located throughout Calftrna, Arizona 8 Nevada a w .RBF.c W kr To: David Lepo, Contract Planner, City of Newport Beach Jim Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Eddie Torres, MS 455 Collette Morse, MS 455 Date: December 21, 2005 Subject: Mariner's Mile Construction — Haul Trucks (Air Quality Emissions) Overview of Analvsis Contained within the IS /MND 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. It should be noted that the IS /MND referenced "approximately 190,000 cubic feet (ft) of dirt would be excavated (4,318 ft' per day)." These numbers are applicable only to demolition, not excavation. 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 ' Per conversation with James Kozuimi (Air Quality Specialist), South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 5, 2005. 3q 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. Table 7 CONSTRUCTION AIR EMISSIONS Maximum Haul Trucks Permitted The URBEMIS2002 model was rerun with the above referenced assumptions. However, the goal of the new model run was to determine the maximum vehicles miles traveled (VMT) that could be accomplished per day without exceeding the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Rather than put a cap on the number of trips, the analysis assumes a maximum VMT (this allows the off -site location to be flexible). Based upon the analysis, it was illustrated that during the soil disposal activities (during grading), the project can achieve up to 1,364 VMT per day without exceeding the SCAQMD's thresholds; refer to Table 2 (Construction Air Emissions) 2 2 Equates to 68 roundtrips trips per day (20 -mile round trip). YEAR 20M Unrififliggild Emissions 10.33 89.12 78.99 8.22 0.45 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 1 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO Miti abed Emissions' 10.33 89.12 78.99 4.92 0.45 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? NO NO NO I NO NO YEAR 20074 Unmitigated Emissions 8.29 54.09 2.08 0.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 10D 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Miti ated Emisstmi;3 8.29 54.09 =550 2.08 0.0 SCAQMDThresholds 75 100 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded After Miti ation? NO NO NO NO ROG = reactive organic gases; Nox = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOe - sulfur dioxide; fta = particulate make; up to 10 microns NOTES: i, Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 version 8.7.0 Computer Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Year 2006 includes demolition, grading, excavation, and building phases. 3. The mductioNcradks for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in the UREEMIS 2002 version 8.7.0 computer model and as typically required by the SCAQMD through Rule 403. The mitigation includes the following: property maintain of mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickV, water exposed surfaces twice daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads trice daily; and, limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 4, Year 2007 includes the building phase. Maximum Haul Trucks Permitted The URBEMIS2002 model was rerun with the above referenced assumptions. However, the goal of the new model run was to determine the maximum vehicles miles traveled (VMT) that could be accomplished per day without exceeding the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Rather than put a cap on the number of trips, the analysis assumes a maximum VMT (this allows the off -site location to be flexible). Based upon the analysis, it was illustrated that during the soil disposal activities (during grading), the project can achieve up to 1,364 VMT per day without exceeding the SCAQMD's thresholds; refer to Table 2 (Construction Air Emissions) 2 2 Equates to 68 roundtrips trips per day (20 -mile round trip). Recommendations 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. Table 2 CONSTRUCTION AIR EMISSIONS �-I I :�Ilfld 3 _ � ..t ;� bl:rl flullm,0$-''ii:ii YEAR Nov 11himmiltigated Emissions 10.69 97.25 80.34 8.28 0.56 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO Mitigated Emtssionss 10.69 97.25 80.34 4.95 0.56 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded After M ti ation? NO NO NO NO NO YEAR 20074 unmitigated Emissions 8.29 54.09 66.73 2.08 DO SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO Mitigated Emissions' 8.29 54.09 66.73 2.08 0.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? NO NO NO NO NO ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = n' en oxides; CO = carbon mcnoxide; Stir = sulfur dioxide; PMro = particulate matter; to 10 microns NOTES: 1. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 version 8.7.0 Computer Model, as recanmended by the SCAQMD. 2, Year 2006 includes demoti6on, grading, excavation and building phases. 3. The mducton/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 through Rule 403. The mitigation includes the fo0aving: properly malydaln of mobile and other construction equipment; replace grand cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces twice daily; corer stock pies with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and, limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per haw. 4. Year 2007 Includes the building phase. �-I I son HE ,, :! i , -- . } .,, !! ! ) ;; §) 5; §) » 0 \ \i Mly `)) Ing ! ! \ !! ., }j \} }\ §\/ � \`\ / (\ \\ }` \ � ,2\ !!!!!! ! 3 \ \ \ \ \[ /)\ , 4 )} son HE ,, :! i , -- . } .,, !! ! ) ;; §) » 0 \ }\ \ \ \ \ \[ /)\ , 9 2� \� \ \} \ \\ t _ ! ;! ! ;! ! • t�QG /\tom jji \.\}\ \j\ _. w . M _, '::!! \ ;) /. § 52 :35 §2±22: .... 9 2� \� \ \} \ \\ t _ ! ;! ! ;! ! • t�QG /\tom jji \.\}\ \j\ _. w . M _, %: ) \( \\{ \ r n�nnnunw� to V$3v zoom =za SMIMI 2. : s eke 9 eke Swa a $e o0 0 ho 1 MIA KAN ;saa da a aFS P .. 'ms�H :« SM 8 B �g Meats Moots ee a oveo ., too : mm ;m £m mm a6..Meo° r"22 va o oveo Riga y so it, 2£qy° E8 mill : "2 i e 1 319„5 BP -1. =g 7 5. jd-'e", 8 JyM aM €mmoa € H $ e e m M- °° r m 2 � NM m r e o0 1250 TH DeeeeeM ggua EB $ $ :M.. `Zoo &T \2 !!! (s= � l! q�- ........... § () \ }) { ........... § { I _ u t \ \j0 { I _ u t 40 , °°° ° ° °°° ° Bm - i° a S "°°. A FaF.. on q. " .. s 'a ao;$o oPgRF .Pzq.3F I F§ '� B m000 Eoa3 sa MUM "°°ev °" ° aoo° _ °°°°° °°°°° °° ° oao° m °°°. °°°° °° ° -147 S. 11411 q WE T 1 ° 1 ° ° r $ " " m r ° ° " " ° °o° e°°° w _ asq s 0 �111 �a °U.,g Roo FIRS 51152411 R 9999 8 1. g - -Zl 8 Mzj 'a9£ Y5. z �� oid. 2 .S :Savo &° a MEMOS 8 1 v 8, Ti x . dva .".g" 3 WITS; 4.88. IMAM... €a —... .. "..... : 99-9-9999 9999 - 40 , °°° ° ° °°° ° Bm - i° a S "°°. A FaF.. on q. " .. s 'a ao;$o oPgRF .Pzq.3F I F§ '� B m000 Eoa3 sa MUM "°°ev °" ° aoo° _ °°°°° °°°°° °° ° oao° m °°°. °°°° °° ° -147 S. 11411 q WE T 1 ° 1 ° ° r $ " " m r ° ° " " ° °o° e°°° w _ asq s 0 �111 �a °U.,g Roo FIRS 51152411 R 9999 8 1. g - -Zl 8 Mzj 'a9£ Y5. z �� oid. 2 .S :Savo &° a MEMOS 8 1 v 8, Ti x . dva .".g" 3 WITS; 4.88. IMAM... €a —... .. "..... : o #3J $j \\\ \\ \§ \ we=,a� = =,. §§�lagtaagK c± Ell a up &WO Good WE dw� \ \ \ \\.. \\ \ \ \\,\ - \ { /j/ _...;E w}\ v ) � ~ \\ )jjjj\j\{ j \\j j\\z c± .),{}\ L. §? @999...... onto lots {2 2 )\0\} \ \ A£&:_ pg 22 j) $G \!ij \ § § \) $ { }\ ) }) j) .),{}\ L. §? }), � ) \ ;\ g§ea =RR :.• ;tt )EIol 5-0 \ ;! ,, ..... „ , ..., . ,,... ,,,,, \} \} \ \' \} ) { ;� 2 2 (; �� _�� }), � ) \ ;\ g§ea =RR :.• ;tt )EIol 5-0 8 B �� 0e °0 0000 ae a eeem 0 :5 00 °0e 00000 00 a eeem e S �mm =m mm ag w8 m sE�EoE °✓��. 8S 2 °2~ � `2�:^ E EoE �2F -F "2" S v ooao mme _m m aoo - o�o�o �" 8`o ooao oaoo ao o aoo_ - 9Z0 m_ 33. 5 5e S 0v0° aoo 0000000 0gd� :dad° .a ti 2g .g a 83 °8e3 t . Sv z 83.8.38a�a e�u� P`s 9c$} A3 gym aS . ....m A 8 B �� 0e °0 0000 ae a eeem 0 :5 00 °0e 00000 00 a eeem e $ -e °. m "0m 00 0 0000 m 0000 eee 0000000 - 3a 88 $4$ n53Bd - a5.f s-r o S __ ag w8 8 Sng °✓��. 8S 2 °2~ � `2�:^ a ��° " �2F -F "2" S v II IY& 8`o $ -e °. m "0m 00 0 0000 m 0000 eee 0000000 - 3a 88 $4$ n53Bd - a5.f s-r �eee a o0 0 �e o0 w� SZ � )� ! \\ \ \ \ {\ {$\ })\\ j 2222222 �� w \ }\! , }\\ ) }) j j) W ATTACHMENT From: Bunting, Steve Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 3:24 PM To: Temple, Patty Subject: Mariners Mile Gateway Patty, I've reviewed the proposed Mariners Mile Gateway project with regard to the structural changes to West Coast Highway. I am very pleased to see that the third lane will be extended all the way to 700 West Coast Highway. This will alleviate the bottleneck we always encounter at Dover and the Highway. With regard to the raised median, crossing into oncoming traffic during an emergency response is. always dangerous, particularly in and around intersections. Our drivers only cross over into oncoming traffic as a last resort and only when it is absolutely safe to do so. The addition of Opticom pre - emption devices to all of the City's major intersections has greatly reduced the need to cross over. The device turns the traffic control green in the direction of the emergency vehicle's travel, while turning all other signals at the intersection red. The new traffic control signal at the proposed development should be synchronized with the pre - emption device at Dover and the Highway. If so, it will do much to keep traffic flowing in the direction of the emergency vehicle's travel and alleviate the need for vehicles to cross over at that location. Thank you for considering the fire department's needs and concerns during your review of this project. Steve Bunting Fire Marshal Newport Beach Fire Department Safety, Seroice, and Professionalism 1- 949 -644 -3353 5- Y Mariner's Mile Gateway project ,Popp Initial Study/Mitlgated Negative Declaration COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Written comments on the Mariner's Mile Gateway Project Initial Study /Negative were received from the following agencies or individuals: A. Terry Roberts, State of California, Govemor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit B. Mark Adelson, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region C. Robert F. Joseph, State of California, Department of Transportation D. Tom Billings, Ed Van den Bossche, Gil Lukosky, Don Harvey E. Dolores A. Offing F. Philip L. Arst, Greenlight G. Joe Rybus, Nancy Skinner, Richard Liebermann, Bob Barry, Christopher L. Budnik, John Kraus, Rene Powers, Win Fuiler, Alan T. Beimfohr, Iryne Black, Barbara Nielsen, Carl W. Mumm, Katherine Infantino, James M. Carmack, Dave Kiff, and Judy Weightman H. Deborah Calvert All correspondence from those individual or agencies commenting on the Initial Study /Negative Declaration is reproduced on the following pages. The individual comments on each letter have been consecutively numbered for ease of reference. Following each comment letter are responses to each numbered comment. A response is provided for each comment raising significant environmental issues. JN 10- 103821 December 22, 2005 Comments and Responses 61 LETTER A STATE OF CALIFORNIA g Governor's Office of Planning and Research State' Clearinghouse and.Planning Unit Arnold Sean Walsh SchwsrmneggerDirector Govemor Dedembex 2, 2005 Pp ANk; �(,ci'trEL'j oY T EA Jim Campbell- DEC 06 2D05 City of Newport Beach 3300. Newport Boulevard All Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: Marina's Mile Gateway Project SCHM . 200510Li41 Dear Jim Campbell: The enclosed coinment (s) on your Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on November 29, 2005. We are forwarding these . comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that shouldbe addressed in your final . environmental document. The California Environmental.Q6ality Act does not req d.re Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into yoir• final environmental document and to consider &=-prior to taking final action on flit proposed project. Please contact the State CIeazinghouse at (9,16) 445 -0613 if'you have any gaesdons concerning the environmental reviewproces.s. If you have a question regarding the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2005101141) when contacting this office. Sincerely, Q� T4 Senior PImmer, State Clearinghouse EncIosm'es cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SAOR9.i�1NT0, CALIFORNIA 96612 -5044 TEL (916) 448A613 M (916) 923 -9018 www.opr.ragav 69, Mariner's Mile Gateway Project 3 Initial Study/MlHgated Negative Declaration A. RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM TERRY ROBERTS, SENIOR PLANNER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT; DATED DECEMBER 2, 2005. The commentor does not raise any environmental issues, but merely states that the 30 -day public review period for state agencies and that the State Clearinghouse has transmitted copies of comments from two state agencies: Department of Transportation and California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Responses to these two State agencies are provided separately. JN 10- 103821 3 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 63 LETTER B NNW California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501 -3348 (909) 782-4130 • Fax (909) 781.6288 http: /1 ry .swrcb.ca4ov /rwgcb8 Terry Ta antinea Secrermyfor Enviranntenud Prolecdon November 28, 2005' James Campbell,- Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED DEC 0 1 2005 STATE CLEARING HOUSE l•�9 05'' ArneldSchwarmaegger Gpvernpr INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MARINER'S MILE GATEWAY PROJECT, WEST COAST HIGHWAY (CAI) , SCH #2005101141 Dear Mr. Campbell: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the October 31, 2005 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding this project. The project consists of constriction of a commercial center and subterranean parking garage on 2.57 acres located on the northwest comer of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. We have the following comments. 1. The Initial Study states that the project will discharge stormwater into Lower Newport Bay. The project includes a proposed storm water treatment unit for treating all stormwater from the site. The Initial Study asserts that the project would cause a less than significant.impact on stormwater and no adverse impact to Newport Bay due to the proposed treatment unit. However, more detail regarding the proposed treatment unit should be provided. In particular, it must be.demonstrated that the treatment unit satisfies the sizing requirements Identified in the Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff - Permit for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8 -2002- 0010, NPDES No. CAS618030). 2.. The preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) lists a number of BMPs that may be used in the project to provide pollution prevention and treatment. The document should specifically identify which BMPs will be used: The WQMP should consider B2 additional BMPs that are more effective in promoting infiltration, and removal of soluble pollutants such as biofilters, porous pavement, and infiltration galleries. 3. The project must be designed such that the turbidity and dissolved oxygen water quality objectives stated in the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan (1995) are not B3 exceeded as a result of any activity of the project. 4. The project will require coverage under the General Permft For Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activity (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). This pennit is required for individual projects occurring on an area of one or more acres, A Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under this Permit must be submitted to the,SWRCB at least 30 days prior to the initiation of construction activity at the site. California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper a] 6y 6 James Campbell - .2- November 28, 2004 If you have any questions, please contact Doug Shibberu at (951) 782- 7959.. { Sincerely, VVV� Mark Adelson, Chief Regional Planning Programs Section cc: Scott Morgan — State Clearinghouse Q: Planning /GrobertAetters/CELWDEIR- City of Newport Beach- MarinaPark 0 California Environmental Protection Agency Fraad Pnp- ?fV/by d Mariner's Mlle Gateway Project ° roaa Initial Study/Midgated Negative Declaration B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARK ADELSON, CHIEF, REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAMS SECTION, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SANTA ANA REGION; DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2005. B1. Comment acknowledged. The suggestions identified in this comment will be forwarded to the project applicant for consideration in preparation of the final Water Quality Management Plan. B2. Comment acknowledged. The suggestions identified in this comment will be forwarded to the project applicant for consideration in preparation of the final Water Quality Management Plan. B3. Comment acknowledged. The final Water Quality Management Plan will ensure the project complies with State requirements for turbidity and dissolved oxygen water quality. B4. Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure HYD1 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration specifically addresses this comment and states that the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. JN 10- 103821 6 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 LVL LETTER C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3337 hUCHELSON DRIVE SUITE 380 IRVINE, CA 92612 -8894 December 6, 2005 Mr. David Lepo Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear W. Lepo: RECEIVED BY PLANNUG DEPARITL ENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ARP, DEC 0.9 2005 F1 File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2005101141 Log#: I654 Route: SR -1 2 Z.7 i.. 'e Ale y— power? Be energy eff�ctent? Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated October, 31, 2005, for the Mariner's Mile Gateway Project. The project is located at the northwest comer of Dover and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Newport Beach.: Caltrans District 12, as a responsible agency on this project, has the following comment: • The project proposes to conduct de- watering activities. Encroachment permits issued by ( C 1 Caltrans do not cover discharge of treated or untreated groundwater within Caltrans' right of way. • Level of Service and intersection analysis on State Route (SR) -1 must use the I methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The Manual is available online at C2 hM://www.dot.ca.ggydN/o 'dance.htm. • Trip forecast rates for SR -1 must be based on those in the TTE Trip Generation Manual, 7a' I �"3 edition. • Please include an analysis using future conditions 25 years after. project completion to A correctly evaluate the impact of the project on the State highway. 4 • Since the project proposes to widen and change the existing alignment along PCH, 1 e5 potential impacts on bicycle traffic, pedestrians, and street parking must be included in the analysis. • The proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Driveway 1 and PCH cannot be included in the project until a request for Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis is formally submitted and C6 approved. The informal request for a signal at this location has not been approved. If you have.any questions or need to contact us, please call Barbara Gossett at (949)440 - 4.461. "Ca IMM fmpro w mobf?iry across California" j i s i t Mr. David Lepo December 6, 2005 Page 2 Sincerely, Robert F. dosep ief IGR/Commuuity Planning Branch c: Terri Pencovic, HQ IGR/Community Planning Terry Roberts, OPR Isaac Alonso Rice, Caltrans District 12 Traffic Operations Hector Salas, NPDES Unit "Coitrons imps ws mobility ncrou California" MINI Mariner's Mile Gateway Project oR M Initial Study/Mitlgated Negative Declaration C. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ROBERT F. JOSEPH, CHIEF, IGRICOMMUNITY PLANNING BRANCH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DATED DECEMBER 6, 2005. C1. Comment acknowledged. Dewatering permits will need to be obtained from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. C2. The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requirements. C3. In accordance with City of Newport Beach TPO requirements, trip generation rates utilized in the Traffic Impact Analysis were based on the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). C4. While neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Zone Change is required for the proposed project that would necessitate a long -range traffic analysis; a cumulative traffic conditions scenario was prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. C5. As identified on page 4.15 -30 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with City of Newport Beach parking rules and regulations; no significant parking impacts are forecast to occur. As also identified on page 4.15 -30 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, implementation of the proposed project would cause no conflicts with adopted policies supporting bicycle access /parking. C6. As identified on page 4.15 -20 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Driveway 1/West Coast Highway intersection satisfies the MUTCD Interruption of Continuous Traffic signal warrant The warrant analysis has been submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach for use in the traffic study. JN 10- 103821 9 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 5 12- 05-2005 10:Z5AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 'PAZ1 /030 LETTER D 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 im act on our communitTand be a maior irritant to our residents who drive that stretch of road daily. The issues for this project need to Department: by F -733 • 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 p 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 turn4ns and one right out exit. Two equal access driveways that are two - directional for ingress/egress 02 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 Stang beyond in both directions during peak hours. Adding another traffic light will D3 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 D4 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 D5 ordinances against construction at night due to excessive noise. IRE 12 -05 -2005 10:25AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.022/030 F-M 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 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. 1. D7 1° 1' The estimated time to complete this project Is well over 12 months and I D 1 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. 1 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. -7I 12 -05 -2005 10:24AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.004 F -T33 Varin, Ginger LETTER D From: Ed Van den Bossche [edvanforte@madelphia.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 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. 1 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 -7 Z 12 -05 -2005 10;24AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P 00 F -733 traffic studies and light synchronization. - I see that there is a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration from city planner names Campbell stating that there will be no environmental impact. Saying It doesn't make it so, viz.; a 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. G 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. G 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. 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 ups as well as additional impacts to the cities already daily grid lock at that location. 1 am opposed. to yet another development project in our community that will exacerbate traffic further along PCH and degrade our quality of life. 1 request that the Planning Commission require deletion of the proposed traffic light. 11/302005 73 12-05 -2005 10: NAM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -55E P. 009 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER D From: GilLukoskyfgil @nikkisflags.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:39 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject FVU: RESIDENT ALERT: A traffic signal on PCH is in the works between Dover St. and Balboa Bay Club From: Gil Lukosky [mailto;gil@nikldsflags.mm] Soft Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:32 PM Tot ' gvarlan *dl:y.nevpor-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 Say 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 ha>«ati_adverse impact on our community and be_a. mpjor irritant to our residents who drive thatetrgfch 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- cilrectional 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. 11/30/2005 -7y 12 -05 -2005 10:24AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.010 F -733 1 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, Oil Lukosky, Owner, NlMs Flags PoWdent, 449 Prospect St, N.H. 11/30/2005 7S 12- 05-2005 10:25AN FR011- HOGLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T-669 P. 016 F -733 Varin, Gin 99T LETTER D From: Don Harvey [harveydonw@juno.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 20D5 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 Barvey, Newport Beach resident re: Opposition to proposed traffic signal on PCB 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: w It appears that the anchor tenant, a retail drug store company, is demanding a stop light be installed at the far west and 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 PCB 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. Now 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 t plus cubic yards which will require over 10,000 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 7/o 12 -05 -2005 10:25AM PROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495539935 T -669 P. 019 f -i33 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: 114/286 -9130 2 d'�ew m p Mariner's Mile Gateway Project initial StudyAl idgated Negative Declaration D. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM TOM BILLINGS, ED VAN DEN BOSSCHE, GIL LOKOSKY, DON HARVEY; FOUR LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2005. D1. The project applicant addressed this comment at the December 8, 2005 Planning Commission hearing and stated that no potential on -site tenant has demanded a traffic signal. D2. The project applicant is proposing one signalized full access intersection at the western project entrance as part of the project, along with two right- in/right -out access locations on West Coast Highway. As noted on page 4.15 -19 of the Initial Study, a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2003 California Supplement Traffic Signal Warrant was performed; the results are summarized in Table 4.15 -10. The analysis concluded on page 4 -15 -20 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that the proposed Driveway 1/West Coast Highway intersection satisfies the MUTCD Interruption of Continuous Traffic signal warrant. D3. This comment is acknowledged and will be considered by the City of Newport Beach in its decision on the proposed project. However, it is important to note (as stated on page 24 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration) that the westbound side of West Coast Highway would be enhanced by extending the currently abrupt transition fronting the project site related to the widening of westbound West Coast Highway from two lanes to three lanes. As identified on pages 4.15 -17 and 4.15 -26 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on City- established thresholds of significance, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no significant traffic impact at the Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1) study intersection for forecast year 2007 conditions and forecast cumulative conditions. D4. The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration does not conclude that there will no environmental impacts by the proposed project, but rather that potentially significant impacts with the imposition of mitigation measures can be reduced to less than significant levels. D5. The proposed project must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, which is required as part of Mitigation Measure N -1 on page 4.11 -8 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. D6. An air quality analysis was conducted for the proposed project. The results are summarized in Section 4.3 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration; the report in its entirety is included as Appendix B. The analysis concluded the construction impacts would not exceed Air District thresholds with or without mitigation (refer to Table 4.3 -2) and that long -tens operational impacts would also not exceed Air District thresholds (refer to Table 4.3 -4). D7. Regarding air quality, refer to Response D6. Regarding noise, a noise analysis was conducted for the proposed project. The results are summarized in Section 4.11 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; the report in its entirety is included as Appendix C. The analysis concludes the long -tens stationary and mobile source impacts associated with the proposed project with the imposition of mitigation measures are reduced to a less than significant level. D8. A traffic analysis reviewing existing plus construction conditions scenario is not typically required to satisfy CEQA requirements or the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). It is important to note that the traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City's TPO and CEQA requirements utilizing AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes provided by City Staff. JAI 10- 103821 18 Comments and Responses December 2$ 2005 in gwTks Madner's.Mile Gateway Project Initial Study/Mitlgated Negative Declaration Truck haul trips are likely to occur outside the morning and afternoon peak periods analyzed in accordance with City of Newport Beach TPO requirements; therefore, it would be inconsistent to analyze study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour based on midday peak hour truck trip data. In addition, the proposed project will be conditioned to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) with construction plans submitted to City Staff for review and approval; the TMP will be based on detailed construction phasing and staging plans including the path and frequency of truck haul trips. City Staff will review the truck haul trips information and TMP in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards and requirements. D9. The specks regarding where excavated dirt will be transported has not yet been determined. However, as noted above in Response D8, the proposed project will be conditioned to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which will identify the path and frequency of truck haul trips. D10. At the December 8, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, it was decided that all construction - related truck trips would be limited to non -peak traffic hours. This construction hour limitation will be a condition of project approval. JN 10- 103821 19 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 ,.,-, 7 12 -05 -2005 10:25AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.023/030 F -733 LETTER E 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 E 1 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 I E2 plan of 2 sub levels for if you find no water? Geology& Soils: Recommendations made by the Xrazan & Associates, site development.engineers, are not incorporated into the MND. The Administrative Summary alone lists $.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 E3 building. Without incorporating any of the recommendations, the project will. have it 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 E4 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? E5 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 (thee) 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 in case of an emergency the lights would be green and there allow for traffic to 1 20 proceed, however, there is always congestion on PCH and therefore even if the lights were green, 12 -05 -2005 10:25AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.024/030 F -733 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. E6 There is no place for the cars to move to allow for Emergency vehicles to proceed. Flow as 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 E% 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_ materials will go. Where is the plan? The City of Newport Beach has a Source Reduction, Recycling, Element, SRRE. in place that ensures t4a�they comply with AB939 and ensures a 500/a 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 Ibis material will drastically E8 increase if they recycle the materials as per AB9397 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 inerease.the congestion and make it more difficult for emergency vehicles and any public utility truck to proceed.' E9 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 Smjf= and yet this project is of major significance and will impact thousands of people daily and needs a E 10 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 I /West Coast Highway Traffic Signal Ell WarranrAnalysis', and the R13F Consulting `Proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway Project West Coast ffigmway /Gateway Drive. Queuing Evaluation. With all the information that is missing or not properly mirigared, 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 E12 warrant going forward at this time due to the missing documents alone. It needs to be amended to include the above and at minimum recirculated to the Public with all The information.. Respectfully, Dolores A. Otting 17 Hillsborough, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 0 eMariner's Mile Gateway Project 44rop , Initial Study/Mldgated Negative Declaration E. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DOLORES A. OTTING; DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2005. E1. Section 2.4 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration details the components of the proposed project. The Exhibits referenced in the comment have been reduced for inclusion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for ease of use by the reader. Full -scale plans are available for review at the City of Newport Planning Department. We would also direct the commenter to Exhibit 2 -3a, Site Plan — Level One, which includes arrows showing access points to and from the parking garage, as well as to and from the site. E2. The project applicant has not yet made a final decision on which parking alternative would be constructed, which is the reason both were described in the project description and analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. E3. While the recommendations contained in the Krazan & Associates study were not included in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration as mitigation, a Standard Condition of Project Approval will be applied to the project stating that the applicant must comply with the recommendations of that study. E4. The drainage system for the proposed project has been designed to incorporate off -site drainage from the homes above the site. The off -site drainage from the homes above the project site created the on -site slope failure in 2005. The proposed on -site uses will not create slope instability for the homes above the site. E5. Mitigation measure HYD-3 on page 4 -8 -6 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration requires the applicant to prepare a dewatering plan, which must be reviewed and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. E6. Comment acknowledged. Both the Newport Beach Fire Department and Police Department were contacted during the preparation of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and their written responses are included in Appendix G, Public Service and Utility Letters. Both Departments indicated that the proposed project would not impact their ability to provide service throughout the City. Also, neither Department voiced any concern about the proposed median and whether it would or would not impact emergency services. ET With respect to construction and the traffic - related impact of the haul trucks during soil export, the following Standard Condition of Approval will be applied to the project: 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. E8. The project applicant is required to comply with the City's Source Reduction, Recycling Element (SRRE), and must divert both construction and operational waste from landfills. With respect to which landfill waste is taken to from the City, on page 4.16 -4 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, it states that the City is primarily served by the Prima Deshecha Landfill. It is up to individual waste haulers to choose the landfill location. JN 10- 103821 22 Comments and Responses a2- December 22, 2005 Mariner's Mile Gateway Project -roar Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration E9. The project as proposed includes a traffic signal. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project is not required in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, E10. A Construction Staging Plan has not yet been prepared. The requirement for this plan is normally applied as a Condition of Project Approval, and would detail the items discussed in the comment. Ell 1. The two documents referenced in this comment were technical memorandums prepared by RBF Consulting have been submitted to and reviewed by City Staff. These two technical memorandum were not required as part of either the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) or CEQA analysis, but instead were prepared in anticipation of Caltrans' requirements for signal approval. Thus, the memorandums were not incorporated into the Traffic Analysis for the proposed project, which is included in its entirety as Appendix A. The information presented in the two technical memorandums does not change the impact conclusions in either the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Traffic Analysis. E12. Technical studies were prepared and summarized in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following topics: 1) Traffic; 2) Air Quality; 3) Noise; 4) Geology; 5) Drainage; and 6) Water Quality Management. In addition, public service and utility providers were contacted and provided input on the proposed project's impacts on their services. Both the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and Appendices provide the technical background and environmental analysis to conclude that the proposed project, with the imposition of mitigation measures, would result in less than significant impacts. These conclusions support the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thus, it is not necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, or recirculate the Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration. JN 10.103821 23 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 ell,. j 12 -05 -2005 10:25AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 LETTER F GREENLI'GHT PO Box 3362 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 721 -8227 Chaimma Michael Toerge and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: % Cringer Varin, Secretary City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 T -669 P.025/030 F -733 r1U',i41�i `4F G DEPARTIAENT CITY 01• NEWPORT BEACH NOV 2 9 2005 7�8I9110I11I12I1I2I3I415 6 November 29, 2005 Jim Campbell % Patty Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Reference: (1.) City ofNewport Beach, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mariner's Mile Gateway Project Dated October 31,2005 prepared by RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Park3way, Irvine, CA 92618 (2.) RBI: Consulting Letter "Proposed used Mariner's Mile Gateway Project West Coast Highway /Gateway Drive Queuing Pvaluafion" dated August 23, 2005 (3.) RBF Consulting Letter "Newport Gateway: Driveway l[West Coast Highway Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis" dated September 21, 2005 To: Chairman Michael Toerge and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: Tim 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 signiAcant 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 tom down existing buildings on the site. Then another large number of truckloads will be requited to bring in the cement for the underground garage and construction materials and interior firrn4shings for the new buildings. No F1 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 sheets 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 I F2 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. 12 -05 -2005 IMAM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 F.026/030 F -733 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 F3 traffic generating developments will be built and regional traffic muted 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 R 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 F5 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 We area to relieve traffic congestion on that major street and its intersections. However the TPO requires a firm circulation elemem 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 F 6 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 mole thorough evaluation ofthese factors in the EM as the Negative Declaration bas not adequately considered them. Thank you for your services to the city and consideration of this matter, Philip L. Arst OS Y Mariner's Mile Gateway project Initial Study/A4tigated Negative Declaration RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM PHILIP L. ARST, GREENLIGHT; DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2005. Fl. At the December 8, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, it was decided that all construction - related truck trips would be limited to non -peak traffic hours. This construction hour limitation will be a condition of project approval. In addition, the following Standard Condition of Approval will be applied to the project: 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. The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and CEQA requirements utilizing traffic volumes provided by City Staff. The City of Newport Beach requires that Level of Service (LOS) analysis only intersections be conducted; the analysis is based on peak hour traffic data. The City has no data available for non -peak hour analysis, and accepted industry practices do not include criteria for non -peak hour analysis. F2. As noted in Response F1, the traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and CEQA requirements. The City's policy regarding the appropriate season for traffic studies and level of service analysis is restated below: "Consistent with longstanding City policy, "shoulder" (neither peak season nor slow season) season traffic data were used for intersection Level of Service analyses. The City consistently uses shoulder season data because peak season data would skew the apparent need for roadway improvements and provide roadway capacity far in excess of that required on all but the busiest summer season days. ° F3. As identified on page 4.15 -20 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, a cumulative conditions analysis was prepared. This analysis included nine other projects in the project vicinity identified by City Staff that are considered foreseeable, but have not yet been constructed and therefore are not currently generating trips. F4. The two reference materials cited at the beginning of the comment letter were technical memorandums prepared by RBF Consulting at the request of City Staff, which have been submitted to and reviewed by City Staff. These two technical memorandum were not required as part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, and thus are not incorporated into the Traffic Analysis for the proposed project, which is included in its entirety as Appendix A. The information presented in the two technical memorandums does not change the impact conclusions in either the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Traffic Analysis. F5. The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and CEQA requirements utilizing traffic volumes provided by City Staff. F6. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration discusses widening of the Coast Highway only along the project frontage. The issue of widening Coast Highway through the entire Mariners Mile area is not related to the proposed project, and is separate item of discussion for the City's Planning Commission and City Council. JN 10- 103821 26 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 0 !_ 12 -D5 -2005 10:25AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -969 P.020/030 F-733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Joe Rybus Voe @camcomgroupxomj 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 McoDnalds. We already have adequate services on 171i 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 fnr dinner, all the best, M 12 -0E -2005 IO:Z3AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530936 T -569 P.00Z F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: JSkinnsrMD @aoLcom Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:34 PM To: Vadn, Ginger Cc Daigle, Leslie; JHFF@aol.com; Nichols, Dick; Ridgeway, Tod; Rosansky, Steven; Selich, Edward; Webb, Don Subiect Potential New Traftic Signal on PCH I think it would be a mistake to add a traffic signal on PCH between Dover Drive and the Say 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. 1, 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 I 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 • 12 -05 -2005 10:24AM FROM- HOGLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T -009 P.007 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Liebermann, Richard [ Richard .LiebarmannQGrubb- Eliis.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: 1 am strongly opposed to the new signal being proposed at the above location. Such a signal will impede flow an 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 bad in question deserves some type of project, any project requiring this type of signallzation is not appropriate for PCH, or the community, as traffic flaw win be tortuous with a new signal, especially during the Summer and peak commute hours. Richard R. Llebermann Newport Beach 11/30/2005 12 -05 -2005 10:23AII FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495539935 T-659 P.003 F-733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Bob Barry [bob.barryQjbateam.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:15 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: no on another traffic light at Mc Donalds Bob Barry .john Barry & Associates 9029 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, GA 92669 (949)675 -3953 phone (999)675 -6756W 11/30/2005 12 -05 -2005 10:24AM FRObFHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.006 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From; chdstopher.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 Greeniight vote, then why install yet another he light? Its time for the city of Newport Beach to stop trying to discourage drivers from using PCH by restricting the fratfic 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 thinking9 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 movingll The number of PCH traffic lights should be reduced, not incressedl 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 tum 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 11/302005 91 12 -05 -2005 10:24AM FR01A- HOOLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -589 P.008 F -733 Varin, Ginger From: John Kraus jjkraus@krausconst.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 20053:37 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject Proposed traffic signal LETTER G 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 carrels' back. The traffic is all -ready moving too slow through this stretch. Alternative parking flow and design should be looked at and N that can't be resolved then the tenant should reconsider the location. 11130/2005 9z 12- 05-2005 10:24AM Varin, Ginger FROM-NOGLE- IRELAND From: rene powers [gpanda26@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:57 PM 10: Varin, -winger Subject: traffic light 9495530935 LETTER G T -669 P.011 F -733 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 wi!l not locate until this is approved? How crazy, besides, NO BUSINESS LASTS ON THAT STRETCH so we would be pus into further traffic problems for this??? ENOUGH already. Rene' Powers Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over I million songs Try it free 1 1/30/2005 %3 12 -05 -2005 10:24AM FROM- HOGLE - IRELAND 9495530935 7-669 P.013 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: win fuller [wfuller7@pacbeli.net] Sent: .Tuesday, November 29, 20054:35 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: Proposed new traffic signal Between Balboa Bay Club & Dover Please no more traffic signals on PCH through NewportBeaeh . 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 Ty 12 -D5 -2005 10:24AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -659 P.014 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Al Beimfohr [abeimfohr@knightsb.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 20054:41 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 7277777777 Alan T. Beimfohr Knightsbridge Asset Management, LLC . 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 460 Newport Beacb, CA 92660 (949) 644 -4444 — abeimfbhr@jmighmb.com knighrsb.com The infornsation contained In this electronic maU message is confidential and intended only fnr the use of The individual or entity oemed above. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication by an unimended re ipicar is strictly prohibited. 11/30/2005 9S 12- 95 -2OD5 1O:25AM FROM -NOGLE IRELAND 9495530935 T-660 P.015 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Iryne Black [ayeblack @sbbglobal.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 PCX merchants should oppose it because all drivers simply avoid PCX by turning up Dover to 11th. There are plenty of drug stores there. Iryne Black, Newport Beach 40 12 -05 -2005 IMBAM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P 01 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: bar1bara126 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:46 PM To: Vadn, 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 dirying 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 q-7 12 -05 -2005 1O:25AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -669 P.O17 F-735 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Ted Mumm [3mumms @brats.com] Sent Tuesday, November 29, 260511:24 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: PCH traffic light I can't believe you are considering the idea of another traffic light on PCH near McDonald's. This is insanel 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. Mum 319 Cedar Street . Newport Beach 3 1 12 -05 -2005 1O:26AM FROM- NOGLE-IRELAND 9495536935 T-669 P.GZ7 /030 F -733 v Varin, Ginger. LETTER G From: Katherine Infantino [IdnfantinoQgmaII.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:51 AM To: Vann, 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 is this area - an area that already experiences significant backtp every day. If the hill- biding new shopping canter 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 T 11/30/2005 .1 12 -05 -2005 10:28AM FROM-HOOLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T-669 P.OZ6 /030 F -733 ✓ Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Jim Carmack jjcarmack @rarmackdnsurance.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 200611:30 W To: Vann, Ginger Subject: Street light Coast Highway I wish to slate 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 an a daily basis and five within 300 yards of the highway. This add)tlonal stop light will do further damage to the traffic flow an 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 obnopous and unacceptable.Apparentty this request has been made by a developer to appease their tenant To approve this right to the benefit of a developer and the detriment of residents is simply unacceptable. James M. Cannack, AN ?resident ,R CKIlWRANCE Celebrating our 80th Anniversary carmack0camtackinsurance com www.carmackinsurance.com )949) 861 -3836 .1!30/2005 l0© 12 -05 -2903 10:26AM fROM- 1NGLE-IRELAND ARE539935 7-669 P.929 /939 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G Prom: Temple, Patty Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11 :41 AM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: From: IDff, Dave Sent; Thursday, December 01, 200511:90 AM Tot Temple, Patty .sub7ech: RN: Patty — will you keep this for whatever Council agenda item addresses the Dover -PCH development? Thanks. Dave From: f0ff, Dave sent: Wadrasday, November 30, 200512:32 PM To: -Dwd 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 rma9to:dhzrve ®harveviceu.mmi seal: Wednesday, November 30,2005 12:26 H9 To: pff, Dave subjeon 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 DavJd 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 dha_rvev(ftarveviceo.com www.harveyoeD.com Confidentiality statement This message, together with any attachments, Is intended only for the authorized use of the individual or ardity, to which it Is addressed. It contains infornedion that Is mrifidenbal and prohibited from disetosure to persons other than the Intended addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited if you have received this item in error, please nobly the original sender and destroy this item, along with any attachments. Thank you. iZ- 05 -YO05 lO EAM FROM- HOU-4RELAND 9495530935 T-669 P.030/D30 F -733 Varin, Ginger LETTER G From: Judy Weightman budy2001c] @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 residents. So here's my question: who wants a traffic signal at McDonalds on PCH? Why would w to further complicate the already congested area am additional bottleneck situation? Please do not entertain such an idea. Judy Weightman 2001 Cliff Drive NH Thanks very much..... Yahoo! DSL — Something to write hoc® about. Just $16.99 /mo. or less. dsl.yahoc.com to e want with ayv` i Mariner's Mile Gateway project -op „ Initial Study/Miggated Negative Declaration G. RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM JOE RYBUS, NANCY SKINNER, RICHARD LIEBERMANN, BOB BARRY, CHRISTOPHER L. BUDNIK, JOHN KRAUS, RENE POWERS, WIN FULLER, ALAN T. BEIMFOHR, IRYNE BLACK, BARBARA NIELSEN, CARL W. MUMM, KATHERINE INFANTINO, JAMES M. CARMACK, DAVE KIFF, AND JUDY WEIGHTMAN; DATED EITHER NOVEMBER 29, 2005 OR NOVEMBER 30, 2005. All 16 letters raise their opposition to a new traffic signal on Pacific Coast Highway. Their comments are acknowledged and will be considered by the City of Newport Beach in its decision on the proposed project. JN 10- 103821 44 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 /03 12 -0E -2005 10:24AM FR031- HOGLE•IREIAN0 9495539936 K69 P -ulz F -f33 Varin, Ginger LETTER H From: Deborah Calvert [debdeb2080 @hotrnai1.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 20054:23 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 I H1 the fact it's in a liquefaction zoned area with a cliff above, near sea level and a 2 story underground parking! 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 Mariner's Mile Gateway Project ,rope,, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration H. RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM DEBBIE CALVERT; DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2005. H1. With regard to traffic, the proposed project would generate additional trips beyond those currently generated by on -site uses. However, the project site is zoned commercial and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning. The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project concluded that with the imposition of mitigation measures, less than significant traffic impacts would occur. Geotechnical evaluations have been conducted for the project site. The conclusions of these evaluations are summarized in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. The technical reports in their entirety are included as Appendix D. As noted on page 4.6 -1 of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, no faults are located on the project site. With respect to seismic groundshaking, page 4.6 -2 of Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration states the proposed project would be required to conduct proper engineering design and construction in conformance with current building codes, which reduces groundshaking impacts to less than significant levels. JN 10- 103821 46 Comments and Responses December 22, 2005 /65' NXeIVED BY CITY OF HEWPORT BEAFCH Coleen Dorazio MCI 9 2005 2727 Shell Street Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 AM��r10t�1411�iE2{ December 5, 2005 Chairman Mike Toerge & Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: As a resident of Newport Beach, I write this letter in support of the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project. I like the proposed project with its unique architecture. I also like that it will be one well designed, cohesive center instead of several individual properties. This will be a great improvement over the poorly maintained buildings that are currently on the property. In addition, Mariner's Mile Gateway Project will provide a positive reflection of our community. The proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of a traffic signal are improvements that are long overdue and will provide smoother operation of Pacific Coast Highway and additional safety at this location. I am totally in favor of this project, and I hope you will approve the project for. our community. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Coleen Dorazio `09 MICHAEL MUGEL 2727 SHELL STREET CORONA DELMAR, CA 42625 December 5, 2005 Chairman Mike Toerge & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 42663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: m, _GavE D 8Y p; .kj�J JWG DEPAFT IVIE €'JT (1°i if Ov- 4�c-wpt rrf BEAU DEC 0 9 2005 A��t��La�z��i2�gti�tb�`�5c As a Newport Beach resident, I would like to express my support of the proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project. In my opinion, the proposed project plans provide a great improvement to the existing condition of the property. Most of the buildings currently on the property are unattractive and not reflective of our community. I like the architectural style of the proposed project and believe the project represents a tremendous upgrade to the area. I believe that having one cohesive, well planned project is preferable to having the separately occupied, separately run, and separately accessed buildings and lots that have comprised the property for many years. By constructing the buildings, as proposed, against the slope and away from Pacific Coast Highway, the project will enhance views from all perspectives. I also think the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are very necessary improvements for the safety and operation of the Pacific Coast Highway at this location. I hope the Planning Commission Members will agree and approve the project. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours Michael Mugel /)L) Munited american MORTGAGE CORPORATION December 4, 2005 TRUSTED, TRIED AND TRUE. Chairman Mike Toerge & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project Dear Planning Commissioners: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPWr BEACf -i DEC 0 9 2005 YY Ftll ♦1 1sl t tf' PA rn ( 16 cS &�J�at)�I1ti�ill�(Wf {D {� As a resident of Newport Beach, I wish to express my support of the Mariner's Mile Gateway project Proposed on Pack Coast Highway. I have reviewed the plans for the project and like many things about the proposed project. I think the existing conditions of the property should be changed. Having one, well planned, well run project is by far preferable to having separately occupied, separately run, and separately accessed buildings and lots. I believe the architectural style of the proposed project will provide a much more consistent and pleasing appearance to the area and will be more indicative of the Newport Beach lifestyle. The proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are very necessary improvements, given the large number of accidents that have occurred at this location. The construction of the buildings, as proposed against the slope, and away from Pacific Coast Highway, will preserve view elements for.all patties. I hope you and your department will agree and approve the project. Thank you Sincerely, 19782 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD SURE 250 IRVINE. CA 92612 -2415 194912561300 •/� FAX 194912561959 ( w1NW.UAAM.'O.CoM Dirk & Kathleen McNamee 309 Marigold Ave. Corona Del Mar Ca. 92625 (949) 6754336 December 8, 2005 Chairman Mike Toerge Members of the Newport Beach planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: We are residents of Newport Beach. We support the Mariner's Mile Gateway Project as proposed. The current conditions of the property are unattractive and not what Newport Beach should reflect in the business community. Most of the current buildings are in need of maintenance and distract from our beautiful city. The well planned project is by far preferable to the existing separately occupied and eclectic run down buildings that exist there row. The architectural style of the proposed project is a tremendous upgrade to the area and will be very appealing to both residents and visitors to Newport Beach. 1 believe the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are vitally necessary for the safety of our citizens. It is the responsible and correct decision of the planning commission to approve the project, add the light and widen the road. I feel that the proposed buildings to be built against the slope and away from PCH will minimize any obstruction of existing views while enhancing views of the tenants and shoppers at the location. I hope you will agree and approve the project. Thank you for considering our opinions. Sincerely, Dirk an9 athleen McNamee /Iz wENT )CC 15 zoos AM g7 piJ We are residents of Newport Beach. We support the Mariner's Mile Gateway Project as proposed. The current conditions of the property are unattractive and not what Newport Beach should reflect in the business community. Most of the current buildings are in need of maintenance and distract from our beautiful city. The well planned project is by far preferable to the existing separately occupied and eclectic run down buildings that exist there row. The architectural style of the proposed project is a tremendous upgrade to the area and will be very appealing to both residents and visitors to Newport Beach. 1 believe the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are vitally necessary for the safety of our citizens. It is the responsible and correct decision of the planning commission to approve the project, add the light and widen the road. I feel that the proposed buildings to be built against the slope and away from PCH will minimize any obstruction of existing views while enhancing views of the tenants and shoppers at the location. I hope you will agree and approve the project. Thank you for considering our opinions. Sincerely, Dirk an9 athleen McNamee /Iz DEC 13 2005 APL,,2., "I1013.11111121'6 1 �1r1 December 8, 2005 Chairman Mike Toerge & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: I live at 104 Kings Place, Newport Beach, just up the hill from the above referenced project, looking over the intersection of PCH and Dover Drive. Provided the project is built as proposed within the existing zoning guidelines, including height, I would like to express my support of the Mariner's Mile Gateway project. I have reviewed the plans for the project and like many things about the proposed project. I think the existing conditions of the property need to be changed. Having one cohesive, well planned, well run project is by far preferable to having separately occupied, separately run, and separately accessed buildings and lots that have comprised the property for many years. Most of the buildings on the property are unattractive and not reflective of our community. I like the architectural style of the proposed project and think the project represents a tremendous upgrade to the area and will be a very successful addition to Mariner's Mile. I believe the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are very necessary improvements, for safety and for the operation of the Pacific Coast Highway at this location, as well as the project. I feel that constructing the buildings, as proposed against the slope, and away from Pacific Coast Highway, will enhance views from all perspectives. I hope you will agree and approve the project. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely, . Frank Eisendrath /� 3 December 8, 2005 Chairman Mike Toerge & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: C'L.�.1�6� NG d1EPR1 7Bv1Ef�T CC 9V OF NEWPORT BSACH DEC 14 2005 AM P.11 7�8�9�I0�m1�1a�1�2�Vj n�jWj� I live at 108 Kings Place, Newport Beach, just up the slope from the above referenced project. Provided the project is built as proposed within the existing zoning guidelines, I want to express my support of the Mariner's Mile Gateway project. I have reviewed the plans for the project and like many things about the proposed project. I think the existing conditions of the property need to be changed. Having one cohesive, well planned, well run project is by far preferable to having separately occupied, separately run, and separately accessed buildings and lots that have comprised the property for many years. Most of the buildings on the property are unattractive and not reflective of our community. I like the architectural style of the proposed project and think the project represents a tremendous upgrade to the area and will be a very successful addition to Mariner's Mile. I believe the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are very necessary improvements, for safety and for the operation of the Pacific Coast Highway at this location. I feel that constructing the buildings, as proposed against the slope, and away from Pacific Coast Highway, will enhance views from all perspectives. I hope you will agree and approve the project. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely, 2 Tom Lally py KDL,9tJ%I fS rExa'n e aul� d RPT DEC 14 2005 December 7, 2005 Chairman Mike Toerge & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: .I a PNt •U1,_ PEAL EBT4I. COP PO A A T ION As a commercial property owner in Mariner's Mile, we wanted to express our support of the Mariner's Mile Gateway project proposed at the above referenced location. We have worked closely over the past several years with both the City of Newport Beach and the Manner's Mile Business Owners Association in promoting a revitalization of the Mariner's Mile area. The proposed Mariner's Mile Gateway project would be a first class entry statement to the Mariner's Mile area and would represent a high quality solution to the current assemblage of outdated, unsightly buildings that exist on the site today. We are hopeful that you will give strong consideration to this project which has the potential of becoming a catalyst for additional positive change in the Mariner's Mile area. Thank you. Sincerely, THE MURREL COMPANY, a California Corporation As authorized agent for VMA MARINER'S MILE, LLC, a ifomia Limited Liability Company Mark G. Murrel Principal 2439 WEST Coa r Hwy Some 200 NEWPORT Bs cH Cn=m 92663 TEL 949. 722 • 1131 FAx 949 . 722.9244 115- Albert J. Marsha/! 330 St. Andrews Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92883 (949) 845 -1000 (949) 645.9800 Fax Transmittal Date: December 5, 2005 . To: CHAIRMAN MIKE TOERGE, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: AL MARSHALL Concerning: PCH & Dover Cc: We are sending you herewith: RECEIVED 13Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEC 14 2005 Planning Commissioners Comments on the upcoming development at the corner of PCH and Dover Comments: Dear Chairman Toerge, Planning Commissioners: 1 am a resident of Newport Beach and have lived in my home on St. Andrews Road since 1966. 1 appreciate you taking the time to review the proposed project and consider the comments of the neighbors in making your decision. I support the proposed development.on the long and narrow strip of property at the foot of our neighborhood for the following reasons: • Consolidation: It consolidates and makes cohesive a collection of miscellaneous properties along PCH; • Contindity, , The proposed project will provide continuity along PCH in place of what is now a hodgepodge of structures and businesses; • Gateway: The proposed design represents the type of upscale development our neighborhood deserves. This comer is the Gateway to our neighborhood and the used car lot, previous Christmas Tree lot and miscellaneous prior uses do not present a good face to our community. • Improvements: i assume PCH will have to be widened by the Developer. This will be a needed improvement to PCH along that stretch of highway. • Upscale Businesses: The quality of business that will be attracted to this center is much more in keeping with Mariner Mile. 1 do not want to see any more automobile service centers or fast food restaurants. It is time someone brought in quality tenants to this area. • jtnproved Traffic: The miscellaneous business all have separate driveways that open to PCH every few feet. The proposed development will consolidate the traffic access and control it at one or two locations as opposed to the dozen or so that now exist. • Time for Action: Please do not let this development fall by the wayside. This represents a sizable investment, separate small business sites will not benefit our community, this unique development will. Thank you for allowing me to comment on the proposed development. I will attend the hearing to further voice my opinion. C:1Doctttumts and SettingAA.My Documents\Main Data Fi1es\Projects\F1VMGIPCI-IlX PC.doc /�/ A T N E W P O R T December 8, 2005 REGENED OY F NPT p IITY O NEWPORT AC Chairman Mike Toerge DEC 14 2005 & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission AM PU City of Newport Beach3(�(1�(l 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mariners Mile Gateway Retail Project; 200 -600 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Planning Commissioners: As a business owner in of Newport Beach(Avalon at Newport, 393 Hospital Road), I want to express my support of the Mariner's Mile Gateway project proposed at the above referenced location. I have reviewed the plans for the project and like many things about the proposed project I think the existing conditions of the property need to be changed. Having one cohesive, well planned, well run project is by far preferable to having separately occupied, separately run, and separately accessed buildings and lots that have comprised the property for many years. Most of the buildings on the property are unattractive and not reflective of our community. I like the architectural style of the proposed project and think the project represents a tremendous upgrade to the area and will be a very successful addition to Mariner's Mite. I believe the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the addition of the traffic signal are very necessary improvements, for safety and for the operation of the Pacific Coast Highway at this location. I feel that constructing the buildings, as proposed against the slope, and away from Pacific Coast Highway, will enhance views from all perspectives. I hope you will agree and approve the project Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely, CZ�' C)c'—, Eric K. Davidson Principal 6 I 7