Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach_PA2015-095 - PA2015-095 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 6, 2016 Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 320-600 W. Coast Highway • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2016-003 • Traffic Study No. TS2015-001 • Site Development Review SD2015-002 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025 Parcel Map No. NP2015-010 Variance No. VA2015-002 APPLICANT: AutoNation, Inc. OWNER: Russell E. Fluter PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644-3210, Jcamobell(o).newoortbeachca.00v INTRODUCTION The AutoNation project was first considered at the August 18, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. The item was tabled to allow time for the applicant to consider architectural design changes, possibly covering rooftop parking, and to allow for additional public outreach. The proposed applications would authorize the construction and operation of an automobile sales and service facility including a showroom, outdoor vehicle display areas, offices, service facility, and a parking structure for vehicle inventory storage and employee parking. The Site Development Review includes a request to use the maximum 35-foot height limit. The applicant proposes rooftop parking with a partial cover that would not exceed the 35-foot height limit. A full cover would require the approval of a Variance application as it would exceed the 35-foot height limit by 3 feet. A Variance application has been noticed to allow consideration of a full roof cover. Redevelopment of the project requires the dedication and improvement of the southerly 12 feet of the lots creating a third northbound traffic lane in West Coast Highway. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _, adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2016- 003, finding Traffic Study No. 2015-001 consistent with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and approving Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025, and Parcel Map No. NP2015-010 (Attachment PC 1). 1 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 2 Alternative Actions 1) Adopt Resolution No. _, adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2016- 003, finding Traffic Study No. 2015-001 consistent with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and approving Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025, Parcel Map No. NP2015-010 and Variance No. VA2015- 002 (Attachment PC 2); or 2) Should the Commission determine the project incompatible with the community, adopt Resolution No. _, denying the project (Attachment PC 3). DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this project on August 18, 2016. The staff report and draft minutes from the meeting are attached to this report (Attachments PC 4 and PC 5). The Commission expressed concerns related to rooftop parking, architectural design and consistency with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework), and directed the applicant to complete additional public outreach. Proiect Changes Three changes to the project have been included in the updated plans (Attachment PC 6). Each is described in more detail below. 1. Service building exterior change - medium gray stucco replaces a significant amount of the black siding. Mesh screens that were black are now stainless steel in color. 2. New auto lift lobby — new building at the western end of the property to screen the retaining wall. 3. Larger rooftop cover — the partial roof cover has been extended, while not fully covering the roof. It would not exceed the 35-foot height limit. Public Outreach Since the previous meeting, two noteworthy events took place. First, staff attended Bayshores annual homeowner's association meeting on September 17, 2016, and provided an overview of the entitlement process and responded to questions. Approximately 30 residents participated. Second, a meeting took place on September 21, 2016, at the Balboa Bay Club where the applicant provided a presentation to approximately 90 residents of Bayshores and Kings Road. The applicant highlighted the changes made to the project since the Planning Commission meeting and responded to questions. Concerns raised by the community, in no particular order, included: land use, architectural design, building height, traffic, noise and the overall size of the project. Access to the site by car transport vehicles, rooftop parking, air quality, lighting, and diminishment of property values were also cited. Concerns with operations at the 2 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 3 current dealership located at 445 East Coast Highway has led some to the belief that the applicant will violate conditions imposed on approval of the new location should it be approved. Land Use — automobile dealership Comments suggest that an automobile dealership is not compatible with nearby residential properties. Existing dealerships in the area include: Sterling BMW, McLaren, Maserati, Ferrari, and the existing AutoNation with Porsche, Audi, and Bentley located just east of the Mariners' Mile area. Operations from sales and service, lighting, noise from sales and service, deliveries, building height, parking on the roof, and architectural design are contributing factors to this concern. This stretch of Mariners' Mile has residents in proximity to the narrow commercial strip along Coast Highway (Kings Road & Bayshores). The westerly portion of Mariners' Mile is larger and residential properties are more distant from the highway and commercial uses. Automobile sales and service uses are conditionally permitted uses within the CG zoning district subject to securing a Conditional Use Permit. The dealership can be approved is it is found consistent with the Design Framework all findings for application approval can be met. Lighting of the exterior of the site will be significantly reduced after 9:00 p.m. and the Porsche sign will be dimmable. Servicing of vehicles will be conducted within the building and doors to the service bays will remain closed unless vehicles are moved in or out of the space. The doors will be "high speed" and opened for short durations approximately 50 times during the day. Noise from test driving vehicles on the roadway will occur. Noise meets noise ordinance standards as shown in the noise study within the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, residents are concerned about additional nuisance noise in an already high noise environment close to Coast Highway. It should be noted that Porsche currently test drives vehicles on Coast Highway east (southbound) of its current location east of Bayside Drive. They do not pass west of the Dover Drive currently. Test drives from the proposed dealership will be in a westerly direction (northbound) on Coast Highway. Nautical Building Elements and the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework) Staff has prepared a detailed discussion of the Design Framework and how the project relates to it (Attachment PC 7). Significant discussion has occurred regarding the architectural design and whether it is consistent with the Design Framework. The applicant has sought and received limited relief from the Porsche franchise design requirements. Specifically, the service center portion of the building has been modified from the prior plan. The previous design had the service building clad in a black corrugated horizontal siding with black mesh screens over the openings into the middle level vehicle storage areas. Most of the metal siding has been significantly reduced. Most of the exterior is now proposed to be medium gray 3 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 4 stucco and the mesh screens are now stainless steel rather than black. The changes break up the building mass and highlight the articulation of the building that was hidden by the use of only one color. According to the architect, the mesh screens were designed to loosely mimic the shape of a sail. The sales showroom portion of the building has not changed with the exception the inclusion of black spandrel glass above the windows in the center of the building. This change accentuates the 17-foot wide break in the elevation and effectively splits the showroom building into two components. Staff believes the changes are an enhancement over the previous proposal and show better use of neutral colors and accents as encouraged by the guidelines. During the community meeting, there were several comments related to the size and length of the building. The project site is 550 feet wide and the proposed building is 530 feet wide from the auto lift lobby at the west to the certified pre-owned canopy on the east. By comparison, the Mariners' Pointe project is approximately 325 feet wide, the Balboa Bay Club residences are approximately 740 feet wide, the Balboa Bay Club resort is approximately 630 feet wide. Sterling BMW sits on a site that is approximately 630 feet wide and the dealership building is approximately 305 feet wide. The proposed Porsche dealership would be one of the widest buildings; however, it is broken up into several distinct components by different building materials and modulation of the building fagade not unlike the other wide developments along Mariners' Mile noted. Covering Rooftop Parking The applicant has expanded the cover and repositioned the parking spaces so that they are all covered. The cover would include an insulating material to help reduce noise transmission. Only the drive aisle would be open to the sky so the visibility would be limited to cars in transit to and from the auto lifts. The proposed canopy complies with the 35-foot height limit and it would not extend to the front of the building. Therefore, it would not affect the south facing building elevation. Lighting on the roof would be under the canopy and would be on motion and light sensors to minimize lighting effects. Most noise would be contained within the canopy as there would be no openings facing the Kings Road properties. Several Kings Road residents have expressed a desire for a full cover. The applicant has examined a full cover and it would exceed the 35-foot height limit by 3 feet. The applicant has not prepared plan for a full roof canopy or an exhibit of how that would change the front elevation as of the drafting of this report. The roof canopy would be visible from the south and would increase the overall height and bulk of the structure. Staff has included a variance and findings for approval for consideration (Attachment PC 2) should the Commission feel it necessary to fully cover the roof. 4 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 5 Building Height Measurement The methodology for determining building heights has generated comments. Zoning Code Section 20.30.050 identifies the grade for the purpose of measuring height. When a site is relatively flat with a slope of less than five percent, the elevations at the four corners of the building are averaged and the result is the base elevation for a vertical measurement. When a site has a slope in excess of five percent, as is the case with the subject application, a grade plane is established by ten grade elevation points, five along each side property line. These 10 points are connected across the site to create a plane that resembles the existing sloping topography. A vertical measurement is taken at any point from the grade to the top of the building. Sheet #6 of the updated plans shows the grade plane and height of roof features and the project complies with the 35- foot height limit. If the site is excavated, as is the case with the subject application, a building taller than the numeric height limit can result. The tallest feature of the project is the 300 square foot auto lift located at the far western end of the building. If approved, it would be 46.8 feet above the finished floor, and 49.3 feet above the existing sidewalk, and also below 35 feet measured to the grade plane for the purpose of measuring height due to the slope of the lot in that area. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.13 - Properties abutting bluff faces During the August 18, 2016, hearing, a comment was raised regarding project consistency with General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.19.13 that applies to the Mariners' Mile area. 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. The bluff is partly located on the residential properties above and on the project site. The visual quality includes residential and commercial development and ornamental landscaping. The bluff does not contain typical bluff features, significant rock outcroppings and it is visibly degraded. During preparation of the 2010 Zoning Code, the City considered implementing this policy through the Bluff Overlay. The condition of the bluff, the fact that it was both on residential and commercial properties, the shallow depth of the commercial lots, and future highway widening, coupled with the recognition that any development in front of the bluff could block visibility of the feature led the City to exclude the bluff along above Coast Highway the bluff overlay. In the project area, the bluff overlay applies to the bluff along Kings Place facing Dover Drive. The proposed project will alter and block the visibility of the bluff from the south and only limited portions of the bluff will remain visible. What remains of the bluff slope will be re- vegetated with plants consistent with the Mariners' Mile Design Framework (red 5 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 6 bougainvillea or other species provided in the guidelines). The structural integrity of the bluff will be maintained with proper engineering design and construction with the application of the Building and Grading Codes. Staff does not view the project as inconsistent with this policy. Retaining Wall Zoning Code Section 20.30.040 establishes the maximum height of retaining walls at eight feet unless it is an integral part of a building. Taller retaining structures can be accommodated by building two or more successive walls separated by six feet or seeking a modification permit. The project includes a retaining wall across the full width of the site. The portion of the wall that extends easterly of the showroom building has been reduced to eight feet. The retaining wall behind the proposed building is completely screened from view. The westerly portion of the property has a larger slope area and the retaining wall in this area is up to 24.5 to 34.8 feet in height. The wall was designed to eliminate the need to provide tiebacks into the bluff beyond the property line. The walls are integral to the building site as it creates a level building pad across the full width of the site to provide use and access. The retaining wall and building itself are two separate structures. Separating the wall into multiple walls would further alter the slope. The primary purpose of the eight foot wall standard with additional walls separated horizontally by six feet is to avoid large visible walls. The standard is not applied to retaining walls that are not visible when buildings conceal them, as is the case with this application. The wall that extends westerly of the proposed service building would be visible and would not conform to the Zoning Code. In response, the applicant has modified the project to provide a new building, an "auto lift lobby", that would be located in front of the retaining wall that would otherwise be visible. This new building component would be approximately 28 feet tall and block visibility of the retaining wall. The proposed retaining wall would extend above this building component by less than eight feet. The changes to the project are compliant with Section 20.30.040 of the Zoning Code. Coast Highway Widening The widening of Coast Highway across the project site and the abutting two properties has caused concern. According to the Public Works Department, the extended third northbound lane further to the west will improve highway circulation across the project frontage and it will improve operations and safety at the Coast Highway/Dove Drive intersection. The abrupt lane merge will be moved further west in front of the McDonald's property west of the project site. The additional distance and highway capacity created will help traffic flow and improve safety. The reduction in the number of driveways from four to two will reduce the number of potential conflict points where vehicles enter and exit the highway. The City Traffic Engineer does not anticipate vehicle speeds to increase as a result of the improvements. AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 7 Several comments were made suggesting car transport vehicles will block traffic while they access the site provided they don't simply park in the right-of-way, an ongoing issue at their current location. The proposed project is designed with two wide and flared driveways so cars and car transport vehicles can readily and safely access the site without significant traffic disruption. The stretch of Coast Highway between Dover and the Newport Boulevard is designated to be a six lane divided highway by the General Plan and County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Dedications and improvements to achieve this goal are required by the General Plan Policy and the Municipal Code. The City Council recently reaffirmed the City's long-term policy and goal to widen the highway. The applicant is not proposing these highway improvements but has designed the site to accommodate the widening requirement. They are also willing to make the improvements at the request of the City provided the City shares in the cost of off-site improvements. With or without the proposed project, the City will be seeking the highway widening and improvements along this stretch of highway with redevelopment of the site. Comments received from some residents disagree with the policy to widen the highway and it should be noted the policy is not the subject of the application. Existinq Dealership Operations The existing AutoNation dealership operates pursuant to a Use Permit at 445 East Coast Highway. Conditions require on-site parking of employees and on-site deliveries of inventory among many requirements. AutoNation has violated these two conditions specifically on a number of occasions over the years. They have been cited and paid fines for not complying with maintaining deliveries on-site. The driveways at the existing dealership are not flared drive approaches, and although car transport trucks can access the site, it is done with difficulty and requires turning into multiple traffic lanes. Compliance with the existing conditions is an on-going Code Enforcement case. The applicant states the existing dealership has grown with the community and the subject application is a way to address the shortcomings of the site. Moving the Porsche brand off the site will allow them to better comply with existing conditions allowing employees to park on site and car transport vehicles to access the site more readily. The applicant is also studying ways to improve access to the existing site for car transport trucks. It has been recently confirmed that the applicant is storing over 100 Audis at the Newport Dunes (Dunes) just east of the Bayside Village Mobile Home Park. In 2015, the Dunes was granted a limited term permit to park up to 40 Maseratis. That activity ceased and the permit since expired. The Dunes leased a larger and unused portion of their parking lot area in the same area to AutoNation for car storage, but the Dunes failed to get a permit. The Dunes has been informed of the violation and has expressed their commitment to address the issue by immediately seeking all necessary permits. Reports that AutoNation is conducting other unpermitted activities from the off-site area at the Dunes such as conducting test drives, vehicle washing or servicing, or use of a 7 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 8 storage container and other materials have not been confirmed by the City. Staff has learned that a storage container and other miscellaneous items are not the responsibility of AutoNation. The Dunes is examining better methods to store these items for their other tenants. Environmental Review The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and it considers project changes and the inclusion of the rooftop cover and potential variance to the height limit (Attachment PC 8). The analysis concludes the changes to the project were in response to written and verbal comments that are not intended to reduce a significant physical environmental impact that was identified in the Draft MND. The proposed covered rooftop and associated increase in the height of the structure by up to 3 feet above the maximum building height allowed under the Zoning Code would result in a building that (although slightly taller) would be substantially similar in size and scale to the building that was evaluated in the Draft MND. Accordingly, the City of Newport Beach has determined that this revision would not constitute a "substantial revision" as it would result in new avoidable significant environmental effects the changes are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. Since the Draft MND was circulated for public review, there were no changes to the Project that would result in a new, avoidable significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of any significant effect previously disclosed in the Draft MND. Furthermore, as described above, there were no public comments or "substantial revisions" to the Draft MND that would warrant recirculation of the document. Additionally, the Draft MND was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the Draft MND were supported by evidence provided within the Draft MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the Draft MND did not include any substantive evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant impact on the environment or identify any alternatives to the mitigation measures or the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft MND that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the Draft MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in §15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Conclusion Since the last meeting, additional public outreach has occurred. Correspondence is provided in Attachment PC 8. Despite the lack of nautical building materials or accents, the project can be determined consistent with guidelines provided in the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Changes to the architectural design are an improvement of the southerly elevation compared to the previous proposal. The building 2 AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Planning Commission, October 6, 2016 Page 9 is broken up into smaller components with differing building materials and modulation of the building. The stainless steel mesh screens and signs will provide accents. The project would eliminate the existing buildings and uses that underutilize the property. The project would allow the Porsche brand to expand. The relocation of Porsche will also reduce activities at the current location allowing them to better operate consistent with their Conditional Use Permit. Public Notice At the last meeting, complaints of inadequate were received. It should be noted that notice of the August 18, 2016, public hearing was provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Municipal Code. Notice of this meeting was provided consistent with the Municipal Code and notice was published in the Daily Pilot on Saturday, September 24, 2016. Notice was mailed to a larger area than required by the Municipal Code including all property owners in Bayshores. The project site was posted with five green notices measuring 11' by 17' along the project site on September 23, 2016. Lastly, staff announced the hearing date at both meetings previously described in this report. The notice, mailing list and map of property owners notified and the on-site posting locations are attached (Attachment PC 10). Prepared by: Submitted by: W J es Campbell, rincipal Pla ner *na i, r ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft resolution for approval (updated) PC 2 Draft resolution for approval with Variance No. 2015-002 for roof cover PC 3 Draft resolution for denial PC 4 Excerpt of draft minutes from August 18, 2016, Planning Commission meeting PC 5 August 18, 2018, Planning Commission staff report PC 6 Updated project plans PC 7 Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework Discussion PC 8 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration PC 9 Correspondence PC 10 Public Notice Information V� QP �P 20 Attachment PC 1 Draft resolution for approval 11 V� QP �P 2� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. MD2016-003, FINDING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2016-001 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE, AND APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2015-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-025, AND NEWPORT PARCEL MAP NO. NP2015-010 FOR THE AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT LOCATED AT 320-600 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2015-095) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by AutoNation, Inc., with respect to property located at 320-600 West Coast Highway and legally described as Lots 7 to 17 inclusive, of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval for the development of an automobile sales and service facility (Project). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. b. A Traffic Study pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). c. A Site Development Review to fulfill the requirements of NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) because the Project consists of a nonresidential construction of greater than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of gross floor area. d. A Conditional Use Permit to fulfill the requirements of NBMC Section 20.20.020 for the operation of a vehicle sales and service facility within the CG (General Commercial) zoning district. e. A Tentative Parcel Map to merge eleven (11) contiguous lots into one (1) lot to avoid the development of a building over intervening lot lines in violation of the Building, Zoning and Subdivision Codes. 2. The subject property is designated CG (Commercial General) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Commercial General land use category is implemented by the CG (Commercial General) zoning district. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 3. On August 18, 2016, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing for the Project in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 34 CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. 4. At the request of the applicant, the public hearing was continued to allow the applicant to continue its outreach efforts to surround residential communities and to revise the design of the Project to include feedback received from the Planning Commission and public. 5. On October 6, 2016, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing for the Project in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with CEQA and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 1. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a thirty (30) day comment period from July 11, 2016 to August 9, 2016, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project considered the contents of the environmental document and comments on the document. 2. A Final MND has been prepared and it considers project changes and the inclusion of the rooftop cover and potential Variance to the height limit. The analysis concludes the change to the Project is in response to written and verbal comments that are not intended to reduce a significant physical environmental impact that was identified in the Draft MND. The proposed covered rooftop and associated increase in the height of the structure by up to three (3) feet above the maximum building height allowed under the Zoning Code would result in a building that (although slightly taller) would be substantially similar in size and scale to the building that was evaluated in the Draft MND. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has determined this revision does not constitute a "substantial revision" as it does not result in new avoidable significant environmental effects and the changes are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. 3. Since the Draft MND was circulated for public review, there were no changes to the Project that result in a new, avoidable significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of any significant effect previously disclosed in the Draft MND. Furthermore, as described above, there were no public comments or "substantial revisions" to the Draft MND that warrant recirculation of the MND. 4. Additionally, the Draft MND was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the Draft MND were supported by evidence provided within the Draft MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the Draft MND did not include any substantive evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant impact on the environment or identify any AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 -14 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 34 alternatives to the mitigation measures or the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft MND that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. 5. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the Draft MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. 6. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on the environment that would be caused by the project. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 7. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Traffic Study (NBMC Section 15.40.030(A)) Finding: A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A (of the traffic phasing ordinance). Fact in Support of Finding A: A traffic study entitled "AutoNation Porsche Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis dated June 3, 2016, was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. A total of thirteen (13) primary intersections in the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa were evaluated. Finding: B. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made. 1) NBMC Section 15.40.030(8)(1) Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project approval; and AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 34 2) NBMC Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. Facts in Support of Finding B: 1. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in early 2018 well within sixty (60) months from project approval. If the project is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. 2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on seven of the thirteen (13) study intersections by one percent (1%) or more during peak hour periods one (1) year after the completion of the project (2019). Therefore, only seven (7) intersections required Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. 3. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that the seven (7) primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the TPO, and no mitigation is required. 4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. Finding: C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fu the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings or approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. \ Facts in Support of Finding C: 1. Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no mitigation to primary intersections is necessary. 2. The segment of West Coast Highway across the project site is classified as a "significant link" by the City Council and pursuant to NBMC Section 13.05.010 (Street Widening and Improvements as a Condition of Building Permits) and pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.010(A)(1) (Arterials and Commuter Roads) of the Municipal Code, the planned twelve (12) foot dedication of West Coast Highway may be required if projected traffic volumes warrant such an increase. The traffic study indicates the project will generate one thousand two hundred twenty-six (1,226) average daily trips that will be six hundred seventy-two (672) more daily trips and seventy-three (73) additional AM peak hour trips and sixty-four (64) additional PM daily trips than the previous uses of the site. Based upon the increased trips, the dedication and widening of the Coast Highway is warranted. The applicant has agreed to make improvements or fund the improvements as a condition of project approval. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 34 Site Development Review (NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) Finding: D. Allowed within the subject zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding D: The subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General) and pursuant to Table 2-5 within NBMC Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements), commercial buildings for general vehicle sales and service land uses are allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. If all required findings for the issuance of a conditional use permit can be made, the use and development is allowed in the CG zone. Finding: E. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in NBMC Section 20.52.080(C)(2)(c) of this section. 1) Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; 2) The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; 3) The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; 4) The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; 5) The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and 4 6) The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding E: 1. Based upon the facts contained within all the findings presented in this resolution, the project is consistent with the Site Development Review criteria and required findings, the CG General Plan land use category, Land Use Element Policies LU 6.19.1 and LU 6.19.13, and CG zoning district. The Zoning Code requires 79 parking spaces and the project includes these spaces. The project does not exceed the 35-foot maximum height limit and all the findings for the request to use the 35-foot height limit can be made. Facts to support allowing the building to use the 35-foot height limit are presented in other findings within this Resolution and are incorporated herein by reference. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 34 The Zoning Code requires a project within the Mariners' Mile area to be found consistent with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework). The Design Framework is a set of guidelines that stresses compatible designs that address all five sides of a building, use of quality materials, screen mechanical equipment on roofs and utilities, use of nautical features and building accent colors. The guidelines also stress the establishment of a hedge and palm row at the street to tie the 1.5 mile long Mariners' Mile corridor together. The Design Framework does not mandate a design theme. The proposed design includes a palm row without a hedge at the street. In-lieu of a hedge, which is intended to screen parked cars, the applicant proposes lower drought tolerant plants. The proposed building will be clad with a non-ferrous metal siding, screens and glass. These materials are durable and complement the modern design. Mechanical equipment is within the building and louvers for ventilation are directed away from residential properties on Kings Road. The project includes a series of rooftop canopies that will provide some screening of the roof. A condition has been included to provide a partial roof cover over the rear 25 feet of the building across the full width of the building. This added feature better addresses proposed roof-top storage of vehicles from an aesthetic standpoint without significantly changing the southerly elevation or building mass as viewed from the Coast Highway. The partial roof cover will reduce noise, provide screening of vehicles, and reduce light and glare from the rooftop. The added partial roof also increases project compatibility given the request to apply the maximum 35-foot height limit as opposed to the 26-foot height limit, and finally, it better addresses the Design Framework's guideline to address the roofs of proposed buildings In conclusion, the proposed project is consistent with the Design Framework despite the lack of a landscape hedge as it would be contrary to the proposed use, and nautical features or building accent color as they do not complement the modern design expression by Porsche. Additionally, adjacent developments do not exhibit nautical elements and the site is not located directly along the waterfront where the inclusion of nautical building materials and accents would be more important. 2. The proposed building is located close to the back of the project site thereby allowing access and parking between the building and Coast Highway. The 47'-7' to 51'-6" foot setback to the highway provides additional open space to avoid a continuation of the building mass along the street established by the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial building. The increased setback provides open space at the street in contrast to the limited amount of open spaces in front of the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development. The setback of the proposed building avoids a continuation of the building mass established at the street by the Mariners' Pointe commercial development making the project more harmonious with the highway frontage. The proposed building incorporates good design features that break up the long horizontal building mass. These design features are the vertical elevator shafts, different siding colors, parking garage openings with mesh screening, building breaks with different color glass, and the twenty- two (22) foot easterly setback to the Mariners' Pointe commercial development. 3. The showroom and service buildings would be thirty-two (32) feet and thirty (30) feet high (respectively) measured from the finished grade at the southerly elevation facing Coast Highway. The height of the proposed building is comparable to the adjacent Mariners' AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 Zg Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 34 Pointe commercial development that was approved by the City to be thirty-five (35) feet high for flat roofs and up to forty (40) feet high for sloping roofs. The project is setback farther from Coast Highway that the two abutting commercial developments. The design and aesthetic treatment of the fagade facing Coast Highway provides visual interest and breaks up the long horizontal design as described previously. Although the design does not include nautical elements suggested by the guidelines in the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, the modern design contrasts with the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development and complements the other modern car dealership designs located further to the west along Coast Highway in the Miers' Mile area. 4. Publically accessible parking areas and drive aisles meet the minimum dimensional standards of NBMC Section 20.40.070 based upon the review of the parking areas by the City Traffic Engineer. The only notable exception is the drive aisle between the customer parking area and the westerly driveway between vehicle display areas and the proposed service building. A condition of approval required by the Traffic Engineer requires this drive aisle to be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet. Pedestrian access meeting State disability requirements from the public sidewalk to the showroom building is provided in the shortest route possible. Parking within the building does not conform to typical parking lot standards and access will be limited to trained porters to provide efficient use of the spaces for employee parking, service parking and inventory storage. Employees arrive before opening and the customer spaces and service drive entrance will be used to stage vehicles to be moved into the enclosed parking spaces by porters. Lastly, the site has been designed to accommodate access and parking of automobile transport trucks. The truck loading and unloading area does not block the designated fire lane or drive aisle that employees or customers would be using. 5. The landscape plan provides the following elements in substantial conformance with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework): 1) a 4-foot wide landscape area along the street; 2) palm trees and ground planting at the back of the sidewalk; 3) palm trees in front of the service building to soften the overall length of the building element; and 4) bluff planting consisting of bougainvillea. The landscape palette largely consists of drought-tolerant plantings and must be consistent with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping). 6. No significant public views are identified through or along the project site from public spaces or the public right-of-way. As a result, the project including the request for increased building height is consistent with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Finding: F. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 34 Facts in Support of Finding F: 1. The proposed project including the increased height does not block private views of residents of Kings Road. 2. The hours of operation are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily with no vehicle service activities on Sunday. 3. Lighting, including interior showroom lighting, is controlled through design and the conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses and travelers on Coast Highway. 4. The change to the project requiring a partial roof cover over the rear portion the roof will reduce the effects of project—related noise, reflected light and glare, automobile headlights, parking lot/rooftop aesthetics, and general commercial activity from the roof of the building. 5. Roof-top access is limited to parking porters and employees will be prohibited from congregating on the roof of the building. 6. Test drives are prohibited on residential streets by the conditions of approval. 7. Service activities are within enclosed portions of the building and not allowed on the rooftop or in surface parking or circulation areas. 8. Mechanical equipment is enclosed within building elements and noise from ventilation systems is mitigated by walls, roofs and louvered openings where necessary. Louvers are directed away from residential properties on Kings Road. 9. The project is general consistent with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework as noted in other the Findings within this Resolution. 10.The project accommodates the widening of Coast Highway consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan where a new northbound lane can be created across the site and the two abutting properties. The existing abrupt lane merge will be made more smoothly approximately 400-500 feet further to the west. The project eliminates two out of four existing vehicular driveway approaches. As a result of these improvements, traffic flow across the project frontage and intersection operations at Dover/Coast Highway may improve. Conditional Use Permit (NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) Finding: G. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 34 Facts in Support of Finding G: 1. The subject property is designated CG (Commercial General) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The CG Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a wide variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve Citywide or regional needs. Vehicle sales and service uses are consistent with the intended purpose of the CG zone as it is a commercial use that will serve the City and region. 2. The subject property is not within a specific plan area. The Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan was eliminated with the 2010 Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.1 seeks to differentiate and create cohesive districts for key subareas of Mariners' Mile by function, use, and urban form. The use and design of the AutoNation project is appropriately located in the highway-oriented commercial corridor identified by Figure LU26. Project approval strengthens the highway-oriented district and differentiates it from the harbor-fronting and village areas of Mariners' Mile. The project is consistent with Policy LU 6.19.1. 4. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.13 allows for increased intensities up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. The project consolidates eleven (11) parcels into one development site with a parcel map and eliminates two (2) existing driveways on the inland side of Coast Highway. The proposed floor area ratio of the project is 0.478 and the project meets the one (1) parking space for every thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area parking requirement of the Zoning Code. The 78,015 square foot lot requires 79 spaces and the project provides seventy-nine (79) parking spaces, fifteen (15) for customers and sixty-four (64) service and employees. Additionally, ninety-four (94) inventory spaces will be provided. The project is consistent with Policy LU 6.19.13. 5. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.13 requires development projects to locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. The bluff is partly located on the residential properties above and on the project site. The visual quality includes residential and commercial development and ornamental landscaping. The bluff does not contain typical bluff features, significant rock outcroppings and it is visibly degraded. The slope appears more like an engineered and vegetated slope rather than a natural feature. The proposed project will alter and block the visibility of the bluff from the south and limited portions of the bluff will remain visible from the south. What remains of the bluff slope will be re-vegetated with plants consistent with the Mariners' Mile Design Framework. The structural integrity of the will be maintained with proper engineering design and construction with the application of the Building and Grading Codes. Finding: H. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 34 Facts in Support of Finding H: 1 . Facts in support of Finding D are incorporated by reference in support of Finding H. Finding: 1. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding I: 1. Facts in support of Findings E are incorporated by reference in support of Finding I. 2. Facts in support of Findings F are incorporated by reference in support of Finding I. 3. Facts in support of Finding N are incorporated by reference in support of Finding I. Finding: J. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding J: 1. The site is 78,015 square feet in gross area or 1 .79 acres and has approximately 550 feet of direct frontage on Coast Highway. The site is large enough to physically accommodate the proposed building at a 0.478FAR with parking areas while dedicating twelve (12) feet of the frontage for streets and highway purposes. The site and proposed development is large enough and designed to facilitate the following elements on-site: customer parking, service parking, employee parking, display vehicles, inventory storage, sales and enclosed service area, vehicle delivery and landscaping. 2. The site is at the base of a bluff that allows for development to the maximum height limit of Chi , -five (35) feet without blocking private views of residents above on Kings Road. 3. Water, w,$Stewater, storm drain and electrical utility lines are located within Coast Highway o semen�to serve the project site without significant disruption or construction. 4. The project accommodates the orderly widening of Coast Highway where a new northbound lane can be created across the site and the two abutting properties. The existing abrupt lane merge will be made more smoothly approximately 400-500 feet further to the west. The project eliminates two out of four existing vehicular driveway approaches. As a result of these improvements, traffic flow across the project frontage and intersection operations at Dover/Coast Highway may improve. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 11 of 34 Finding: K. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding K: 1. Facts in support of Findings D are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 2. Facts in support of Findings E are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 3. Facts in support of Findings F are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 4. Facts in support of Findings J are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 5. Facts in support of Findings L are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 6. Facts in support of Findings M are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 7. Facts in support of Findings N are irtc rpprated by reference in support of Finding K. 01 Finding: L. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Facts in Support of Finding L: The project provides a larger setback than is required thereby providing more publically visible open space. Setbacks range from between forty-seven (47) to fifty-two (52) feet from the future Coast Highway right-of-way when no setback is required. Portions of the building are setback further and are under roof canopies that provide more building relief. The increased setbacks and resulting open space is in contrast to smaller setbacks of the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development. Finding: M. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes. Facts in Support of Finding M: The project provides visual interest through implementation of a high quality modern design with durable materials. Two distinct building forms are provided with the service building and showroom building. The service building screens activities within with walls clad with black corrugated metal panels and a non-ferrous mesh screens. The showroom building complements the service building with its glass and silver metal exterior. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 12 of 34 Finding: N. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provide a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding N: 1. The increased height up to thirty-five (35) feet as measured to the established grade plane pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) creates a building that is comparable in height to the adjacent thirty-five (35) to forty (40) foot tall Mariners' Pointe commercial development. 2. The increased setbacks from the future widened highway avoids a continuation of the building mass established by the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development thereby reducing building mass in relationship to the abutting public space. 3. Residential development on the south side of West Coast Highway is separated from the proposed project by approximately one hundred and seventy (170) feet and the increased height up to thirty-five (35) feet does not create an undesirable scale relationship. 4. Residential development to the north along Kings Road is above the proposed development and these properties enjoy views over the project site to Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The increased height of the project reduces the separation of rooftop parking for the project and residents rear yards. Project—related noise, reflected light and glare, automobile headlights, parking lot aesthetics, and general commercial activity may be nuisances that would otherwise be at a greater distance to residents if the building height were not increased from twenty-six (26) feet to thirty-five (35) feet. A partial roof enclosure over the rear portion of the entire roof consistent with the approved plans and will reduce these nuisances. As a result, the project will be more compatible and avoid an undesirable relationship between the proposed structures and existing adjacent residential property. 5. Commercial development directly to the west is a single story fast food restaurant. The proposed service building will be separated from the restaurant building by approximately sixty-two (62) feet. Additionally, the proposed service building will be setback an additional twenty-four (24) feet approximately. The separation between the proposed building and the restaurant will avoid an undesirable scale relationship between the proposed structures. Finding: O. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 13 of 34 Facts in Support of Finding O: The General Plan and Zoning Code allow for an increased floor area ratio of 0.5 with lot consolidation and when adequate parking is provided. The project consolidates eleven (11) lots into one lot and meets the parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The lot consolidation with the proposed design has the added benefit of the elimination of two driveway approaches along the highway. The proposed project provides a floor area ratio of 0.478 based upon the gross lot area below the maximum allowed. The proposed project will have no more floor area than allowed despite the increased building height. Tentative Parcel Map Finding: P. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code; Facts in Support of Finding P: 1. Facts in support of Finding G are incorporated by reference in support of Finding P. 2. The Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies West Coast Highway across the project frontage as a "Six Lane Major Road." The existing right of way is one hundred (100) feet in width and an additional twelve (12) feet is required to be dedicated along the northerly side of the highway to allow for the improvement of additional missing lanes. The parcel map includes the minimum required dedication and the applicant has agreed to make improvements or fund the improvements as a condition of project approval. Finding: Q. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; Facts in Support of Finding Q: Facts in suport of Finding J are incorporated by reference in support of Finding Q. ng: Findi AF R. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to CEQA Section t that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 2.5 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 34 Facts in Support of Finding R: The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the AutoNation Porsche project concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed parcel map. Finding: S. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvemen .is not likely to cause serious public health problems; Facts in Support of Finding S: 1. The purpose of the parcel map is to consolidate eleven (11) contiguous parcels into one site for development and to dedicate the southerly twelve (12) feet of the lots for streets and highway purposes consistent with the General Plan. 2. Consolidation of the existing lots and highway dedication facilitates common commercial development that is subject to all applicable safety and health-related regulations. No serious public health problems are likely to result with approval and recordation of a parcel map. 3. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program to ensure the protection of the public health. Finding: T. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision; Facts in Support of Finding T: 1. The design and parcel map will preserve all easements of record and no alternative easements for access or use are necessary. 2. The parcel map does provide for the dedication of the southerly twelve (12) feet of the lots for streets and highway purposes for the widening of Coast Highway consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 34 Finding: U. That, subject to the detailed provisions of California Government Code Section 66474.4, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land; Facts in Support of Finding U: The project site is not in agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Finding: V. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area; Facts in Support of Finding V: The proposed parcel map is not defined as a "land project" and the subject property is not subject to a specific area plan. Finding: W. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with California Government Code Sections 664 73.1 and 66475.3; Facts in Support of Finding W: 1. The proposed parcel map and improvements do not change solar access or passive heating or cooling qualities of the site. 2. Future development is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: X. That the subdivision is consistent with California Government Code Sections 66412.3 and Section 65584 regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 16 of 34 Facts in Support of Finding X: 1. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with California Government Code Section 66412.3 and Section 65584 regarding the City's share of the regional housing need. The project does not involve the elimination of residential units or residential zoning opportunity sites, and therefore, approval of the parcel map will not affect the City's ability to meet its share of housing needs. 2. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. Finding: Y. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding Y: 1. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system must be consistent with the existing commercial use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 2. Containment areas are required for any drums of hazardous materials (such as waste oil or motor oil) stored within the building and garage floor drains, where provided, are required to drain to approved oil separators or traps before discharging to a sewer in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. 3. Sewer connections must comply with applicable City Standards, the applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Finding: Z. For subdivisions lying partly orwholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding Z: 1. The Coastal Zone boundary in the area is located along the northerly public right-of-way of West Coast Highway, which is also the southerly boundary of the project site. The site to be subdivided including a twelve (12) foot wide dedication is landward of the Coastal Zone boundary not located in the Coastal Zone. 2. The subject property does not contain, abut or provide access to any beaches, shoreline, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks or trails. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 17 of 34 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the MND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2016-003, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds Traffic Study No. TS2016-001 in compliance with the TPO (NBMC Chapter 15.40) and approves Site Development Review No. SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025, and Newport Parcel Map No. NP2015-010 for the AutoNation Porsche project located at 320-600 West Coast Highway (PA2015-095) subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 34 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 30 Planning Commission Resolution No. # Page 19 of 34 0 > > U u ., o bE N E QO '^ a p O ; p � Y N U L p O > > O d CL d a Ci C i M O ro O a3 -a3 a v a v QZ QZ U os U` os o M o UM CL ca aLUm L M v r � •env b •c $> N b4 L 4: 3 U O M C U L V L > id > —w �_ bq dl i O > V = 0 V a+ L L dl d0 N C O N cd U dJ 5 c p C OmUd od p O wLUN w=cd QcU mU O c 0- O u 0 w p dd v p m Na 'C U a an Eo W O E o v E o O NC � >Q h NuU �U C Q t v o E Z O .9 -g v c v m o« EO r `UaL�v ` o v -v WOU -0 O c- EM +i — vi 0 U v v b y u v' a E a Y m u v w a a c v m CA c o W2 `° ; °� = c O a r N o v o Z E .� v = ro c w u — b O p 3 L cod N o_r "" b U O U C • O c v b u u L O v O — v c �p cd O 0 w 3 u .� u N O L v = u d c b u .� o w n O y L 1 O a iv T, O 7 O i'- '� .L+ cLd " U b v > cd C u c O h " u b o �p o_ .1tl+ y Q ~' p 0 0-u c L a 2CaL+ = v� o vU >° so o c o o t •L u 0 O b V 0(U L a=, ., c C L 7 U D_ N O 3 d I.J L E N VI V 3. M V 0 ~S� p L N N � V N i Q L W N Q � U d F 3 Q F U F 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. # Page 20 of 34 • o v u � b E � L N v '^ a o = L O � L aL C7 L O U a a ; o_ v • Q Z • u O L N O w N C U m p L CULL �_ OV- � S � Ul 0 75 'L C p CLE w vU .2 C N ; y > — _� O C_ S C O T = w O s O 7 O N U a� v 4 0'Zi 0 b N U A O C E �. E Up h 0 O u E W U U (UV) d YG O 'n `.•' v0 by aS+ V b p Ul N " � m o '� d Y o w >; v v c .� °� c U p " M s u r' b u v C t = L U O_ L V O a O V 4.. U .� C H a+ 0 0 O� 'D V E U a $ 'o 'o L w y ° u c o v �a o L i ` c "c-0 .`7 L b4 L T o u a Y O O v aS+ Z N '- _> a a+ 0 by a+ L o_ N O S U/ V L .r O b Ul = T U td V _O � S U b=9 L `�0 r- C d C O/ � •_-� W = O S ttl b 0 E No o =C o „ > o oLE - vo = c � LopvUvc wo vama vv > ytoodv ` °1 ° _ oc bEaU w-2 E Y a u • u LO p N o_ O N M O C CL W a+ N .Y v N u U p 0 _ N y Y u C S i CL q- to O = O c- y = OU S b v O p N T H J b0 i = C v C -h C C roa+ J �ypN = . WU Q H p =td OW O U N to O M U U v c Z ai vobp 0 0 b O h U L W M M . N = y C 7 00 N N r U O = O y USy NNdN FNUU a U_N 0- U U F F 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. # Page 21 of 34 0 v ao C -5+ C U .0 ro E N (L 0 L 7 Y CL aL ° b C 0 0 0 C C ro p ro p ro p . " 0- 3 0- 3 —a3 a v a v a v QZ QZ QZ • U O L U O t U O t 'O N N 'O N N 'O H d aUm a Um OLUm Y > aci ? y u M b aLO+ L C C O t O U `- ro H o w o Q M O L p O � C to '^ ,_ ? $ O v v) d O U aL+ O E c CL b O w 0 0 u L 7 v U L v 0 ._ U O_ ro Y '� ro C Z to v -0 ro C E C C 0 ON vO 'C u O CO y v0 3 0 o o ' O dN E ?= 0. wW bM E O � •� O .� bD > w Y ro Y .0 h y v Z l7 • "ro0v-or�Yu w�y'i Nc 0; o LLvLu' Nv m_ vv.'ro4 vo w 4 W U = v U w CdU U0-p w oc c 0 3 0 IE5 bro ro Uv � ico -0 o f iv ~v p o v- -0 (Dr a Z o f U MYO -Oro C > C Oro Z U0 > t > u U N L a . Y O O i c 0 O E p T 0 0 — c -ov .Oavcc w -j v Z ro b u o c 2 p L u U � u r O .M O v v N v v N A Y L O „_, c v > ro 0 L a v Y L Y ro ro ) !a Y N C Y Yp-. L p _O v v T— CO a d O L Y M .Y o o E °° v v b ao v p — G7 ro > .--."O N O V E C •� v O L W N C 'L s E c Ln c M .� r O v v " -0 -0 > 4) O w O w .ro t ro ro CL Q ro = CL Y v a O O v U °ro° U O. 0_ 'w 0 0 a E a c m U 2 N Z F 2 F Z F 33 Planning Commission Resolution No. « Page 2yk \ \ ■ \ \ ; \ \ \ 0 \ 0 \ \ 3 | a- ! 3 ! \ j \ j \ M Cu = EL cc Cu = ^ § f ) / § f � 2$ § /0 k � ® § § ; � d>KM cu w } § ) § ) -@-0> e > ww � © t ; : � oma . - \ | � t ) ( j \ § k � E _ \ § ® ) - - - ) / 0 0 ) � � \ ) ) \ / 0 § # _ ; x § 0 - ) 0 � , (/,) { - = k : \} } 7 ! \ \ \ 0 0Q)4 \ \ � > - § ep ~ k � § [aa = w CL | j \ ( � � � —a) 7 § > a \ _ � I \ \ § � \ � § k § � \ aE (\ \ \ \ ) \ - ® — » el = r2a � / ƒ F- 0- F— 22 * ! F-c-0 / } } � I I 3» Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 23 of 34 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning (general) 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval; ., 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans attached to the August 18, 2016, Planning Commission staff report unless as modified by applicable conditions of approval. Substantial conformance shall be determined', by the Community Development Director or his/her designee. 3. Site Development Review SD2015-002 and Conditional Use Permit UP2015-025 may be modified or revoked by the City Council or the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 4. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from the City of Newport Beach prior to demolition or construction. Construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. Construction plans shall meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 5. Any change in operational characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit unless the Director of the Community Development Department determines the change minor and in substantial conformance with the Condition of Approval and approved project plans. 6. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 7. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 8. The approval of Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit UP2015- 025, and Newport Beach Parcel Map NP2015-010 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060, unless an extension is granted. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 S5 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 24 of 34 9. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this approval by the current owner, assignee or leasing company. 10. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025 authorizes the sales, leasing, rental and service of automobiles. The point of sale for all sales and leases shall be the project site (320-600 W. Coast Highway) within the City of Newport Beach. 11. Hours of operations shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. a00 p.m. daily with no vehicle service activities on Sunday. 12. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit UP2015-025, Newport Beach Parcel Map NP2015-010. and Traffic Study TS2016-001; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of the AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2016071023) and Mitigation Monitoring Program for project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 13. The project shall include a roof cover that extends across the full width of the building to partially screen the roof and provide enhanced sound attenuation. The cover shall be located along the northerly side of the building consistent with the approved plans. The northerly parapet wall and sides shall be extended upward to meet the underside of the roof such that there are no openings between the wall and roof. 14. Repair and service of vehicles shall be conducted within enclosed portions of the building. 15. The project applicant and contractor shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2016071023). Planning (noise) AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 so Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 25 of 34 16. Construction activities which produce loud noise that disturb, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, shall be limited to the weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No such noise occurrences shall occur at anytime on Sundays or federal holidays. 17. Noise-generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. 18. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for controlling noise generated by the facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by vehicle repair activities, vehicle operations, general activities, mechanical equipment, property maintenance, loading and unloading, deliveries, test drives and patrons. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26 provides the following maximum noise limits for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: Between the hours Qf Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM :OOPM and 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Finterior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA property IF Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 19. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets. Said equipment shall be sound attenuated such that it is in compliance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and louvers for ventilation systems shall be directed away from residential properties on Kings Road. 20. No audible outdoor speaker or paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with the use. 21. To control noise and promote compatibility, no vehicle repair, maintenance or service activities are allowed in any roof-top parking or circulation area. Additionally, employees shall be prohibited from congregating or loitering on the roof of the building. Employees accessing the roof to move vehicles shall minimize time spent in completing said activities. Planninq (lighting) 22. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 37 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 26 of 34 "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height. 23. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. 25. Prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an after dark inspection by the Code Enforcement or Planning Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in these conditions of approval. 26. The lighting system shall be designed to allow for multiple lighting schemes to be automatically controlled by an automatic lighting control system. Lighting levels for vehicle display areas (both the interior and exterior areas) shall be dimmed to provide minimal security lighting levels between 9:00 p.m, 7:00 a.m. daily. Planning (signs) V%khh�- 27. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.42 of the Municipal Code. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site, to advertise the use. IL 28. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 29. Window signs visible on the exterior of the building are not permitted. 30. The final locations of any free standing sign shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110-L to ensure that adequate vehicle sight distance is provided. Planninq (trash) 31. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Division. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls, a self-closing, self-latching gate and have a have a decorative, solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. The design of the enclosure shall be integrated with the design of the other on- site buildings and structures. 32. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 27 of 34 33. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with applicable water quality regulations. Planninq (landscaping) 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 35. All landscape materials and the irrigation system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 36. Prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Planning Division to confirm the installation of the landscaping and irrigation consistent with the approved plans. 37. Water leaving the project site due to over-irrigation of landscape shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation the following morning. 38. Water shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Planning (parking and vehicle use) 39. A minimum of fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be available for customer parking during the hours the dealership is open for business. The spaces shall be located on-site as indicated on the approved site plan. The spaces shall be kept clear of obstructions and maintained for the parking of vehicles at all times. 40. All employees working at the site shall be required to park on-site at all times. Vehicle inventory, vehicles in service or customer parking shall not reduce the number of employee AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 39 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 28 of 34 parking spaces such that it does not meet the minimum parking demand for all employees working at the site. 41. No vehicles associated with the operation of the dealership may be parked or stored in the public right-of-way under any circumstances. 42. Vehicle delivery trucks shall not be allowed to park in the public right-of-way under any circumstances. Vehicle delivery trucks shall park and load/unload vehicles on-site in the designated area outside of the Fire Lane and customer parking sppeas as shown on the approved site plan. 43. The test driving of vehicles is allowed along City and State arterial highways and shall be prohibited on all residential streets. The test driving of vehicles shall be conducted in a safe and legal fashion consistent with the California Vehicle Code. Vehicle noise shall be maintained at reasonable levels during operations and test drives and the `revving" of engines shall be minimized at all times/during display or test drives. . 1011� Planning (construction) '1W ir► 44. Prior to Issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a comprehensive Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and City Traffic Engineer. The CMP shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach ordinances and Public Works Department requirements. The CMP shall, at a minimum, address the following: a) Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. b) Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., concrete, lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.) or the removal of demolition debris or earth, access to the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. c) Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets. d) Requirement to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the Public Works Department, of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. e) Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. No hauling or transport of oversize loads will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays. Use of local streets shall be prohibited. fl All haul trucks or delivery trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. g) If hauling or delivery operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 29 of 34 h) All construction-related parking or materials and the staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on-site or in an approved off-site location. If off-site locations are utilized, the CMP shall clearly identify the location and fully describe the use and any related transportation. 45. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and/or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 46. A six-foot-high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. 47. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. 48. Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NO[ and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 49. Prior to issuance of a building permit for new construction, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. Life Safety Services 50. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that adequate fire flow is available at all fire hydrants located within four hundred (400) feet of any portion of the proposed buildings. 51. The applicant shall ensure that no person shall park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, in the designated fire lane as depicted on the final approved plans. 52. Apparatus access roads (fire lane) shall be constructed of a material that provides an all-weather driving surface and capable of supporting seventy-two thousand (72,000) pounds imposed load for fire apparatus and truck outrigger loads of seventy-five (75) pounds per square inch over a two foot area. Calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer shall certify that the proposed surface meets the criteria of an all-weather driving surface and is capable of withstanding the weight of seventy- two thousand (72,000) pounds (Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01). AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 41 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 30 of 34 53. Landscaping shall not obstruct emergency ground laddering to the structure. 54. Trash enclosures shall meet construction and distance requirements as per California Fire Code (CFC) Section 304. 55. Car show room vehicles shall have all batteries disconnected. Fuel in fuel tanks shall not exceed one-quarter tank or five (5) gallons, whichever is less. 56. Vehicle refueling shall not occur inside the structure. 57. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required and shall be installed and maintained as per CFC Section 903. 58. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is required for the following structures: a) Structures that have more than three (3) stories above the grade plane; b) When any single floor space exceeds forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet; c) Structure contains a subterranean space of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or more; d) Any building or structure deemed likely to have diminished in-building communications due to the use of certain construction materials, window coatings, shape, location or other factors as determined by the fire code official. 59. Electrical wiring and equipment shall be suitable for the locations in which they are installed and shall comply with California Electrical Code (CFC. Section 2301.5 Repair Garages). 60. Containment areas are required for any drums of hazardous materials (such as waste oil or motor oil) stored within the building. This can be accomplished by liquid-tight sloped or recessed floors or sump and collection systems as per CFC Section 5004.2. 61. Garage floor drains, where provided, shall drain to approved oil separators or traps discharging to a sewer in accordance with the California Plumbing Code (CFC Section 2311.2.3). 62. Appliances and equipment installed in a repair garage shall comply with the provisions of the California Building Code, the California Mechanical Code and the California Electrical Code (CFC Section 2311.3.1). 63. Pits and below-grade work areas in repair garages shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). 64. Where Class I liquids or LP-gas are stored or used within a building having a pit wherein flammable vapors could accumulate, the pit shall be provided with mechanical ventilation in accordance with the California Mechanical Code at a minimum rate of one and one half (1%) cubic feet per minute per square foot to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors (CFC Section 2311.4.3). AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 31 of 34 65. The storage and use of flammable and combustible liquids in repair garages shall comply with Chapter 57 of the CFC 2311. 2. 66. All buildings and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings. The design of the elevator shall be approved by the Life Safety Services Section of the Building Division. 67. Car charging shall meet requirements of CBC Section 406.9 and National Electrical Code 625.5. 68. The underground fire line shall be reviewed by the Life Safety Services Section of the Building Division and Fire Department. A separate submittal is required which requires an "F" permit. The underground fire line is a separate submittal and cannot be part of the overhead fire sprinkler plans or precise or rough grading plans and must meet Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline F.04 "Private Hydrants and Sprinkler Supply Line Underground Piping". ri► 69. Cleaning of parts in repair garages shall be conducted in listed and approved parts- cleaning machines (CFC Section 2311.2.1). 70. Waste oil, motor oil and other class IIIB liquids shall be stored in approved tanks or containers, which are allowed to be stored and dispensed from inside repair garages (CFC Section 2311.2.2). 71. Exit discharge shall be designed to meet CBC Section 406.4.4. 72. Exit stairwells serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall be rated as per CBC Section 1022.2. 73. Clear height in the garage shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet as per CBC Section 406.4.1. 74. As per CBC Section 406.4.2 & 406.4.3, guardrails shall be provided as vehicle barriers in the garage area. 75. Occupancy separations shall be provided as per CBC Section 508.1. 76. Mixed occupancy uses must comply with CBC Section 406.5.3. "Separate buildings" are as defined not less than 2-hour fire barriers or horizontal assemblies per CBC Section 402.4.2.3. 77. As per CBC Section 406.5.11 (Open Parking Garages), the following uses and alterations are not permitted: a) Vehicle repair work b) Parking of buses, trucks and similar vehicles. c) Partial or complete closing of required openings in exterior walls by tarpaulins or any other means. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 -4.3 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 32 of 34 d) Dispensing of fuel. 78. The service garage is classified as an ordinary hazard occupancy which requires a "2A 20BC" fire extinguisher. This fire extinguisher shall cover one thousand and five hundred (1,500) square feet of floor area and the extinguisher must be located so that it is not more than 50 feet travel distance to reach an extinguisher from the garage floor area. 79. Repair for vehicles fueled by lighter-than-air fuels must cattily with CFC Section 2311.7. 80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the manufactures specifications for the auto lift. Buildinq Division 81. Final building plans and documentation shall illustrate compliance with California Building Code (CBC) Section 311.2 by providing a complete list of hazardous materials quantities classifications and justifications for an "S1" occupancy, otherwise an "H" occupancy group may be required with mixed use area justification and separation required (See table 307.1(1) and Section 406.8 CBC). If "H" occupancy is provided, it requires lobbies at the elevator in the "B" occupancy. 0 82. The exiting plan must illustrate compliance with Chapter 10 CBC for common path of travel and total travel distance from the most remote locations per floor. Exit discharge must occur at a yard or court etc. defined as open to the sky and not under a canopy or within the service bay or covered service drive. Columns shall not reduce the required exiting with at the stairs. Is. 83. Final building plans shall address locations for all elevator/lift mechanical rooms and must comply with industrial regulations requirements. 84. Service area and auto body detailing must provide atmospheric separation from the tech counter and its second floor storage area. 85. Fire rated construction for exterior walls, parapets and projects shall illustrate compliance with fire separation distance requirements. A wing wall may be required at the CPO canopy and at trellis roofs on third floor roof deck along with all supporting walls and floors for fire rated continuity. 86. Mezzanine appears to be a second floor by definition. Also roof top has trellis roofs and is considered a third floor. Adjust allowable area calculations accordingly. 87. The trash enclosure at property line shall be provided a parapet at the property line. 88. The service and detail area shall provide required ventilation pursuant to the California Building Code. Public Works Department AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 44 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 33 of 34 89. Show all easements on the plans. 90. Obtain permission from Caltrans for the proposed direct connection to the Caltrans Storm Drain. 91. The drive aisle in front of the service bay building needs to be twenty-two (22) feet wide for two-way traffic. 92. Parking lot light standards shall no encroach within parking ,soces and shall comply with City Standard STD-805-L- B. 93. Prior to the issuance of final certificate of occupancy, a detailed valetlporter operations plan shall be prepared for the efficient handling of employee and service vehicles. The plan shall identify the number of porters or attendants, the average time to move vehicles, and the location of temporary staging and stacking of vehicles for drop off and pick up of vehicles. The plan shall include any information necessary to ensure the efficient handling of vehicles. 94. All required parking spaces shall be per City standards (depth and '`"length). With valet/porter operation in the parking structure, more narrow drive aisles are allowed subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 95. A Parcel Map (Map) shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 96. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 97. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 98. All unused water services shall be abandoned at the water main. 99. All unused sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at property line. If the sewer lateral to be abandoned has an existing cleanout, abandonment shall include removal of the cleanout riser, the "4T7" box and the "wye." Sewer lateral shall then be capped where the "wye"used to be. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 45 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 34 of 34 100. A new sewer cleanout needs to be installed on the proposed sewer lateral(s) per STD- 406-L adjacent to the property line in the West Coast Hwy public right-of-way. 101. The applicant is responsible for all improvements to the City's water and sewer systems necessary to accommodate the proposed project. Due to existing fire flow, an upgrade of water line along the frontage may be required. 102. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 103. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 104. The parking spaces and drive approaches shall be constructed per City Standards STD- 805-L-A, STD-805-L-B, and STD-166-L, unless modified by the Public Works Department. 105. No permanent structures shall be constructed within the limits of public easements. 106. All proposed trees shall be located at least ten (10) feet away from all utility services and driveway approaches. 107. The parking structure shall only be operated by trained parking attendants. Regular employees or the public shall not be permitted to park vehicles in the parking structure or within rooftop parking areas. 108. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, fair share traffic fees shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code. 109. The applicant shall provide a full twelve (12) foot wide dedication of right-of-way in fee, for the ultimate West Coast Highway roadway widening purposes. The right-of-way dedication shall be as shown on the applicant's site plan. The applicant shall be responsible to design and construct the full width roadway improvements on Coast Highway (approximately 12 feet) along the entire property frontage (northern side of Coast Highway). The applicant shall also be required to design and construct roadway widening improvements on the adjacent properties as required. The City will be responsible for 100 percent of the cost of the roadway improvements on the adjacent properties and the City agrees to share in a minor, justifiable amount of the cost of the roadway improvements along the property frontage. A Reimbursement Agreement will be prepared defining the cost share between the City and applicant for the roadway improvements. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. The City shall support the applicant in acquiring all necessary permits from Caltrans. The roadway widening improvements should be constructed with the initial project construction to the extent practicable in order to limit disruption on Coast Highway. Delays outside the control of the applicant shall not delay or prevent issuance of permits, project construction, or certificate of use and occupancy. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 40 Attachment PC 2 Draft resolution for approval with Variance No. 2015-002 for roof cover 47 V� QP �P �g RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. MD2016-003, FINDING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2016-001 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE, AND APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2015-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-025, NEWPORT PARCEL MAP NO. NP2015-010, AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-002 FOR THE AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT LOCATED AT 320-600 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2015-095) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by AutoNation, Inc., with respect to property located at 320-600 West Coast Highway and legally described as Lots 7 to 17 inclusive, of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval for the development of an automobile sales and service facility (Project). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. b. A Traffic Study pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). c. A Site Development Review to fulfill the requirements of NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) because the Project consists of a nonresidential construction of greater than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of gross floor area. d. A Conditional Use Permit to fulfill the requirements of NBMC Section 20.20.020 for the operation of a vehicle sales and service facility within the CG (General Commercial) zoning district. e. A Tentative Parcel Map to merge eleven (11) contiguous lots into one (1) lot to avoid the development of a building over intervening lot lines in violation of the Building, Zoning and Subdivision Codes. 2. The subject property is designated CG (Commercial General) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Commercial General land use category is implemented by the CG (Commercial General) zoning district. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 3. On August 18, 2016, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing for the Project in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A 49 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 37 notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. 4. At the request of the applicant, the public hearing was continued to allow the applicant to continue its outreach efforts to surround residential communities and to revise the design of the Project to include feedback received from the Planning Commission and public. 5. Variance No. 2015-002 was included with the project applications after the August 18, 2016 public hearing. The variance was included to potentially allow for relief from the 35- foot height limit for a full cover over rooftop parking to promote compatibility of the proposed automobile dealership and adjacent residential properties along Kings Road above. The applicant has not requested relief from the 35-foot maximum height limit but they did consent to the Variance application to consider a full roof cover if it is necessary. 6. On October 6, 2016, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearingfor the Project in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with CEQA and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a thirty (30) day comment period from July 11 , 2016 to August 9, 2016, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project considered the contents of the environmental document and comments on the document. 3. A Final MND has been prepared and it considers project changes and the inclusion of the rooftop cover and potential Variance to the height limit. The analysis concludes the change to the Project is in response to written and verbal comments that are not intended to reduce a significant physical environmental impact that was identified in the Draft MND. The proposed covered rooftop and associated increase in the height of the structure by up to three (3) feet above the maximum building height allowed under the Zoning Code would result in a building that (although slightly taller) would be substantially similar in size and scale to the building that was evaluated in the Draft MND. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has determined this revision does not constitute a "substantial revision" as it does not result in new avoidable significant environmental effects and the changes are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. 4. Since the Draft MND was circulated for public review, there were no changes to the Project that result in a new, avoidable significant effect or a substantial increase in the AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 SD Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 37 severity of any significant effect previously disclosed in the Draft MND. Furthermore, as described above, there were no public comments or "substantial revisions" to the Draft MND that warrant recirculation of the MND. 5. Additionally, the Draft MND was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the Draft MND were supported by evidence provided within the Draft MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the Draft MND did not include any substantive evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant impact on the environment or identify any alternatives to the mitigation measures or the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft MND that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. 6. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the Draft MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. 7. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on the environment that would be caused by the project. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Traffic Study (NBMC Section 15.40.030(A)) Finding: A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A (of the traffic phasing ordinance). Fact in Support of Finding A: A traffic study entitled "AutoNation Porsche Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis dated June 3, 2016, was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. A total of thirteen (13) primary intersections in the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa were evaluated. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 .51 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 37 Finding: B. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made. 1) NBMC Section 15.40.030(B)(1) Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project approval; and 2) NBMC Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. Facts in Support of Finding B: 1. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in early 2018 well within sixty (60) months from project approval. If the project is not completed within y�(60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. j 2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic�dn seven of the thirteen (13) study intersections by one percent (1%) or more during peak hour periods one (1) year after the completion of the project (2019). Therefore, only seven (7) intersections required Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. 3. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that the seven (7) primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the TPO, and no mitigation is required. 4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. Finding: C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding C: 1. Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no mitigation to primary intersections is necessary. 2. The segment of West Coast Highway across the project site is classified as a "significant link" by the City Council and pursuant to NBMC Section 13.05.010 (Street Widening and Improvements as a Condition of Building Permits) and pursuant to NBMC Section 19.24.010(A)(1) (Arterials and Commuter Roads) of the Municipal Code, the planned twelve (12) foot dedication of West Coast Highway may be required if projected traffic AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 62 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 37 volumes warrant such an increase. The traffic study indicates the project will generate one thousand two hundred twenty-six (1,226) average daily trips that will be six hundred seventy-two (672) more daily trips and seventy-three (73) additional AM peak hour trips and sixty-four (64) additional PM daily trips than the previous uses of the site. Based upon the increased trips, the dedication and widening of the Coast Highway is warranted. The applicant has agreed to make improvements or fund the improvements as a condition of project approval. Site Development Review (NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) Finding: D. Allowed within the subject zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding D: The subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General) and pursuant to Table 2-5 within NBMC Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements), commercial buildings for general vehicle sales and service land uses are allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. If all required findings for the issuance of a conditional use permit can be made, the use and development is allowed in the CG zone. Finding: E. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in NBMC Section 20.52.080(C)(2)(c) of this section. 1) Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; 2) The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; 3) The compatibility in terms of bd1k, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; 4) The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; 5) The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and 6) The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding E: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 53 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 37 1. Based upon the facts contained within all the findings presented in this resolution, the project is consistent with the Site Development Review criteria and required findings, the CG General Plan land use category, Land Use Element Policies LU 6.19.1 and LU 6.19.13, and CG zoning district. The Zoning Code requires 79 parking spaces and the project includes these spaces. The project does not exceed the 35-foot maximum height limit and all the findings for the request to use the 35-foot height limit can be made. Facts to support allowing the building to use the 35-foot height limit are presented in other findings within this Resolution and are incorporated herein by reference. The Zoning Code requires a project within the Mariners' Mile area to be found consistent with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework). The Design Framework is a set of guidelines that stresses compatible designs that address all five sides of a building, use of quality materials, screen mechanical equipment on roofs and utilities, use of nautical features and building accent colors. The guidelines also stress the establishment of a hedge and palm row at the street to tie the 1.5 mile long Mariners' Mile corridor together. The Design Framework does not mandate a design theme. The proposed design includes a palm row without a hedge at the street. In-lieu of a hedge, which is intended to screen parked cars, the applicant proposes lower drought tolerant plants. The proposed building will be clad with a non-ferrous metal siding, screens and glass. These materials are durable and complement the modern design. Mechanical equipment is within the building and louvers for ventilation are directed away from residential properties on Kings Road. The project includes a rooftop canopy that will fully screen parking on the roof of from views from above consistent with the Mariners' Mile Design Framework. The roof cover will reduce noise, provide screening of vehicles, and reduce light and glare from the rooftop. In conclusion, the proposed project is consistent with the Design Framework despite the lack of a landscape hedge as it would be contrary to the proposed use, and nautical features or building accent color as they do not complement the modern design expression by Porsche. Additionally, adjacent developments do not exhibit nautical elements and the site is not located directly along the waterfront where the inclusion of nautical building materials and accents would be more important. 2. The proposed building is located close to the back of the project site thereby allowing access and parking between the building and Coast Highway. The 47'-7' to 51'-6" foot setback to the highway provides additional open space to avoid a continuation of the building mass along the street established by the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial building. The increased setback provides open space at the street in contrast to the limited amount of open spaces in front of the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development. The setback of the proposed building avoids a continuation of the building mass established at the street by the Mariners' Pointe commercial development making the project more harmonious with the highway frontage. The proposed building incorporates good design features that break up the long horizontal building mass. These design features are the vertical elevator shafts, different siding colors, parking garage openings with mesh screening, building breaks with different color glass, and the twenty- two (22) foot easterly setback to the Mariners' Pointe commercial development. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 54 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 37 3. The showroom and service buildings would be thirty-two (32) feet and thirty (30) feet high (respectively) measured from the finished grade at the southerly elevation facing Coast Highway. The added roof cover would be visible and increase the height of these buildings by approximately 4-5 feet. The height of the proposed building is comparable to the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development that was approved by the City to be thirty-five (35) feet high for flat roofs and up to forty (40) feet high for sloping roofs. The project is setback farther from Coast Highway that the two abutting commercial developments. The design and aesthetic treatment of the fagade facing Coast Highway provides visual interest and breaks up the long horizontal design as described previously. Although the design does not include nautical elements suggested by the guidelines in the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, the modern design contrasts with the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development and complements the other modern car dealership designs located further to the west along Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile area. 4. Publically accessible parking areas and drive aisles meet the minimum dimensional standards of NBMC Section 20.40.070 based upon the review of the parking areas by the City Traffic Engineer. The only notable exception is the drive aisle between the customer parking area and the westerly driveway between vehicle display areas and the proposed service building. A condition of approval required by the Traffic Engineer requires this drive aisle to be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet. Pedestrian access meeting State disability requirements from the public sidewalk to the showroom building is provided in the shortest route possible. Parking within the building does not conform to typical parking lot standards and access will be limited to trained porters to provide efficient use of the spaces for employee parking, service parking and inventory storage. Employees arrive before opening and the customer spaces and service drive entrance will be used to stage vehicles to be moved into the enclosed parking spaces by porters. Lastly, the site has been designed to accommodate access and parking of automobile transport trucks. The truck loading and unloading area does not block the designated fire lane or drive aisle that employees or customers would be using. 5. The landscape plan provides the following elements in substantial conformance with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework): 1) a 4-foot wide landscape area along the street; 2) palm trees and ground planting at the back of the sidewalk; 3) palm trees in front of the service building to soften the overall length of the building element; and 4) bluff planting consisting of bougainvillea. The landscape palette largely consists of drought-tolerant plantings and must be consistent with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping). 6. No significant public views are identified through or along the project site from public spaces or the public right-of-way. As a result, the project including the request for increased building height is consistent with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Finding: F. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 1515 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 37 safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding F: 1. The proposed project including the increased height does not block private views of residents of Kings Road. 2. The hours of operation are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily with no vehicle service activities on Sunday. 3. Lighting, including interior showroom lighting, is controlled through design and the conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses and travelers on Coast Highway. 4. The change to the project requiring a full cover over the entire parking area on the roof will reduce the effects of project—related noise, reflected light and glare, automobile headlights, parking lot/rooftop aesthetics, and general commercial activity from the roof of the building. 5. Roof-top access is limited to parking porters and employees will be prohibited from congregating on the roof of the building. 6. Test drives are prohibited on residential streets by the conditions of approval. 7. Service activities are within enclosed portions of the building and not allowed on the rooftop or in surface parking or circulation areas. 8. Mechanical equipment is enclosed within building elements and noise from ventilation systems is mitigated by walls, roofs and louvered openings where necessary. Louvers are directed away from residential properties on Kings Road. 9. The project is general consistent with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework as noted in other the Findings within this Resolution. 10.The project accommodates the widening of Coast Highway consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan where a new northbound lane can be created across the site and the two abutting properties. The existing abrupt lane merge will be made more smoothly approximately 400-500 feet further to the west. The project eliminates two out of four existing vehicular driveway approaches. As a result of these improvements, traffic flow across the project frontage and intersection operations at Dover/Coast Highway may improve. Conditional Use Permit (NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) Finding: G. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 +>0 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 37 Facts in Support of Finding G: 1. The subject property is designated CG (Commercial General) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The CG Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a wide variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve Citywide or regional needs. Vehicle sales and service uses are consistent with the intended purpose of the CG zone as it is a commercial use that will serve the City and region. 2. The subject property is not within a specific plan area. The Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan was eliminated with the 2010 Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.1 seeks to differentiate and create cohesive districts for key subareas of Mariners' Mile by function, use, and urban form. The use and design of the AutoNation project is appropriately located in the highway-oriented commercial corridor identified by Figure LU26. Project approval strengthens the highway-oriented district and differentiates it from the harbor-fronting and village areas of Mariners' Mile. The project is consistent with Policy LU 6.19.1. 4. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.13 allows for increased intensities up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. The project consolidates eleven (11) parcels into one development site with a parcel map and eliminates two (2) existing driveways on the inland side of Coast Highway. The proposed floor area ratio of the project is 0.478 and the project meets the one (1) parking space for every thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area parking requirement of the Zoning Code. The 78,015 square foot lot requires 79 spaces and the project provides seventy-nine (79) parking spaces, fifteen (15) for customers and sixty-four (64) service and employees. Additionally, ninety-four (94) inventory spaces will be provided. The project is consistent with Policy LU 6.19.13. 5. General Plan Policy LU 6.19.13 requires development projects to locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. The bluff is partly located on the residential properties above and on the project site. The visual quality includes residential and commercial development and ornamental landscaping. The bluff does not contain typical bluff features, significant rock outcroppings and it is visibly degraded. The slope appears more like an engineered and vegetated slope rather than a natural feature. The proposed project will alter and block the visibility of the bluff from the south and limited portions of the bluff will remain visible from the south. What remains of the bluff slope will be re-vegetated with plants consistent with the Mariners' Mile Design Framework. The structural integrity of the will be maintained with proper engineering design and construction with the application of the Building and Grading Codes. Finding: H. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding H: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 ��L "7 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 37 1. Facts in support of Finding D are incorporated by reference in support of Finding H. Finding: 1. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding I: 1. Facts in support of Findings E are incorporated by reference in support of Finding I. 2. Facts in support of Findings F are incorporated by reference in support of Finding I. 3. Facts in support of Finding N are incorporated by reference in support of Finding I. Finding: J. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding J: 1. The site is 78,015 square feet in gross area or 1.79 acres and has approximately 550 feet of direct frontage on Coast Highway. The site is large enough to physically accommodate the proposed building at a 0.478FAR with parking areas while dedicating twelve (12) feet of the frontage for streets and highway purposes. The site and proposed development is large enough and designed to facilitate the following elements on-site: customer parking, service parking, employee parking, display vehicles, inventory storage, sales and enclosed service area, vehicle delivery and landscaping. 2. The site is at the base of a bluff that allows for development to the maximum height limit of thirty-five (35) feet without blocking private views of residents above on Kings Road. The added building height of 3 feet for a full cover of the rooftop parking would not impinge on public or private views 3. Water, wastewater, storm drain and electrical utility lines are located within Coast Highway or easements to serve the project site without significant disruption or construction. 4. The project accommodates the orderly widening of Coast Highway where a new northbound lane can be created across the site and the two abutting properties. The existing abrupt lane merge will be made more smoothly approximately 400-500 feet further to the west. The project eliminates two out of four existing vehicular driveway approaches. As a result of these improvements, traffic flow across the project frontage and intersection operations at Dover/Coast Highway may improve. Finding: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 52 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 11 of 37 K. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding K: 1. Facts in support of Findings D are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 2. Facts in support of Findings E are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 3. Facts in support of Findings F are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 4. Facts in support of Findings J are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 5. Facts in support of Findings L are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 6. Facts in support of Findings M are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. 7. Facts in support of Findings N are incorporated by reference in support of Finding K. Finding: L. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Facts in Support of Finding L: The project provides a larger setback than is required thereby providing more publically visible open space. Setbacks range from between forty-seven (47) to fifty-two (52) feet from the future Coast Highway right-of-way when no setback is required. Portions of the building are setback further and are under roof canopies that provide more building relief. The increased setbacks and resulting open space is in contrast to smaller setbacks of the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development. Finding: M. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes. Facts in Support of Finding M: The project provides visual interest through implementation of a high quality modern design with durable materials. Two distinct building forms are provided with the service building and showroom building. The service building screens activities within with walls clad with black corrugated metal panels and a non-ferrous mesh screens. The showroom building complements the service building with its glass and silver metal exterior. Finding: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 159 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 12 of 37 N. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provide a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding N: 1. The increased height up to thirty-five (35) feet as measured to the established grade plane pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) creates a building that is comparable in height to the adjacent thirty-five (35) to forty (40) foot tall Mariners' Pointe commercial development. 2. The increased setbacks from the future widened highway avoids a continuation of the building mass established by the adjacent Mariners' Pointe commercial development thereby reducing building mass in relationship to the abutting public space. 3. Residential development on the south side of West Coast Highway is separated from the proposed project by approximately one hundred and seventy (170) feet and the increased height up to thirty-five (35) including the 3 added feet for a rooftop cover over parking feet does not create an undesirable scale relationship. 4. Residential development to the north along Kings Road is above the proposed development and these properties enjoy views over the project site to Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The increased height of the project reduces the separation of rooftop parking for the project and residents rear yards. Project—related noise, reflected light and glare, automobile headlights, parking lot aesthetics, and general commercial activity may be nuisances that would otherwise be at a greater distance to residents if the building height were not increased from twenty-six (26) feet to thirty-five (35) feet. A full roof enclosure over the entire roof will be 3 feet above the 35-foot height limit and will reduce in not avoid these nuisances attributable to activities within the parking area on the roof. As a result, the project will be more compatible and avoid an undesirable relationship between the proposed structures and existing adjacent residential property. 5. Commercial development directly to the west is a single story fast food restaurant. The proposed service building will be separated from the restaurant building by approximately sixty-two (62) feet. Additionally, the proposed service building will be setback an additional twenty-four (24) feet approximately. The separation between the proposed building and the restaurant will avoid an undesirable scale relationship between the proposed structures. Finding: O. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Facts in Support of Finding O: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 13 of 37 The General Plan and Zoning Code allow for an increased floor area ratio of 0.5 with lot consolidation and when adequate parking is provided. The project consolidates eleven (11) lots into one lot and meets the parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The lot consolidation with the proposed design has the added benefit of the elimination of two driveway approaches along the highway. The proposed project provides a floor area ratio of 0.478 based upon the gross lot area below the maximum allowed. The proposed project will have no more floor area than allowed despite the increased building height. Tentative Parcel Map Finding: P. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the" 'vision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with . able provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code; Facts in Support of Finding P: 1. Facts in support of Finding G are incorporated by teference in%upport of Fi ding P. 2. The Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies West Coast Highway across the project frontage as a "Six Lane Major Road." The existing right of way is one hundred (100) feet in width and an additional twelve (12) feet is required to be dedicated along the northerly side of the highway to allow for the improvement of additional missing lanes. The parcel map includes the minimum required dedication and the applicant has agreed to make improvements or fund the improvements as a condition of project approval. Finding: Q. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; Facts in Support of Finding Q: Facts in support of Finding J are incorporated by reference in support of Finding Q. Finding: R. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to CEQA Section t that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report,- Facts eport;Facts in Support of Finding R: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 01 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 37 The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the AutoNation Porsche project concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed parcel map. Finding: S. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; Facts in Support of Finding S: 1. The purpose of the parcel map is to consolidate eleven (11) contiguous parcels into one site for development and to dedicate the southerly twelve (12) feet of the lots for streets and highway purposes consistent with the General Plan. 2. Consolidation of the existing lots and highway dedication facilitates common commercial development that is subject to all applicable safety and health-related regulations. No serious public health problems are likely to result with approval and recordation of a parcel map. 3. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program to ensure the protection of the public health. Finding: T. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision; Facts in Support of Finding T: 1. The design and parcel map will preserve all easements of record and no alternative easements for access or use are necessary. 2. The parcel map does provide for the dedication of the southerly twelve (12) feet of the lots for streets and highway purposes for the widening of Coast Highway consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Finding: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 02 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 37 U. That, subject to the detailed provisions of California Government Code Section 66474.4, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land; Facts in Support of Finding U: The project site is not in agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Finding: V. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area; Facts in Support of Finding V: The proposed parcel map is not defined as a "land pr " and the subject property is not subject to a specific area plan. Finding: W. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with California Government Code Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3; Facts in Support of Finding W: I% 1. The proposed parcel map and improvements do not change solar access or passive heating or cooling qualities of the site. 2. Future development is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: X. That the subdivision is consistent with California Government Code Sections 66412.3 and Section 65584 regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; Facts in Support of Finding X: 1. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with California Government Code Section 66412.3 and Section 65584 regarding the City's share of the regional housing need. The project does not involve the elimination of residential units or residential zoning opportunity sites, AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 03 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 16 of 37 and therefore, approval of the parcel map will not affect the City's ability to meet its share of housing needs. 2. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. Finding: Y. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding Y: 1. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system must be consistent with the existing commercial use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 2. Containment areas are required for any drums of hazardous materials (such as waste oil or motor oil) stored within the building and garage floor drains, where provided, are required to drain to approved oil separators or traps before discharging to a sewer in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. 3. Sewer connections must comply with applicable City Standards, the applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. w Finding: Z. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding Z: 1. The Coastal Zone boundary in the area is located along the northerly public right-of-way of West Coast Highway, which is also the southerly boundary of the project site. The site to be subdivided including a twelve (12) foot wide dedication is landward of the Coastal Zone boundary not located in the Coastal Zone. 2. The subject property does not contain, abut or provide access to any beaches, shoreline, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks or trails. Variance (NBMC Section 20.52.090(F)) Finding: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 04 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 17 of 37 AA. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; Facts in Support of Finding AA: 1. The property is relatively shallow with an average lot depth of approximately 145 feet. 2. The property is located along West Coast Highway and constraiby the fact that the General Plan Circulation Element and Master Plan of Arterial Highways, Subdivision Ordinance and NBMC Title 13 require the dedication and improvement of the southerly 12 feet of the property for streets and highway purposes. 3. The property also has a topographic constraint where the rear of the property is steep upward slope. 4. The unique combination of physical and regulatory constraints limit the useful and buildable portion of the site necessitating relief from the height limit to ensure compatibility of the proposed project as it related to residential properties along Kings Road. 5. The combination of physical and regulatory constraints is not generally applicable to most properties in the same CG zoning classification with the possible exception of properties located along West Coast Highway between Dover Drive and the pelican wall. Finding: r BB. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; Facts in Support of Finding BB: 1. The abutting property enjoys the privilege of having a multi-story, commercial building and parking structure similar to the proposed project, the abutting Mariners' Point commercial development. Sloping roofs of the Mariners' Point project are allowed to be as high as 40 feet and the parking structure was required to provide a rooftop parking cover during the review process. However, the rooftop parking cover does not exceed the 35-foot height limit. 2. Strict compliance with the 35-foot height limit with the inclusion of a cover over the entire roof to screen the parking would eliminate parking above the showroom and service areas of the building. Eliminating the ability to store vehicles on the roof the building would render the project infeasible as it would not provide sufficient inventory storage or employee parking areas and it would not be consistent with the Zoning Code. Finding: AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 05 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 37 CC. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant,- Facts pplicant;Facts in Support of Finding CC: The granting of the Variance will preserve the ability to construct a multi-level commercial building and parking structure with rooftop parking in a fashion that is compatible with residential properties located along Kings Road above the project site. Development of the site consistent with the allowed intensity of development consistent with the General Plan is a substantial property partially preserved by the approval of the Variance. Finding: DD. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; Facts in Support of Finding DD: =y The granting of the variance is not the granting of a special privilege dues to the unique topographic and regulatory constraints of the property and the location of the lot. Finding: EE. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and Facts in Support of Finding EE: 1. The granting of a 3-foot variance to the 35-foot building height limit for a rooftop parking cover is necessary to reduce nuisance noise, light, and activity from the proposed parking on the roof of the dealership. The rooftop cover will also fully screen vehicles from residential properties along Kings Road. 2. The elevation of properties along Kings Road in relation to a rooftop cover is such that it will not bock any views of the harbor and ocean. Finding: � FF. Granting of tho variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding FF: 1. The Zoning Code is intended to carry out the policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. It is also the intent of this Zoning Code to promote the orderly development of the City; promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 19 of 37 welfare; protect the character, social, and economic vitality of neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City. 2. The intent and purpose of height limits are to ensure consistent development and compatible urban forms. Variances to standards are considerable when there are unique circumstances where a property is constrained thereby not allowing it to be developed to its full potential compatible with surrounding development. 3. The added three feet above the 35-foot height limit allows for a cover atop rooftop parking promoting compatibility of the proposed project with the adjacent residential properties along Kings Road above. The added height and rooftop cover promote the peace and comfort of residents of Kings Road while facilitating the beneficial development of the property with an automobile dealership. 4. The added three feet above the 35-foot height limit does not create an abrupt relationship of the proposed development with other structures or uses. The adjacent Mariners Point project is 35-40 feet in height and the rooftop cover will be 38 feet in comparison. Residential properties above are between 10 to 30 feet above the building. Additionally, the facts that support Finding N above support the finding that the added height does not create an abrupt relationship of the-project with its surroundings. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the MND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2016-003, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commissio of th*ep'C ity of Newport Beach hereby finds Traffic Study No. TS2016-001 in compliance with the TPO (NBMC Chapter 15.40) and approves Site Development Review No. SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025, Newport Parcel Map No. NP2015-010, and Variance No. 2015-002 for the AutoNation Porsche project located at 320-600 West Coast Highway (PA2015-095) subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 07 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 20 of 37 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak; Secretary v AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 �g Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 21 of 37 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. # Page 22 of 37 0 > > U u ., o bE N E QO '^ a p O ; p � Y N U L p O > > O d CL d a Ci C i M O ro O a3 -a3 a v a v QZ QZ U os U` os o M o UM CL ca aLUm L M v r � •env b •c $> N b4 L 4: 3 U O M C U L V L > id > —w �_ bq dl i O > V = 0 V a+ L L dl d0 N C O N cd U dJ 5 c p C OmUd od p O wLUN w=cd QcU mU O c 0- O u 0 w p dd v p m Na 'C U a an Eo U O E o v E o O NC � >Q h NuU �U C Q t v o E Z O .9 -g v c v m o« EO r `UaL�v ` o v -v WOU -0 O c- EM +i — vi 0 U v v b y i v' a E a Y m u v w a a c v m CA c o W2 `° ; °� = c O a r N o v o Z E .� v b O p 3 L cod N o_r "" b U O U C • O c v b u u L O v O — v c �p cd O 0 w 3 u .� u N O L v = u d c b u .� o w n O y L 1 O a iv T, O 7 O i'- '� .L+ cLd " U b v > cd C u c O h " u b o �p o_ .1tl+ y Q ~' p 0 0-u c L a 2CaL+ = v� o vU >° so o c o o t •L u 0 O b V 0(U L a=, ., c C L 7 U D_ N O 3 d I.J L E N VI V 3. M V 0 ~S� p L N N � V N i Q L W N Q � U d F 3 Q F U F 7O Planning Commission Resolution No. # Page 23 of 37 • o v u � b E � L N v '^ a o = L O � L aL C7 L O U a a ; o_ v • Q Z • u O L N O w N C U m p L CULL �_ OV- � S � Ul > V C N U a+ 'L C p CLE w vU .2 C N ; y > — _� O C_ S C O T = w O s O 7 O N U a� v 4 0'Zi 0 b N U A O C E �. E Up h 0 O u E W U V) d YG O 'n `.•' vO by aS+ V b p Ul N " � m o '� d Y o w >; v v c .� °� c U p " M s u r' b u v C t = L U O_ L V O a O V 4.. U .� C N a+ 0 0 O� 'D V E U a $ 'o 'o L w y ° u c o v �a o i ` c "c-0 .`7 L b4 L T o u a Y O O v aS+ Z 0- L N '- _> CL a+ 0 by a+ L o_ N O S U/ V L .rO b Ul = T U td V _O � S U b=9 L `�0 r- C d C O/ � •_-� W = O S ttl o = va C o_„ > c o ov Lu E 0 E N o � � � nov soo YU � U o vo � � ma ° vv > y3otoo = — ° Lopvvc w b E Law y U w a`o? ° :°1 aL v ° _ o c b E Y a u • u Lp 0 o_�O W M O C � �' N .Y v N � u U p 0 _ N y Y u r- 0 S i CL q- to O = O c- y = OU S b v O p N T H J b0 i = C v C -h C C roa+ J �ypN = . WU Q H p =td OW O U N to O M U U v c Z ai vobp 0 0 b O h U L W M M . N = y C 7 00 N N r U O = O y USy NNdN FNUU a U_N 0- U U F F �1 Planning Commission Resolution No. # Page 24 of 37 0 v ao C -5+ C U .0 ro E N (L 0 L 7 Y a C7 aL °u b C 0 0 0 C C ro p ro p ro p . " 0- 3 0- 3 —a3 a v a v a v QZ QZ QZ • U O L U O t U O t 'O N N 'O N N 'O H d aUm a Um OLUm Y > aci ? y u M b aLO+ L C C O t O U `- ro H o w o Q M O L p O � C to '^ ,_ ? $ O v v) d O U aL+ O E c CL b O w 0 0 u L 7 v U L v 0 ._ U O_ ro Y '� ro C Z to v -0 ro C E C C 0 ON vO 'C u O CO y v0 3 0 o o ' O dN E ?= 0. wW bM E O � •� O .� bD > w Y ro Y .0 h y v Z l7 > .0. b m H o N 0 v ro v O Y v $ L u_ m Y E v o .a 0-p w > _ 4 W C U — N =' v U m w w M C d U U � �� o - c m c .>- '0 Y 3 Y o c o 0 v IE5ro ; b b ro h-cov N u c L ro L ro 0_ .0 ov o -0 o f �° i c v E v a v 3 i v .ro ~ r w - -0 o v p p a c U o v v (D r La 'v Z o f ro Y yi N U Y O L N 'p ro C > C _ "- 0 > ,tn '> u M U N > Y L aro O ro Z U u' N O O u v v • 0 0 .y .M O M w cp- ro w O _ T u i c M c 0 0 td — c w E W,� N v '., p " a; N ro -o O w -j v Z ro b u o c 2 p L u U � u r O .M O v v N v v N A Y L O „_, c v > ro 0 L a v Y L Y ro ro ) !a Y N C Y Yp-. L p _O v v T— CO a d O L Y M .Y o o E °° v v b ao v p — G7 ro > .--."O N O V E C •� v O L W N C 'L s E c Ln c M .� r O v v " -0 -0 > 4) O w O w .ro t ro ro CL Q ro = CL Y v a O O v U °ro° U O. 0_ 'w 0 0 a E a c m U 2 N Z F 2 F Z F Planning Commission Resolution No. « Page Syy \ \ ■ \ \ ; \ \ \ 0 \ 0 \ \ 3 | a- ! 3 ! \ j \ j \ M Cu = EL cc Cu = ^ § f ) / § f � 2$ § /0 k � ® § § ; � d>KM cu w } § ) § ) -@-0> e > ww � © t ; : � oma . - \ | � t ) ( j \ § k � E _ \ § ® ) - - - ) / 0 0 ) � � \ ) ) \ / 0 § # _ ; x § 0 - ) ) \ � � (/ ) { � � � k : \} } 7 ! \ \ \ 0 0 —0 0Q) \ \ � > - § ep ~ k � § [aa = w CL | j \ ( � � � U C> � ! } 7 § > a \ '0 0 _ � I \ \ § � \ c § k § � \ aE (\ \ \ \ ) \ ® — » l = r2 _- 0- F-cƒ FM ( 2222 * � / } } � I I /z Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 26 of 37 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning (general) 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans attached to the August 18, 2016, Planning Commission staff report unless as modified by applicable conditions of approval. Substantial conformance shall be determined by the Community Development Director or his/her designee. 3. Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit UP2015-025, and Variance No. 2015-002 may be modified or revoked by the City Council or the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 4. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from the City of Newport Beach prior to demolition or construction. Construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. Construction plans shall meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 5. Any change in operational characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit unless the Director of the Community Development Department determines the change minor and in substantial conformance with the Condition of Approval and approved project plans. 6. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 7. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 8. The approval of Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit UP2015- 025, Newport Beach Parcel Map NP2015-010, and Variance No. 2015-002 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060, unless an extension is granted. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 74 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 27 of 37 9. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this approval by the current owner, assignee or leasing company. 10. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025 authorizes the sales, leasing, rental and service of automobiles. The point of sale for all sales and leases shall be the project site (320-600 W. Coast Highway) within the City of Newport Beach. 11. Hours of operations shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily with no vehicle service activities on Sunday. 12. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the Site Development Review SD2015-002, Conditional Use Permit UP2015-025, Newport Beach Parcel Map NP2015-010, Traffic Study TS2016-001, and Variance No. 2015-002; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of the AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2016071023) and Mitigation Monitoring Program for project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 13. The project shall include a full cover that extends across the entire roof of the building to screen the roof and provide enhanced sound attenuation. The northerly parapet wall and sides shall be extended upward to meet the underside of the roof such that there are no openings between the wall and roof. 14. Repair and service of vehicles shall be conducted within enclosed portions of the building. 15. The project applicant and contractor shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the AutoNation Porsche Newport Beach Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2016071023). Planning (noise) AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 715 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 28 of 37 16. Construction activities which produce loud noise that disturb, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, shall be limited to the weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No such noise occurrences shall occur at anytime on Sundays or federal holidays. 17. Noise-generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. 18. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for controlling noise generated by the facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by vehicle repair activities, vehicle operations, general activities, mechanical equipment, property maintenance, loading and unloading, deliveries, test drives and patrons. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26 provides the following maximum noise limits for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: Between the hours Qf Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM :OOPM and 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Finterior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property ated within 100 feet of a cora I 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA property Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 19. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets. Said equipment shall be sound attenuated such that it is in compliance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and louvers for ventilation systems shall be directed away from residential properties on Kings Road. 20. No audible outdoor speaker or paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with the use. 21. To control noise and promote compatibility, no vehicle repair, maintenance or service activities are allowed in any roof-top parking or circulation area. Additionally, employees shall be prohibited from congregating or loitering on the roof of the building. Employees accessing the roof to move vehicles shall minimize time spent in completing said activities. Planninq (lighting) 22. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 70 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 29 of 37 "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height. 23. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. 25. Prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an after dark inspection by the Code Enforcement or Planning Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in these conditions of approval. 26. The lighting system shall be designed to allow for multiple lighting schemes to be automatically controlled by an automatic lighting control system. Lighting levels for vehicle display areas (both the interior and exterior areas) shall be dimmed to provide minimal security lighting levels between 9:00 p.m, 7:00 a.m. daily. Planning (signs) % 27. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.42 of the Municipal Code. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on-site or off-site, to advertise the use. IL 28. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 29. Window signs visible on the exterior of the building are not permitted. 30. The final locations of any free standing sign shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110-L to ensure that adequate vehicle sight distance is provided. Planninq (trash) 31. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Division. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls, a self-closing, self-latching gate and have a have a decorative, solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. The design of the enclosure shall be integrated with the design of the other on- site buildings and structures. 32. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 77 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 30 of 37 33. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with applicable water quality regulations. Planninq (landscaping) 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 35. All landscape materials and the irrigation system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 36. Prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Planning Division to confirm the installation of the landscaping and irrigation consistent with the approved plans. 37. Water leaving the project site due to over-irrigation of landscape shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation the following morning. 38. Water shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Planning (parking and vehicle use) 39. A minimum of fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be available for customer parking during the hours the dealership is open for business. The spaces shall be located on-site as indicated on the approved site plan. The spaces shall be kept clear of obstructions and maintained for the parking of vehicles at all times. 40. All employees working at the site shall be required to park on-site at all times. Vehicle inventory, vehicles in service or customer parking shall not reduce the number of employee AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 72 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 31 of 37 parking spaces such that it does not meet the minimum parking demand for all employees working at the site. 41. No vehicles associated with the operation of the dealership may be parked or stored in the public right-of-way under any circumstances. 42. Vehicle delivery trucks shall not be allowed to park in the public right-of-way under any circumstances. Vehicle delivery trucks shall park and load/unload vehicles on-site in the designated area outside of the Fire Lane and customer parking sppeas as shown on the approved site plan. 43. The test driving of vehicles is allowed along City and State arterial highways and shall be prohibited on all residential streets. The test driving of vehicles shall be conducted in a safe and legal fashion consistent with the California Vehicle Code. Vehicle noise shall be maintained at reasonable levels during operations and test drives and the `revving" of engines shall be minimized at all times/during display or test drives. . 1011� Planning (construction) '1W ir► 44. Prior to Issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a comprehensive Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and City Traffic Engineer. The CMP shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach ordinances and Public Works Department requirements. The CMP shall, at a minimum, address the following: a) Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. b) Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., concrete, lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.) or the removal of demolition debris or earth, access to the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. c) Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets. d) Requirement to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the Public Works Department, of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. e) Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. No hauling or transport of oversize loads will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays. Use of local streets shall be prohibited. fl All haul trucks or delivery trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. g) If hauling or delivery operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 q �Q Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 32 of 37 h) All construction-related parking or materials and the staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on-site or in an approved off-site location. If off-site locations are utilized, the CMP shall clearly identify the location and fully describe the use and any related transportation. 45. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and/or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 46. A six-foot-high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. 47. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. 48. Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NO[ and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 49. Prior to issuance of a building permit for new construction, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. Life Safety Services 50. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that adequate fire flow is available at all fire hydrants located within four hundred (400) feet of any portion of the proposed buildings. 51. The applicant shall ensure that no person shall park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, in the designated fire lane as depicted on the final approved plans. 52. Apparatus access roads (fire lane) shall be constructed of a material that provides an all-weather driving surface and capable of supporting seventy-two thousand (72,000) pounds imposed load for fire apparatus and truck outrigger loads of seventy-five (75) pounds per square inch over a two foot area. Calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer shall certify that the proposed surface meets the criteria of an all-weather driving surface and is capable of withstanding the weight of seventy- two thousand (72,000) pounds (Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01). AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 33 of 37 53. Landscaping shall not obstruct emergency ground laddering to the structure. 54. Trash enclosures shall meet construction and distance requirements as per California Fire Code (CFC) Section 304. 55. Car show room vehicles shall have all batteries disconnected. Fuel in fuel tanks shall not exceed one-quarter tank or five (5) gallons, whichever is less. 56. Vehicle refueling shall not occur inside the structure. 57. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required and shall be installed and maintained as per CFC Section 903. 58. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage is required for the following structures: a) Structures that have more than three (3) stories above the grade plane; b) When any single floor space exceeds forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet; c) Structure contains a subterranean space of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or more; d) Any building or structure deemed likely to have diminished in-building communications due to the use of certain construction materials, window coatings, shape, location or other factors as determined by the fire code official. 59. Electrical wiring and equipment shall be suitable for the locations in which they are installed and shall comply with California Electrical Code (CFC. Section 2301.5 Repair Garages). 60. Containment areas are required for any drums of hazardous materials (such as waste oil or motor oil) stored within the building. This can be accomplished by liquid-tight sloped or recessed floors or sump and collection systems as per CFC Section 5004.2. 61. Garage floor drains, where provided, shall drain to approved oil separators or traps discharging to a sewer in accordance with the California Plumbing Code (CFC Section 2311.2.3). 62. Appliances and equipment installed in a repair garage shall comply with the provisions of the California Building Code, the California Mechanical Code and the California Electrical Code (CFC Section 2311.3.1). 63. Pits and below-grade work areas in repair garages shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). 64. Where Class I liquids or LP-gas are stored or used within a building having a pit wherein flammable vapors could accumulate, the pit shall be provided with mechanical ventilation in accordance with the California Mechanical Code at a minimum rate of one and one half (1%) cubic feet per minute per square foot to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors (CFC Section 2311.4.3). AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 34 of 37 65. The storage and use of flammable and combustible liquids in repair garages shall comply with Chapter 57 of the CFC 2311. 2. 66. All buildings and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings. The design of the elevator shall be approved by the Life Safety Services Section of the Building Division. 67. Car charging shall meet requirements of CBC Section 406.9 and National Electrical Code 625.5. 68. The underground fire line shall be reviewed by the Life Safety Services Section of the Building Division and Fire Department. A separate submittal is required which requires an "F" permit. The underground fire line is a separate submittal and cannot be part of the overhead fire sprinkler plans or precise or rough grading plans and must meet Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline F.04 "Private Hydrants and Sprinkler Supply Line Underground Piping". ri► 69. Cleaning of parts in repair garages shall be conducted in listed and approved parts- cleaning machines (CFC Section 2311.2.1). 70. Waste oil, motor oil and other class IIIB liquids shall be stored in approved tanks or containers, which are allowed to be stored and dispensed from inside repair garages (CFC Section 2311.2.2). 71. Exit discharge shall be designed to meet CBC Section 406.4.4. 72. Exit stairwells serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall be rated as per CBC Section 1022.2. 73. Clear height in the garage shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet as per CBC Section 406.4.1. 74. As per CBC Section 406.4.2 & 406.4.3, guardrails shall be provided as vehicle barriers in the garage area. 75. Occupancy separations shall be provided as per CBC Section 508.1. 76. Mixed occupancy uses must comply with CBC Section 406.5.3. "Separate buildings" are as defined not less than 2-hour fire barriers or horizontal assemblies per CBC Section 402.4.2.3. 77. As per CBC Section 406.5.11 (Open Parking Garages), the following uses and alterations are not permitted: a) Vehicle repair work b) Parking of buses, trucks and similar vehicles. c) Partial or complete closing of required openings in exterior walls by tarpaulins or any other means. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 35 of 37 d) Dispensing of fuel. 78. The service garage is classified as an ordinary hazard occupancy which requires a "2A 20BC" fire extinguisher. This fire extinguisher shall cover one thousand and five hundred (1,500) square feet of floor area and the extinguisher must be located so that it is not more than 50 feet travel distance to reach an extinguisher from the garage floor area. 79. Repair for vehicles fueled by lighter-than-air fuels must cattily with CFC Section 2311.7. 80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the manufactures specifications for the auto lift. Buildinq Division 81. Final building plans and documentation shall illustrate compliance with California Building Code (CBC) Section 311.2 by providing a complete list of hazardous materials quantities classifications and justifications for an "S1" occupancy, otherwise an "H" occupancy group may be required with mixed use area justification and separation required (See table 307.1(1) and Section 406.8 CBC). If "H" occupancy is provided, it requires lobbies at the elevator in the "B" occupancy. 0 82. The exiting plan must illustrate compliance with Chapter 10 CBC for common path of travel and total travel distance from the most remote locations per floor. Exit discharge must occur at a yard or court etc. defined as open to the sky and not under a canopy or within the service bay or covered service drive. Columns shall not reduce the required exiting with at the stairs. Is. 83. Final building plans shall address locations for all elevator/lift mechanical rooms and must comply with industrial regulations requirements. 84. Service area and auto body detailing must provide atmospheric separation from the tech counter and its second floor storage area. 85. Fire rated construction for exterior walls, parapets and projects shall illustrate compliance with fire separation distance requirements. A wing wall may be required at the CPO canopy and at trellis roofs on third floor roof deck along with all supporting walls and floors for fire rated continuity. 86. Mezzanine appears to be a second floor by definition. Also roof top has trellis roofs and is considered a third floor. Adjust allowable area calculations accordingly. 87. The trash enclosure at property line shall be provided a parapet at the property line. 88. The service and detail area shall provide required ventilation pursuant to the California Building Code. Public Works Department AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 g3 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 36 of 37 89. Show all easements on the plans. 90. Obtain permission from Caltrans for the proposed direct connection to the Caltrans Storm Drain. 91. The drive aisle in front of the service bay building needs to be twenty-two (22) feet wide for two-way traffic. 92. Parking lot light standards shall no encroach within parking ,soces and shall comply with City Standard STD-805-L- B. 93. Prior to the issuance of final certificate of occupancy, a detailed valetlporter operations plan shall be prepared for the efficient handling of employee and service vehicles. The plan shall identify the number of porters or attendants, the average time to move vehicles, and the location of temporary staging and stacking of vehicles for drop off and pick up of vehicles. The plan shall include any information necessary to ensure the efficient handling of vehicles. 94. All required parking spaces shall be per City standards (depth and '`"length). With valet/porter operation in the parking structure, more narrow drive aisles are allowed subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 95. A Parcel Map (Map) shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 96. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 97. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 98. All unused water services shall be abandoned at the water main. 99. All unused sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at property line. If the sewer lateral to be abandoned has an existing cleanout, abandonment shall include removal of the cleanout riser, the "4T7" box and the "wye." Sewer lateral shall then be capped where the "wye"used to be. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 37 of 37 100. A new sewer cleanout needs to be installed on the proposed sewer lateral(s) per STD- 406-L adjacent to the property line in the West Coast Hwy public right-of-way. 101. The applicant is responsible for all improvements to the City's water and sewer systems necessary to accommodate the proposed project. Due to existing fire flow, an upgrade of water line along the frontage may be required. 102. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 103. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 104. The parking spaces and drive approaches shall be constructed per City Standards STD- 805-L-A, STD-805-L-B, and STD-166-L, unless modified by the Public Works Department. 105. No permanent structures shall be constructed within the limits of public easements. 106. All proposed trees shall be located at least ten (10) feet away from all utility services and driveway approaches. 107. The parking structure shall only be operated by trained parking attendants. Regular employees or the public shall not be permitted to park vehicles in the parking structure or within rooftop parking areas. 108. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, fair share traffic fees shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code. 109. The applicant shall provide a full twelve (12) foot wide dedication of right-of-way in fee, for the ultimate West Coast Highway roadway widening purposes. The right-of-way dedication shall be as shown on the applicant's site plan. The applicant shall be responsible to design and construct the full width roadway improvements on Coast Highway (approximately 12 feet) along the entire property frontage (northern side of Coast Highway). The applicant shall also be required to design and construct roadway widening improvements on the adjacent properties as required. The City will be responsible for 100 percent of the cost of the roadway improvements on the adjacent properties and the City agrees to share in a minor, justifiable amount of the cost of the roadway improvements along the property frontage. A Reimbursement Agreement will be prepared defining the cost share between the City and applicant for the roadway improvements. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. The City shall support the applicant in acquiring all necessary permits from Caltrans. The roadway widening improvements should be constructed with the initial project construction to the extent practicable in order to limit disruption on Coast Highway. Delays outside the control of the applicant shall not delay or prevent issuance of permits, project construction, or certificate of use and occupancy. AutoNation(PA2015-095),October 6,2016 2.5 V� QP �P g� Attachment PC 3 Draft resolution for denial 27 V� QP �P gg RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFIORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2016-001, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2015-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-025, AND NEWPORT PARCEL MAP NO. NP2015-010 FOR THE AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT LOCATED AT 320-600 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2015-095) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by AutoNation, Inc., with respect to property located at 320-600 West Coast Highway and legally described as Lots 7 to 17 inclusive, of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval for the development of an automobile sales and service facility (Project). The following approvals are requested or required to implement the project as proposed: a. A Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. b. A Traffic Study pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). c. A Site Development Review to fulfill the requirements of NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) because the Project would consist of a nonresidential construction of greater than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of gross floor area. d. A Conditional Use Permit to fulfill the requirements of NBMC Section 20.20.020 for the operation of a vehicle sales and service facility within the CG (General Commercial) zoning district. e. A Tentative Parcel Map to merge eleven (11) contiguous lots into one (1) lot to avoid the development of a building over intervening lot lines in violation of the Building, Zoning and Subdivision Codes. 2. The subject property is designated CG (Commercial General) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Commercial General land use category is implemented by the CG (Commercial General) zoning district. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 3. On August 18, 2016, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing for the Project in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with CEQA and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 4. On August 18, 2016, at the request of the applicant, this item was continued because the applicant failed to conduct outreach to residents of the adjacent residential community and the applicant failed to incorporated enough marine elements into the Project's design. 5. On October 6, 2016, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing for the Project in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. A. The Planning Commission was unable to apprdve the Site`Developme t Review and Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: 1. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are not compatible and would prove detrimental to existing uses in the vicinity. Additionally, the site is not physically suitable in terms of its location and size to support an automobile dealership of the intensity sought by the applicant as it would not comply with all applicable Municipal Code requirements and standards. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments are not provided. The proposed design is based upon maximizing development consistent with the marketing image of Porsche without regard to standards of good design as provided by the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework guidelines. 2. The site is located between two residential areas and nuisances from increased traffic, noise from test drives, and lighting are not conducive to the peaceful enjoyment of nearby residential properties. 3. The adequacy and efficiency of vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces is not evident. The site is not large enough to accommodate a floor area ratio of close to 0.5 without seeking increased height of buildings and deviating from other development standards related to parking. Specifically, the intensity of use and the size of the lot contribute to a request to reduce the width of a publically accessible drive aisle from 26 feet to 24 feet. Additionally, the site and development rely upon a parking management strategy where employee parking is not designed as a self-parking facility. This inconvenience could lead to employees to park off-site or on nearby streets potentially diminishing parking availability to nearby uses and the public. AutoNation(PA2015-095), Denial,October 6,2016 9L) Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 4. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas is not evident. The Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework seeks to guide development to "fit in" with its surroundings. It identifies a color and materials palette is to be applied considering the context of a site within the Mariners' Mile area. The modern building design that is promoted by Porsche does not have any context or relationship to the Mariners' Mile corridor and its nautical heritage and aspirations despite past allowance of modern building designs in the vicinity. The proposed color pallet for„the Porsche dealership uses neutral colors; however, the contrasting trim exceeds tit percent, which is the target amount. The proposed exterior of the project does not use any nautical building elements or accents. The failure of the proposed design to fit in to the desired vision as expressed in the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework will make it more challenging to achieve the larger district-wide goals diminishing the City's ability to achieve the desired vision. This finding is heightened by the large size of the project. 5. The increased height up to thirty-five (35) feet as measured to the established grade plane pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) decreases the distance between the proposed project that includes rooftop parking and residences along Kings Road. This relationship is undesirable as it will subject residents to increased noise nuisance attributable to cars on the roof or other commercial activities. The project does not provide any meaningful additional amenities such as increased open space or maintenance of views to the bluff as suggested by the General Plan Policy LU 6.19.13 to offset the request for increased height. 6. The applicant indicated that some service activities will be conducted at their current dealership and this fact also shows the site and at the intensity proposed is insufficient to accommodate the level of planned use. A reduced intensity project might possibly be more suitable for the constrained site. B. The Planning Commission was unable to approve the requested traffic study for the following reasons: 1. The proposed traffic study directly relates to and is necessary for the approval of the requested Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. The findings for approval of these applications have not been met. Specifically, the project is not consistent Mariners' Mile Design Framework and the proposed automobile dealership would be detrimental to the peaceful enjoyment of property in the area. 2. Approval of the traffic study without approval of the Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit under these circumstances would be detrimental to the peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the project site proposed use and the general welfare of the City C. The Planning Commission was unable to approve the requested application for a Tentative Parcel Map for the following reasons: AutoNation(PA2015-095), Denial,October 6,2016 91 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 1. The proposed parcel map for the lot merger directly relates to and is necessary for the requested Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit and the findings for approval of these applications have not been met. Specifically, the project is not consistent Mariners' Mile Design Framework and the proposed automobile dealership would be detrimental to the peaceful enjoyment of property in the area. 2. Approval of the parcel map without approval of the Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit under these circumstances would be detrimental to the peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or workingneighborhood of the project site proposed use and the general welfare of the SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, does hereby deny without prejudice Traffic Study No. TS2016-001, Site Development Review No. SD2015- 002, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025, and Newport Parcel Map No. NP2015-010 for the AutoNation Porsche project located at 320-600 West Coast Highway (PA2015-095). 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary AutoNation(PA2015-095), Denial,October 6,2016 9� Attachment PC 4 Excerpt of draft minutes from August 18, 2016, Planning Commission meeting 93 V� QP �P 9� PORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Site Location: 2121 East Coast Highway Senior Planner Murillo presented a PowerPoint providing an overview of the proposed tutoring center. In r onse to Vice Chair Koetting, Senior Planner Murillo explained the proposed hours of operation. Commissi er Hillgren stated there appeared to be unnecessary conditions including Conditions 8, 13, and 16. Senior Planner Mu ' o explained the Building Code requirements for maximum occupancy limits are standard conditions of roval, but indicated that Conditions 8, 13 and 16 could be omitted. In response to Commissione unlap, Senior Planner Murillo explained student drop-off and on-street parking. Chair Kramer opened the public hearin . Jim Mosher asked for the applicant's letter ex ining the project. He stated the presentation of hours of operation were misleading. He asked if the si age would be included in the comprehensive sign program. Senior Planner Murillo stated sign approval was not fore the Commission, but there was a comprehensive sign program for the building. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, John Thomas, Vice Preside of C2 Education, explained the tutoring program. He stated the signs would follow the comprehensive n program and indicated the location of the suite was selected due to the proximity to the street. Cort Ensign stated the new business'signs would be replacing the existing bank s age. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Reso ion No. 2022 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-020. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting,Weigand, Zak NOES: None O4 AUTONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH (PA2015-095) Site Location: 320-600 W. Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile area approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive Principal Planner Campbell presented a PowerPoint explaining the proposed project including the traffic analysis, Mitigated Negative Declaration and nine mitigation measures, site plan, parking, hours of operation, modern architectural theme, and roof plan. He stated no variance is required and the lot consolidation provided a larger floor area ratio. He discussed staffs recommendation for a larger roof cover to reduce noise. He explained the prohibition on test drives on residential streets and the widening of Coast Highway. He summarized staffs recommendation for project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, representing AutoNation, described the project site, project components, setbacks, parking, architecture, design, community outreach and residents' concerns. She discussed the neighboring residents' suggestions to fully enclose the roof and underground power lines. She explained the substantial public benefit of widening Coast Highway. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, City Traffic Engineer Brine described the required street improvements. Ms. Schaffner urged the Commission to approve the project consistent with staff's recommendation. Page 2 of 11 95 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Larry Tidwell stated the parking surface would be concrete, coated with grey sealer and the rooftop canopies would be matte charcoal grey to reduce glare. In response to Chair Kramer, Mr. Tidwell described the proposed building materials. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Tidwell explained the design to protect the views and noise impact to residents on Kings Road. Commissioner Hillgren questioned how the building height was determined. Mr. Tidwell explained the base elevation and building heights. Principal Planner Campbell explained the slope of the property and that a grade plane established by the Zoning Code is the baseline for measuring height. He stated the project was consistent with the code requirement for measuring height. He stated the proposed building would be 32 feet above the pavement at the front of the building not accounting for the elevator and stair shafts. Commissioner Hillgren discussed allowable height. Principal Planner Campbell stated staffs opinion that the four findings for increased height had been met. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Mr. Tidwell stated the 35-foot height limit would be exceeded and additional mechanical equipment would be necessary if the entire roof were covered. He stated the proposed design created a lower acoustical impact. In response to Secretary Zak, Mr. Tidwell discussed base elevation and constraints by the bluff. Secretary Zak asked if the screen could be extended across the roof without requiring mechanical ventilation. Mr. Tidwell discussed issues with extension of the canopies. Secretary Zak discussed the acoustical study and asked if additional noise mitigation could be included. Mr. Tidwell suggested the addition of acoustic batting to the rooftop canopies. In response to Chair Kramer, Ms. Schaffner confirmed the project was a long-term ground lease and consolidation of eleven parcels. Property owner Russ Fluter indicated full support of the project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Tidwell described ingress and egress and stated there was adequate stacking within the service drive. He stated the overall architectural design was a requirement of Porsche. He discussed the proposed signage and lighting and indicated the applicant would accept dimming requirements. He confirmed that the site would be fenced during construction. Commissioner Lawler asked if left turns were currently allowed. Traffic Engineer Brine stated left turns were allowed at three of the four existing driveways, and he was not concerned with the proposed driveways and access from the highway. Commissioner Hillgren asked who determined the requirement of the widening of Coast Highway. Principal Planner Campbell explained that it is a requirement of the General Plan and he addressed the dated reference to not widening the highway in the Mariners' Mile design guidelines. Traffic Engineer Brine discussed the County and City's Master Plan for Coast Highway to be a six-lane facility from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Peter Rooney, Bayshores resident, stated he was surprised that the Commission was hearing the matter. He questioned the building height calculations. He requested the matter be continued to provide proper notice to the residents and provide public workshops. Patrick Gormley, Bayshores resident, concurred with Mr. Rooney. He requested a continuance. He stated the service area was incompatible. He stated Coast Highway was already widened and there was a lack of coordination. George Howser, Kings Road resident, discussed existing business conditions. He stated the power poles should be removed. He asked for additional information on the rooftop canopy. Pageg3 of 11 /o NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Ann Staple, Bayshores resident, expressed frustration regarding the lights from Mariner's Point. She stated she did not want the lights and traffic from the Porsche dealership. She discussed damage caused by Coast Highway construction. She suggested a continuance to allow additional residential input. Tom Zolga, Bayshores resident, stated he was blindsided about the project. He suggested the matter be tabled to address concerns. He discussed existing light issues and potential noise from the car elevators and power tools. He expressed opposition to the proposed architectural design. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell explained the noticing requirements. He stated the application was submitted in May 2015. Commissioner Dunlap asked if the Bayshores Community was notified. Principal Planner Campbell stated nearby associations were notified. Ms. Schaffner discussed outreach to residents. Gary Hill, Kings Road resident, expressed concern regarding noise. Chair Kramer stated the conditions of approval prohibited employees on the roof. Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that to be correct. Matt Nest, Bayshores resident, concurred that the residents were not notified about the project. He urged the Commission to deny the project. Todd Otte, Dover Shores resident, questioned whether the complex fit the Newport Beach character and feel. He stated mitigation was necessary for upslope and Bayshores residents. Jim Mosher expressed concern with car dealership lighting. He discussed impact to the coastal bluff and whether the project is consistent with General Plan Policy 6.19.12. He questioned the 24-foot retaining wall and mitigation for the mapped earthquake liquefaction zone. Principal Planner Campbell stated the General Plan provided policy for visual and structural integrity of the bluffs and staff's opinion that the project complies with the General Plan. Jessica Rinkin, Kings Road resident, expressed concern about the integrity of the bluff and noise impacts. She questioned the height calculations. She requested the Commission consider the concerns of the residents. She suggested the powerlines be undergrounded as part of the project. Chair Kramer stated the power poles were not related to the project. Principal Planner Campbell stated the poles were on the residential properties. He stated there was not a project nexus related to the powerlines and it would be a significant cost to underground the lines. Commissioner Weigand asked who was responsible for the integrity of the bluff. Assistant City Attorney Torres discussed the indemnification provision. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell showed the site plan showing the property line and slope. Jack Geerlings, Kings Road resident, discussed his time in Newport Beach. He stated the residents found the project unacceptable due to the height, noise and rooftop parking. He stated there was no other roof parking on Mariners' Mile. He suggested underground parking. Mike Gilbert, Kings Road resident, expressed concern about noise from the repair area. He stated the building was out of proportion to the neighborhood. He stated the power poles were not on his property. He expressed concern about light pollution. He proposed the project be delayed or moved to Harbor Boulevard. Janice Gormley, Bayshores resident, expressed concern about traffic safety at Dover Drive and Coast Highway, hours of operation, and aesthetics. Page 4 of 11 9:7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 Carole Dru, Kings Road resident, discussed her experience with a car dealership. She expressed concern with fumes and deliveries. She asked about the material of the canopy. Peggy Palmer, Kings Road resident, stated she had no knowledge of the project. She asked how the project would impact the property values of the neighboring residents. She asked the decibel level of the cars and suggested the maritime theme be retained. She indicated opposition to widening Coast Highway. Dan Purcell commended the residents addressing the Commission. He discussed noise from the vehicles, especially tires. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Ms. Schaffner reminded the Commission that the project was consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. She stated the service area had doors and very little noise would be generated. She stated there was no nexus with the powerlines but the applicant would be willing to contribute $100,000 to the City's effort to underground. She explained that the battery charging process does not require starting and running engines and sales transaction length. She stated the conditions of approval limited neighborhood impact. Mr. Tidwell stated the elevators would create minimal noise and they are not freight elevators but rather a large passenger elevator that can accommodate a car. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Principal Planner Campbell confirmed that neither tax revenue nor property values were under consideration by the Planning Commission. He discussed bluff structural integrity and views of the bluff. He discussed inland bluffs versus coastal bluffs. He discussed the Community Noise Ordinance and the project's compliance. Commissioner Hillgren asked if there was a condition limiting the property to higher end automobiles. Principal Planner Campbell explained that the approval was for the building and use, not the brand. He discussed the purpose of height limits and activity on the roof. Commissioner Lawler asked if there was any effort to connect to the Bayshores residents. Ms. Schaffner discussed City noticing. Steve Rosansky discussed outreach with Kings Road neighbors and the adjacent properties. He stated there was no specific outreach to Bayshores. Commissioner Lawler asked if the applicant would be open to outreach to Bayshores residents. Ms. Schaffner stated the light levels were adjustable to address any concerns. She stated City staff required expansion of Coast Highway. She requested the Commission not continue the matter. Commissioner Lawler stated the project seemed inconsistent with the design guidelines. Principal Planner Campbell discussed the guidelines and stated the Commission could recommend changes or denial. He stated the applicant indicated the architectural design was dictated by Porsche. Commissioner Lawler stated he did not find the project consistent with the design guidelines. Secretary Zak discussed Mr. Mosher's comment regarding the height of the retaining wall. Principal Planner Campbell discussed retaining wall height limitations and an understanding that the wall was an integral part of the building allowing it to be taller. Secretary Zak indicated support for a continuance to allow the applicant to meet with concerned residents. Vice Chair Koetting questioned project noticing. Principal Planner Campbell explained the 300-foot radius for noticing and the requirement to not include abutting rights-of-way when measuring that distance. He discussed the type of limited complaints at other existing dealerships that helped staff in the development of the proposed conditions of approval. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, David Sara, AutoNation, discussed service and stated there was no service on Sundays and only light repairs would be done onsite. Page 5 of 11 92 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/18/16 In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Traffic Engineer Brine stated widening of Coast Highway was a requirement of the City and permitted by Caltrans. Ms. Schaffner stated underground parking would be cost prohibitive in the proposed location. Principal Planner Campbell stated a variance application would be required for a full cover on the roof. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Mr. Sara stated Porsche determined the exterior building materials. Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern regarding lack of notification to Bayshores and suggested consideration of expanding the noticing radius. He expressed concern regarding noise, HVAC equipment, and architecture. He suggested completely covering the roof. In response to a question from Commissioner Dunlap, Principal Planner Campbell stated the adjacent Mariner's Pointe project voluntarily undergrounded the utilities behind their building and it was not a requirement of the City. Commissioner Weigand suggested continuing the item to allow Bayshores to receive additional information. Commissioner Hillgren discussed the Mariner's Pointe project. He stated the proposed project was on an important property and design guidelines should be followed. He agreed with continuing the matter. Chair Kramer indicated support for the project but agreed with a continuance. He stated it was a difficult parcel and the proposed use seemed appropriate. He suggested additional outreach. He requested consideration of roof covering options and evaluating whether a nautical theme should be required. Commissioner Hillgren requested the height increase justification be fleshed out. Ms. Schaffner stated they would conduct outreach and review the other items. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to table the matter. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting,Weigand, Zak NOES: None RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 9:21 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with all Commissioners present. 5. NEWPORT CENTER(PA2014-213) Site anon: 150 Newport Center Drive Continue m July 21, 2016 Community Develo ent Director Brandt presented the staff report including the 6-story option requested by the appli t and the staff recommended 5-story option. She requested direction regarding the appropriate Ian a and zoning designations. She reminded the Commission that it was making recommendations to the Ci ouncil. Associate Planner Nova presented the Zon options for the property. She explained the various planned community (PC) options and reviewe ther residential developments in the area. She explained how building height is measured in the North wport Center Planned Community. Commissioner Dunlap appreciated consideration of alternative s and asked why PC-56 was not being recommended. Community Development Director Brandt expla d that site development review is conducted by the Planning Commission in the proposed PC versus P - where site development review is conducted at a staff level by the Community Development Director. In response to Chair Kramer, Community Development Director Brandt stated that in the site development review is conducted by the Planning Commission. Page 6 of 11 99 V� QP �P soo Attachment PC 5 August 18, Planning Commission Staff Report The full staff report can be found on-line at the City's website at: http://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/O/cloc/856759/ Pagel.aspx 101 V� QP �P 20� Attachment PC 6 Updated project plans 10S, V� QP �P �o� PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans 4 Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suitepoo Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 www.stantec.com Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO i I NOT scale the drawing — any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. I I I I I I I The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of IStantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that I I I I I I I authorized by Stantec is forbidden. I I I I I I I I Consultants 603 KINGS RD. I 521 KINGS RD. I 511 KINGS RD. I 503 KINGS RD. I 421 KINGS RD. I 411 KINGS RD. I 403 KINGS RD. I 321 KINGS RD. I 311 KINGS RD. I I I I I I I I I Client I EXISTING POWER POLES I I I O Y EXISTING POWER POLESa PROPERTY LINEN 88°59'23" E (550.15') 1 I — Audo, ,'Nattol-t I3ET�INILJG WALL in. Wp . - -- - J- -- ---.-- -- ------ -- -- -- - - - - - --- - - - - - --,=-r , - -RETaININcwLLW - -- ------ 7— -- -- ---- - -- - __=== __--===TT���==��T =�rrT� -- -- ------ -- -- - -- - 200 SW 1 ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR . . WQ4a. . . W . . • . • . • . • . • . • . W . • . • . • ,� • • W .. W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . LL . W . W . W . W . LL . W . . W . W . W . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. T . . . . . ..SID'EWXLK. . . W . W .q�W . W . W . W . W . W . W . . ` . .. _ .- . _ FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 0" REQUIRED ao . . . . . . . . . . .FXI&TINC�BLUFFW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiFe 'JIF .E .'' SIDE SETBACK I ` . ' . ` . ' . W . ' . W . ` . ' . ' . ' . " . ' . " . " . ' . ' . W . " . " . " . ' . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o-a Z CI ..r"� uu,. _o-� c�. v wG`�_ �� sa N M AUTOLIFr �''' n7 :U +C)' O 0 O I PARTS Key Plan: . W . W . W . . W . W . RETAININGWALCWW . . . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . . W . W . . W . W . W . W . LL . W . W . W . W . LL . W . W . W . W . W . W En] 0 y_ [ CANOPY ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE ® / Q,pv„�. d� + °�i�'% +..eP' \,/ i +a,e' \ \ /.eP� "eP� c4,�"e* \\ N ��� —H— Ji �L 0 = HL O O _ CPO CANOPY — B! AUTOLFT LOBBY AUfOLJFr \ " \ ✓,. \ �' \ �' \ \ �' �'\ N 5 \\ e,� \\ ,� ,� \\ \\ m° \\ cA \\ cA \\\\ +° \\\ a� \\ \\ SERVICE DRIVE DOM m m I ¢ in 5 "MARINER'S POINT' 1-HR RATED PARAPET AT o __ yy7 UI _,, - - - - - - - - ®, m vOi N EXISTING BUILDING TRASH ENCLOSURE AGAINST z \ / \ / \ / �\ / \ / \ / \ / �\ / \ / \ / m O .. +� NOT A PART OF THIS THE PROPERTY LINE NCL ELEC•RM• - U v v v v v v V x z I, ® DI' O O O _ - o APPLICATION � 011-0 23'-1" (S � - - J z Mc DONALDS F SERVICE BAYS c H H H w SHEET INDEX PROPERTY - _ - - - - - - Q • 1 SITE PLAN - WITH DEDICATION NOT A PART OF a L -� - - - o " CONCRETE WALK - - - - - - - - - w r L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THIS APPLICATION O T o 2 EXISTING SITE AERIAL VIEW AND NEW BUILDING OUTLINE FJ r. a- SHOP EQUIP. TOOLS w COMPOSITE PLAN SERVICE DRIVE SERVICE DRIVE - d- y . o AUTO CARRIER COTRELL 34-2 MONUMENT SIGN- "-, ENTRANCE - -- - _ -- - - -- _ _ -- _ y 3 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLANS CL 12M3 i i PED. ACCESSIBLE PATH �'�,� o g 3a ROOF PLAN OVERALL VEHICLE LENGTH = o /!� GF•�T.4AV€ N �� DISPLAY .! ] 4 BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 76 FOOT /' 20-WIDE-F - �` PLAZA \� 5 BUILDING AND PROJECT CROSS SECTIONS I ISPLA� 1 7-STAtL O 24 - TRUCK LOADING AND UNLOADING AREA � % sPAD � DISP Y ,i \ 5a PROJECT CROSS SECTIONS 6 STALLS ® 8'-0"= 17 DISPLAY PARKING - —-- - -- - --------- ---- --- ---- --- 6 BASE ELEVATION EXHIBIT DISPLAY �D ��- - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- -- 48 -0 - - - - ® Y PAD �N \ z JSTA @ '-6" o 0 \• 7 ROOF ELEATIONS. . '-6' 9 - 8 0 9'-0" 10 STA LS Q '-6" 85'-R P RKING ACC S B ARKINCU TOMER PARKI G ROW IMPROVEMENTS 8 PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLAN nnnnntibBEYOND SITE BY OTHERS L1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN O = - . . - - z --- - - L2 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN ' . .LAND&CAPE . . I Ay . . . . . W . W . W W . . . . . . w 0 . 5' VISIBILITY o _ o �, . . . . 111.9 E1 S'-O" LANDSCAPE SETBACK W NEW WSITE POLE LIGHT w- NEW MONUMENT I G1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN o PATH OF TRAVEL TO o N o SIGN TRIANGLE ROW IMPROVEMENTS FUTURE PROPERTY LINE 5' VISIBILITY NEW MONUMENT I PUBLIC R.O.W. BEYOND SITE BY OTHERS I TRIANGLE SIGN iQ 1 EXISTING SITE TOPO _ ^BaLJLAN UV - EXISTING STRE wTS� - P TY N °1 ' 0 NEW 35' LIGHT - EXISTING STREET I \ / I w 3 LIGHTING STREET SGV MH DRIVE APPROACH I \ / I NEW CURBLINE I \\ LIGHT / I / SL _ / NEW 35' DRIVE AUTO CARRIER TRUCK PATH SMH CO APPROACH MODIFY MH SHOWN EXISTING UTILITY BOXES, STREET LIGHTS, FIRE _ - EXISTING DRIVE APPROACH o � EXISTING SIDEWALK, EXISTING DRIVE -- --___� EXISTING SEWER HYDRANTS TO BE RELOCATED TO NEW SIDEWALK TYP. AS REQUIRED EXISTING SEWER o MAN HOLE EXISTING FIRE CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING DRIVE APPROACH HYDRANT EXISTING STORM DRAIN INLET & UTILITY VAULT 0 EXISTING SEWER MAN HOLE i - - -` PROPOSED MEDIAN PER CITY OF NB HIGHWAY DESIGN _ - - WEST COAST HIGHWAY - - - - - N PROPOSED LANE STRIPING SHOWN 2 WAY LEFT TURN LANE TRUE PROJECT NORTH NORTH Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD �0 P.C. EXHIBIT BP IT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 0 10 20 40 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD SCALE: 1"=20'-0" File Name: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 Permit-Seal own. Chkd. Dsgn. WAM.DD SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PARKING SUMMARY BUILDING AREA RECAP SITE RECAP ZONING GC/MARINERS MILE REQUIRED PARKING: BUILDING AREA RECAP PER OCCUPANCY MAX. HEIGHT ALLOWED 26'/35' FLAT ROOF PROJECT TEAM 1 PER 1000 S.F. OF LOT AREA = 78,015/1000 79 STALL REQUIRED INCL. (4 ACCESSIBLE) OCCUPANCY TYPE "B" GROSS LOT AREA 78,015 S.F. HEIGHT PROPOSED ** ELEV. MAX. ABOVE BASE OWNER FLUTER PROPERTIES PARKING PROVIDED SHOWROOM/OFFICES/DRIVER'S SELECTION BOUTIQUE 17,924 S.F. FUTURE STREET DEDICATION AREA 7,698 S.F. SETBACKS PER ZONING CODE TABLE 2-7 FRONT 0' 2025 W BALBOA AVENUE ON SITE CUSTOMER PARKING 15 STALLS SERVICE SUPPORT 2,987 S.F. LOT AREA AFTER FUTURE STREET DEDICATION 70,317 S.F. BACK 5' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROOF LEVELS SERVICE AND EMPLOYEE PARKING 64 STALLS OCCUPANCY TYPE "S1" F.A.R. MAX. ALLOWED (BASED ON GROSS LOT AREA) 0.5 (39,007.5 S.F. MAX.) SIDE 0' CONTACT: RUSS FLUTER a TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED * 79 STALLS PROVIDED INCL. (4 ACCESSIBLE) PARTS 1,550 S.F. * NOTE: PARKING GARAGE, CPO CANOPY AND SERVICE DRIVE ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR (949) 673-3777 Project: NI USABLE AREA CALCULATIONS SERVICE STALLS 11,946 S.F. A U T O N A T I O N o^I FIRST FLOOR - SHOWROOM, PARTS, & SERVICE 24,367 S.F. TOTAL PARKING COUNT : SERVICE DRIVE 3,101 S.F. ** NOTE: BASE ELEVATION VARIES BASED ON SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND BUILDING HEIGHT. ARCHITECT STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. _o SHOWROOM 12 DISPLAY, 2 NVD, 4 CPO SECOND FLOOR - SHOWROOM 8,242 S.F. ALLOWED/PROPOSED ELEVATION VARIES, SEE BASE ELEVATION EXHIBIT SHEET 6 PORSCHE O F CPO CANOPY 1,727 S.F. 38 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 100 SECOND FLOOR - PARTS 565 S.F. ON SITE 15 CUSTOMER SPACES, 42 INVENTORY/DISPLAY SPACES, 5 CPO OCCUPANCY TYPE "52" IRVINE, CA 92618 NEWPORT B E A C H � SECOND FLOOR - TECH. SUPPORT 1,233 S.F. 2ND LEVEL 9 SERVICE PARKING OPEN SECOND FLOOR HAND CAR WASH 450 S.F. CONTACT: LARRY TIDBALL SECOND FLOOR - CAR WASH AND DETAIL BAYS (3) 1, 550 WEST COAST HWY. o OPEN SECOND FLOOR (3 DETAILS BAYS) 823 S.F. PHONE NUMBER: (949)-923-6903273 S.F. i ROOF LEVELS 55 REQUIRED SPACES AND 30 INVENTORY/DISPLAY SPACES SECOND FLOOR CARWASH/DETAILS CIRCULATION 2,280 S.F. `� TOTAL 79 REQUIRED SPACES AND 95 INVENTORY/DISPLAY SPACES OPEN SECOND FLOOR CARWASH/DETAILS CIRCULATION 2,280 S.F. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 o OPEN SECOND FLOOR INVENTORY/DISPLAY/CIRCULATION 2,730 S.F. 3RD FLOOR MECH. ROOMS 518 S.F. APPLICANT AUTONATION TOTAL VEHICLE SPACES SHOWN 174 TOTAL SPACES Title: * NOTE: REQUIRED PARKING = CUSTOMER, OPEN 3RD FLOOR ROOFTOP PARKING 27,210 S.F. TOTAL USABLE AREA 38,478 S.F. 200 SW IST AVENUE, # 1400 F.A.R. PROVIDED * 0.493 PROPOSED SITE PLAN a,m EMPLOYEE AND SERVICE PARKING. REMAINING ROOFTOP MECHANICAL ROOMS 518 S.F. FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 IE N SPACES ON SITE AND PARKING LEVELS ARE FOR o INVENTORY AND DISPLAY BUILDING AREA PER FLOOR F.A.R. ALLOWED * 0.5 WITH DED AT N CONTACT: LORENZO FESTA <MO FIRST FLOOR (INCLUDES COVERED SERVICE DRIVE, CPO (954) 769-3944 Cm CANOPY) 29.195 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT 29,195 S.F. SECOND FLOOR 16,323 S.F. LANDSCAPE AREA 13,966 S.F. = 19.8% Project No. Scale I 3RD FLOOR / ROOF LEVEL 27,728 S.F. REP E ENTATIVE CAA PLANNING 2007105003 AS NOTED da 65 ENTERPRISE, //130 j\ TOTAL BUILDING AREA 73,246 S.F. ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 Drawing No. Sheet Revision �o o� CONTACT: SHAWNA SCHEFFNER 1 BUILDING TYPE II-B SPRINKLERED (949) 581-2888 Ot 0 ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 1015 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans 4 Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 www.stantec.com Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to - Stantec without delay. t The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of __ Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden. Consultants IL L 4F JTe • Client r . 7 = I - AutoNation. 200 SW 1 ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 Key Plan: r PROPERTY LINE - IP } e w 0 Ellr n, H 49 o a r � • — � 7 IT e FUTURE STREET DEDICATION ■ ri ' IT, 1. 0 _ 1L llma� PROPERTY LINE � m - _ - - Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD 4 P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD File Name: own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD Permit-Seal Project: g AUTONATION 0 to 20 40 PORSCHE OF 0 ' NEWPORT BEACH SCALE: 1"=20'-0" 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 .3 TRUE PROJECT Title: Um NORTH NORTH EXISTING SITE AERIAL VIEW N UL AND NEW BUILDING OUTLINE Mo- a COMPOSITE PLAN ^� Project No. Scale o� 2007105003 AS NOTED dM Drawing No. Sheet Revision r,m o� 0 of >N ORIGINAL SHEET — ARCH E1 1 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans SECOND FLOOR AREA SUMMARY OCCUPANCY "B" (INC. IN FAR CALCULATION) Stantec SHOWROOM 8,242 S.F. TECH. SUPPORT 1,233 S.F. OCCUPANCY "S1" (INCLUDED IN FAR CALCULATION) 5 PARTS 565 S.F. Stantec Architecture C P IU 0 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 HAND CARWASH AND DETAIL BAYS (3) 1,273 S.F. Irvine, 92618-5312 WASH AND DETAIL ACCESS ISLE 2,280 S.F. Tel. 949.923.6000 TOTAL SECOND FLOOR AREA INC. IN FAR CALCULATION 13,593 S.F. Fax. 949.923.6121 OCCUPANCY "S2" (NOT INCLUDED IN FAR CALCULATION) www.stantec.com SERVICE PARKING 2,730 S.F. TOTAL SECOND FLOOR AREA 16,323 S.F. Copyright Reserved 493'-4" The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to 192'-9" 300'-7" Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden. BUILDING LINE ABOVE Consultants F -- I I ° UP = TECH. TECH. AF—i IR. RM. GEN. fes' IT BDC ON — — — — — — — — — ❑ ALN OFFICE y STIR. PARTS �BR.RM. TECH I R m N STORAGE QQ AUTO LIFT M M W SHAFT SPACE NOT IN Q-� �J �J NO REAR WALL OPENINGS F.A.R. NF. JAN. tj Client _ I Q WAITING LOUNGE 1010111 110 ® ®� ®� ® SALES -COMM. RM CAFE ®I0®❑ ❑"'® ARCH. STAIR H H H H H N I AUTO-LIFT 10'-0" 15% SLOPE 10'-0" N 5% SLOP 5% SLOP VIEW 0 QIQQQ� O 0 GLASS RAIL I �to _ I ., q r, 4 WORKSHOP LOW 0 ® ® I3 SKYLIGHT ABOVE - - - - '� t . PATH ❑ ❑ 200 SW 1ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR o SER CE BAYS B OW FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 — — — SHOWROOM BELOW — — — SERVICE DRIVE BELOW = J H SERVICE H N 9 PARKING ° H H H Key Plan: I N N OPEN PARKING GARAGE WITH GUARDRIAL AND SCREENING 220'-8" 74'-4" 17'-4" 147'_7" 459'-11" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR AREA SUMMARY OCCUPANCY "B" (INC. IN FAR CALCULATION) SHOWROOM 8,964 S.F. SERVICE WRITE-UP AND SERVICE MANAGER 1,754 S.F. DRIVER'S SELECTION BOUTIQUE 718 S.F. OCCUPANCY "S1" (INC. IN FAR CALCULATION) SERVICE STALLS 11,946 S.F. PARTS 985 S.F. TOTAL AREA INCLUDED IN FAR CALCULATION 24,367 S.F. OCCUPANCY "S1" (NOT INC. IN FAR CALCULATION) SERVICE DRIVE 3,101 S.F. CPO CANOPY 1,727 S.F. 493'-4" ITOTAL FIRST FLOOR AREA 29,195 S.F. 33'-5" 159'-4" 300'-7" I I Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD LJ_LJ_LJ_L. 1 .. - ._ ° a:.. c. m� ;�c.. 0 ® ® ® ® TOUNG ACfE m\ Aw ANg �: ��.'• -I-I P6H4- - AUTO LIFT �/ 9 P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 9 w uNDI AND 1MNGCERL� LECTION BOUTIQUP.C. EXHIBITSSERVICE = Lia EQUIP. FITTING BP LT 2016.08.12 — - DEDICATION SHOWN RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 ADVISORS a � FI FV / r — — — � / TECH. COUNTER 8 ° I� R 1 6 O _ _ _ — — — —I—I 1 1 s PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 001 11 — NVD PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 W �:� — CPQ 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 [ ] ® \ ® ARCHITECTURAL I I CANOPY y 0Py 0Py 0 0Py \ 0„P.a 0y \ /gPy \ 0P1 0Py BPy \ ❑ ❑ \ �� O B Appd. YY.MM.DD MACHIN /fti :+/,�ti /fti �, /,�ti a.✓ /t� i'6 ..l+v� STAIR ® ® Issued AUTO LIFT LOBBY AUTO LIFT RECEPTION �H HSI I1 \ \ \ SERVICE DRIVE O CUSTOMER 8 = \ UNGE 8 8 0�' 1 1 8 File Name: \\ x x x� \\ \\ � /max x� x� �\ x \\\ xw x� k \ ❑ ❑ -L----� - -1 own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD U PIIIIIIIIIW n ITT I TTI = n \ p20 p1oYYYYY 0 020 \ \'�J/ �020444 o1oYYY p10444 \ oM1oYYY \ \ o1oYYY el p10444 p10444 \ ,® ::: — FLUIQS > > > > L — _L__ — — F — J Permit Seal `. - - - - - - - - - - e i�',�, —SHOW OOM 1 � - o ED\ / \ / \ / \ / E\ / \ / \ / — 0 — ° - - - m ELEC. RM. p. ® ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ❑ A 11 O 1 �1 1 LI Q SERVICE WORK STALLS 11 H I H o -L _ _ HLJ " - - - - - — � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p� °1 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SHOP EQUIP. TOOLS BUILDING LINE ABOVE Project: 35' 0 AUTONATION 0 220'-8" 74'-4" 17'-4" 147,-7" PORSCHE OF 0 L 459'-11" TRUE PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH NORTH NORTH 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3 Title: FIRST AND SECOND 3 FLOOR PLANS Ma 0 8 16 32 0 om Project No. Scale SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 2007105003 AS NOTED �M Drawing No. Sheet Revision FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0 o� SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 of ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 www.stantec.com Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing – any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden. Consultants Client ALAW97, Nation . U I- WE _91 200 SW 1 STAVE., 14TH FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 Key Plan: THIRD FLOOR / ROOF AREA SUMMARY 0 U Y C C MECHANICAL ROOMS 518 S.F. OCCUPANCY "S2" (NOT INC. IN FAR CALCULATION) OPEN ROOFTOP PARKING 27,210 S.F. TOTAL ROOF AREA 27,728 S.F. INDIVIDUALS OTHER THAN PORTERS WILL NOT PARK CARS ON THE ROOF SOLID ROOF CAR MECHANICAL ROOM. LOUVERED SOLID ROOF CAR COVERS W/ RIBBED VENTS AT EAST AND WEST COVERS W/ RIBBED CHARCOAL GRAY NON WALLS. NO OPENINGS AT CHARCOAL GRAY NON 33'-5" 159'-4" 61'-8 1/2" 72'_0„ REFLECTIVE FINISH NOR48 S14E 18'-6" REFLECTIVE FINISH SOLID ROOF CAR NO OPENINGS AT 5 STALLS AT 8'-6" = 42'-6" COVERS W/ RIBBED NORTH WALL OF LIFT CHARCOAL GRAY NON PENTHOUSE REFLECTIVE FINISH 1 / U U U U _ L7 U U U U U Li U U U DNI ` MECHANICAL VENT \ (NOT INC. IN F.A.R.) \ _ WITH LOUVERED WALLS AT SOUTH SIDE. NO / AUTO LIFT i / �� I OPENINGS AT NORTH \ / U ��` U U U U U U U U /o \ ELEV. of To ROOF BELOW JE SIDE \o o 'a MECH NICAL R 0 n I L. ED WA S UENC 0 EDERO FL . LOW ROOF AT 2T A.F.F. AUTO LIFT ` \ -I o / 12 EMPLOY REQU RED PA KING –LS AT n 5 '1`ALLS AT 8 -6' =\k2'--6" — — — — — — — — — — — it PARKIINVENTNG — ADA ACCESSIBLE I / \ \ \ II / 6 STALLS AT 8–6" = 51'-0" j I _ DN _ _ - A d. YY.MM.DD RAMP / '� \ � 2 STALLS Al � SKYLIGHT O EMPLOYEE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 300 S.F. Revision By pp _ MECHANICAL AREA 26'-0" 17 –0 17 –0 _ / co 8'-6" = 17'-0' REQUIRED PARKING -- ` \ _ r 12 STALLS AT 8'-6" = 102'-0" .I `i W/ ROOF & NO OPENINGS AT — — — — — — — — — — — 0j 13 SERVICE REQUIRED PARKING oo LOUVERED WALLS. NORTH WALL OF LO I — \ \ 12 SERVICE REQUIRED PARKING 0 NO OPENINGS AT 4 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 34'-0" LIFT PENTHOUSE a `� O NORTH SIDE IIIA 1 17`0 17 -0 19 INVENTORY PARKING P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 — — — — — I 14 E PLOYEE REQUIR&D PARKING - P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 \ 17'– °J \ / �� � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i I DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 \/ q 4' WIDE PEDESTRIAN I N 30 TOTAL INVENTORY SPACES ROOFTOP PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 // \ oa PATH D RAMP 30 TOTAL EMPLOYEE REQUIRED SPACES ROOFTOP PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 I 5%10'-0" 15% SLOPE 10'-0" 25 SERVICE REQUIRED SPACES ROOFTOP 2 EMPLOYEE KQU RED PARKING SLOP 157 SLOP Issu1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD I I I I I I I HIGHEST POINT OF CANOPY IS File Name: UNDER THE 35' ABOVE BASE own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD ELEVATION ALLOWABLE HEIGHT Permit-Seal 220'-8" 74'-4" 17'-4" 146'-8" 3 Project: I 0 0 AUTONATION TRUE PROJECT PORSCHE OF 0 0 NORTH NORTH NEWPORT BEACH 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3 Title: THIRD FLOOR 3 o a 16 32 / ROOF PLAN oma. M0 a 0 om oa SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" Project No. Scale 0 2007105003 AS NOTED 00 �M Drawing No. Sheet Revision THIRD FLOOR / ROOF PLAN o, 3a of 0 o SCALE: 116" = 1'-0" 5N ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans STAIN ESS STEEL SCREEN MESH OVER ETAL FRAMING TO SCREEN RIBBED METAL DECKING OPEN! G INTO PARKING GARAGE. MATT GREY FINISH Stantec SLOPE EXTENDED WALL ABOVE PARAPET TO 38 Technology RAIN GUTTER UNDERSIDE OF CANOPY Stantec Architecture LIGHT FIXTURE TUBE STEEL COLUMNS 9Y Drive, suite 100 AND BEAMS PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET GRAY Irvine, CA PARAPET WALL 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 rz wwwstantec.com Copyright Reserved j . . . . . The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO = .:„,,,,a.:,,,,:.i,,,,,,,a.,".„a,...,.,a.......a.......a........0":,:I.."[ I1,,,,,,0."1 .i,,,,,,,,i'°:,,n„P,:,n NOT scale the drawing — any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden. Consultants ROOF TOP CANOPY DETAIL 5 PARTIAL ELEVATION VIEW 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: N.T.S. Client EutoNat Ion. 200 SW 1ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 Key Plan: STAIR AND AUTO LIFT TOWER BEYOND WITH AUTO LIFT TOWER WITH E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 GRAY GAUNTLET GRAY ELEVATOR TOWER AND MECHANICAL ROOM WITH STAIR AND AUTO LIFT TOWER WITH CPO WITH PERFORATED E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET METAL PANELS GAUNTLET GRAY GRAY STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN MESH M� LOUVERS T.O.P. AT AUTO LIFT —METRC�CfCIPOPY. � T.p,P.Y T.O.P. AT AUTO LIFT OVER METAL FRAMING TO SCREEN jh+51'0' SEE DETAIL 5/– AT OPENING INTO PARKING GARAGE T.OY P. BEY OND _ +53 .3' AMSL ' A —� T.O.P. AT STAIR T.O.P. AT CORNER T.O.P. \. �s — .. . F-- +43.0' T.O.P.Y — o , .. o .. I i2 M _ — 21 EssEeNE k4s O +1 AM _ 3.0' +13.0' MS _ _ +13.0' A S F.F.L. F.F.L. F.F.L. F.F.L. BUTT JOINT GLASS DOOR WITH AUTO LIFT LOBBY AND TRASH GLAZING SYSTEM BLACK FRAME FULL ALUM. & GLASS ENCLOSURE WITH E.I.F.S. HIGH SPEED DOOR 0 OVERHEAD DOOR WITH PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET SERVICE. BLACK BLACK FRAMES AT NVD GRAY ANODIZED ALUM. & CLEAR VISION PANELS EAST ELEVATION 3 WEST ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" ALL SIGNAGE IS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 AUTO LIFT TOWER BEYOND 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 WITHE.I.F.S. PAINTED By Appd. YY.MM.DD AUTO LIFT TOWER BEYOND SW7019 GAUNTLET GRAY Issued E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET GRAY ELEVATOR TOWER AND METAL CANOPY STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN MESH CLEAR GLASS WITH MECHANICAL ROOM WITH E.I.F.S. ALUMINUM COMPOSITE STAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND CPO ENCLOSURE WITH OVER METAL FRAMING TO SCREEN SILVER HORIZONTAL PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET METAL PANELS WITH WITH E.I.F.S. PAINTED PERFORATED METAL File Name: T.O.P. AT AUTO–LIFT OPENING INTO PARKING GARAGE MULLIONS PANELS AT GRAY SUNRISE SILVER COLOR SW7019 GAUNTLET GRAY PANELS SUNRISE SILVER own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD BUTT JOINT METAL CANOPY RECESS. BLACK COLOR COLOR Permit-Seal 1+51.0' AMSL + � _ T.O.P. GLAZING SYSTEM SPANDREL GLASS A±41 ETAINING T.O� P AT CORNER T.O.CANOPY BEYOND T'O'P' T.O.CANOPY BEYOND\ 0 REAR ABOVE ROOF T.O.P. ALL AT EAR +49.0' AMSL T.O.CANOPY BEYOND T.O.0 NOP Y�OND ---.P. T.O.P. BEYOND T.O.P EYOND \ T.O.P. 4 .0' A T _ { MARINER'S POINTE Ne port each n RETAINING WALL 3 AT REAR :x %k :e 'k :e :e x x :e r s '. :k :k :k %k �k r :k d :k 'k 11� :k Ilk �k :k Project: a � � � �k "Ik Ilk � � � � � A Ilk vt 'k 'k �k "k 1\ Ilk Ilk 'k W Ilk �k 11 11 'k 1k Ilk "k "k � AUTONATION o F.F.L. o +13.0' AMSL / BLACK CORRUGATED WALL MOUNT PORSCHE O F F.F.L. E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 E.I.F.S. PAINTED SW7019 METAL PANELS LIGHT LANE INDICATOR BUTT JOINT OPEN BELOW o GAUNTLET GRAY GAUNTLET GRAY N LIGHTS 0 CEILING GLAZING SYSTEM NEWPORT BEACH 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 .3 Title: BUILDING o: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS a r7a 0 O Oma Project No. Scale o� 2007105003 AS NOTED NM mDrawing No. Sheet Revision SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 Of 0 ORIGINAL SHEET — ARCH E1 10 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans 5 Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 www.stantec.com Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing — any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden. PROPERTY LINE Consultants EXISTING POWER POLES PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 411 AND 421 KINGS RD � EXISTING POWER POLES SEMI 9 + BETWEEN 321 AND 403 KINGS RD I 411 KINGS RD, 56,25' AMSI 62.5' AMSLmk 59.8' AMSL y �- 321 KINGS RD, Client 112'-0„ 112'-0" - COAST HWY R.O.W. H M`D RAutoNation.COAST HWY R.O.W. +13 0' 13,0' AMSL YiI 200 SW 1 ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 Key Plan: SECTION THROUGH 411 KINGS RD 5 SECTION THROUGH 321 KINGS RD 3 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" PROPERTY LINE � PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWER POLES EXISTING POWER POLES AT THIS PROPERTY BETWEEN 321 AND 403 KINGS RD I Y I , ' AMSL �59 Ir 91' AMqI - 5 J 403 KINGS RD X53. — — i. 3��' AMgLh 53.0• AMS SL Y. z +48.0' AMSL MSL T- ` +43.0 AMSL 311 KINGS RD, 112'-0" ,i , r 112'-0" COAST HWY R.O.W. oeo FLO0 y COAST HWY R.O.W. �- 3 S _ _ _ 13� Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD File Name: SECTION THROUGH 403 KINGS RD 4 SECTION THROUGH 311 KINGS RD G n Permit-Seal own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" ELEVATIONS AT BASE OF HOUSES BEYOND +77.4' S o PASSENGER RATED PROPERTY LINE AUTO LIFT TO ci ROOFTOP PASSENGER RATED ELEVATOR TOWER AND Project: nI MECHANICAL E0. WITH AUTO—LIFT TOWER MECHANICAL ROOM WITH E.I.F.S. LOUVERED WALLS ABOVE PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET STAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND A U T O N A T 1 0 N Mi T.O.P. ROOF AT SOUTH SIDE. NO GRAY WITH WITH E.I.F.S. PAINTED �+53 o METAL CANOPY OPENINGS AT NORTH SIDE T.O.P. SW7019 GAUNTLET GRAY T.OY 'BEYOND o LOUVERS AT (AMSI F1 RETAINING WALL BEYOND T.O.P. METAL CANOPY MECH. ROOM _ PORSCHE OF T.O.P. ROOFTOP PARKINGHVAC UNITS NEWPORT BEACH SKYLIGHT Rx OFTOP xPAxRKIN NESWSPOOWEST EACCOHA,SCTA HWY. MARINER'S DETAIL BAYS IlkPOINTE Title:oo x x x x RETAINING 6 0 BUILDING AND u WAITING LOUNGE x x x ce: x x x x x x x x n az n x x x x x a x x x x x x x x x x x x az WALL BEYOND wm U 5 M '00x x 2nSI FLOORPROJECT CROSS SECTIONS20 Z xx x my 0Mo SERVICE S6ER IC D x x x x x x x x x x x x x xexx IST F.F.L. Project No. Scale oa NOTE: (AMSL) = ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 2007105003 AS NOTED d� Drawing No. Sheet Revision BUILDING LONGITUDINAL SECTION ^� 1 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 5 of 0 ORIGINAL SHEET — ARCH El 11 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans 5 Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 www.stantec.com Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing — any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden. Consultants PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWER POLE BETWEEN 503 AND 511 KINGS RD I K _ 75 511 KINGS RD. 59.8' A — — Client �51- AMSC_ 0 —AMqI — 5.0' 112'-0" COAST HWY R.O.W. AutioNati sL 200 SW 1 ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 SECTION THROUGH 511 KINGS RD 3 Key Plan: SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" PROPERTY LINE I EXISTING POWER POLE BETWEEN I PROPERTY LINE 521 AND 603 KINGS RD EXISTING POWER POLE BETWEEN 503 AND 511 KINGS RD I + 603 KINGS RD, 503 KINGS RD, SL _ — 15629' AMSI S 5' AMSI I 112'-0" 112'-0" COAST HWY R.O.W. I COAST HWY R.O.W. MS�L,� + 3. AMS BUILDING PAD ELEVATIONY SECTION THROUGH 603 KINGS RD 5 SECTION THROUGH 503 KINGS RD 2 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd, YY.MM.DD File Name: own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD Permit-Seal EXISTING POWER POLES EXISTING POWER POLE BETWEEN 521 AND 603 KINGS RD 3 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWER POLES N BETWEEN 411 AND 421 KINGS RD� Project: of +78.0' AMSL + 521 KINGS RD, A U T O N A T 1 O N a' �Ms PORSCHE OF lssY — — 421 KINGS RD. o _ —A51' AMSL 4q' AMqI +45. NEWPORT BEACH INS 43' AM�l 112'-0" 550 WEST COAST HWY. COAST HWY R.O.W. 112'-0" NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COAST HWY R.O.W. Title: 4F :11 +13.0' AMS1 +13.0' AMSI PROJECT CROSS SECTIONS Ow na 0 om oa NOTE: (AMSC) = ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL Project No. Scale 00 2007105003 AS NOTED �N SECTION THROUGH 521 KINGS RD 4 SECTION THROUGH 421 KINGS RD i Drawing No. Sheet Revision I 5a Dt 0 >� SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans Stantec Stantec Architecture I I I I I I 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 \\ \ I I I I I I I Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 I IJ Fax. 949.923.6121 BASE ELEV. 25.75' AMSL www.stantec.cam ASE ELEV. 40.75' AMSL I / / / I ALLOWABLE AT +26' 51.75' AMSL I ALLOWABLE AT +26' 66.75' AMSL / ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.75' AMSL I Copyright Reserved IALLOWABLE AT +35' 75.75' AMSL I �I PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL M I The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO P OPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL I I / (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. / ( GT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' I The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of / BASE ELEV. 35.8' AMSL BASE ELEV. 23'-AM L Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that J/ ALLOWABLE AT +26' 61.8' AMSL I BASE ELEV. AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 49' AML I authorized by Stantec is forbidden. ALLOWABLE AT +26' AMSL 13.2' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 70.8' AMS ALLOWABLE AT +35' 58' AM L ALLO BLE 6 49.2' AMSL I Consultants BASE ELEV. 30.58' AMSL S� _J PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMS ALLOWABLE AT +35 AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET 53.4 HGT. ' AM Al_ OWAB AT 58.2' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 56.58' AMSL ;� \�\/ I (HGT. OVE F.F.L. 30' PROPOSED PA E AMSL ROPO A E 48 48' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 65.58' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET 30' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 40. ' I (H 35' HGT. 59.8' AMS ��! _ (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 46.81 / 6g B LE l ASE ELEV. EV. \ _ ALLOWABLE AT +26' ------------ 0 LEA ALLOWAEL� AT + 61.6' A I LLOWA AT .0 OW E PROPOS 3 �'� Client R A L ROPOSED P 55 3 I - AutoNation. 9 � 2f 200 SW 1ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR BASE ELEV. FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 =� � - / ALLOWABLE AT +26' ELEVATOR AND ALLOWABLE AT +35' / � RM TOWER _ - Key Plan: PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. AREA t 249 S.F. (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) ���--- / STAIR TOWER AREA t 219 S.F. -- --- P4 ZZ X - - - - - 21.3" - - - - - - - 20.4 - - - - - - - 19.5 - - ------- -- 17.3 ��- - ___��� 30 BASE ELEV. .3' AMSL -� \ / MECH. RM ARE ALLOWABLE AT +26' 5 . ' AMSL 291 S.F. ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.3' A L �// 25 OP PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 40' AMS _ j (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 27' _ 17.1' 17 16.a' 16.1' 1 .T - - - - - - - - - 1`�4- - - - - - - - - -- - - P3 ' 14.5' PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 BASE ELEV. 25.75' AMSL Fax. 949.923.6121 www.stantec.com BASE ELEV. 40.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 51.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 66.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.75' AMSL Copyright Reserved ALLOWABLE AT +35' 75.75' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43 AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that BASE ELEV. 35.8 AMSL BASE ELEV. 23' AMSL authorized by Stantec is forbidden. ALLOWABLE AT +26' 61.8' AMSL BASE ELEV. 33.15' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 49' AMSL BASE ELEV. 23.2' AMSL Consultants ALLOWABLE AT +35' 70.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 59.15' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 58' AMSL BASE ELEV. 40.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 49.2' AMSL BASE ELEV. 30.58' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 68.15' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET ALLOWABLE AT +26' 66.75' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL HGT. 53.4' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT 58.2' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 56.58' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 48' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 65.58' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 75.75' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 40.4' PROPOSED PARAPETPROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 47.1' AMSL BASE ELEV. 25.75' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 35' 59.8 AMSL HGT. (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 34.1' ALLOWABLE AT +26' 51.75' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 46.8' BASE ELEV. 26.6' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.75' AMSL Client BASE ELEV. 30.00' AMSL BASE ELEV. 25.9' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 52.6' AMSL BASE ELEV. 36.25' AMSL PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 47.2' AMSL BASE ELEV. 21.2' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 56.00' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 51.9' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 61.6' AMSL BASE ELEV. 36.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 62.25' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 34,2' ALLOWABLE AT +26' 47.2' AMSL -ALLOWABLE AT +35' 65.00' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.9' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET 56.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 62.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 71.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 56.2' AMSL � I' HGT. BASE ELEV. 31.85' AMSL II nq PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 45' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 45' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 71.25' AMSL PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 47.2' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL - - - (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 32' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 32' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 43.25' PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 47.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 57.85' AMSL - (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 34.2 ALLOWABLE AT +35' 66.85' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' 200 SW 1ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR PROPERTY LINE (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 34.1' PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 47.2' AMSL FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 34.2' - - - - - - - - - - - - Ian AUTO-LIFT Key ENCLOSURE ROOF S AIR ROOF BASE ELEV. 30.0' AMSL BASE ELEV. 25.9' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 56.0' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 51.9' AMSL METAL CANOPY. _ ALLOWABLE AT +35' 65.0' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.9' AMSL T.O.CANOPY IS 47.2' AMS PROPOSED CANOPY PROPOSED CANOPY METAL CANOPY. W METAL CANOPY. W W W AT HIGHEST SIDE W 50.0' AMSL 50.0' AMSL T.O.CANOPY IS 4 ao T.O.CANOPY 7.1' AMSL ao a ao o HGT. HGT. AMSL AT HIGH T E n AT HIG SIDE N - (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 37.0' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 37.0' a $ $ a EV. • • o • n • • • a a a a a a 1 • z METAL • J ELEV. AND MECH. ARE ROOF & CANOPY. Z Pn UIP M. LOUVERED WALL T.O.CANOPY IS 50' AMSL $ AT HIGHEST SIDE RAMP N AUTO STORAGE AREA r J (NO DISPLAY LIGHTING) I I > L J Wil AUTO-LIFT & $ • F_ -1 STAIR a I I ENCLOSURE L J ROOF F_ � • • • • I I � L J AUTO STORAGE AREA (NO DISPLAY LIGHTING) RAMP UP BASE ELEV. 19.75' AMSL BASE ELEV. 18.8' AMSL BASE ELEV. 16.2' AMSL BASE ELEV. 15.16' AMSL -BAS E1 ELIE J 18.55'AMS' - BASE LEV. L17-6'A L ALLOWABLE AT +26' 45.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 44.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 42.2' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.16' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 54.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 53.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 51.2' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.16 AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 44.55' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 43.6' AMSL � PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 46.2' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 46.0' AMSL PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 46.3 AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 53.55' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 52.6' AMSL HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 33.3' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 33.2' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 33.0' ( I PROPOSED CANOPY 49.5' AMSL PROPOSED CANOPY 49.5' AMSL HGT. HGT. (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 36.5' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 36.5' BASE ELEV. 15.1 AMSL BASE ELEV. 16.5' AMSL BASE ELEV. 15.8' AMSL BASE ELEV. 15.25' AMSL BASE ELEV. 18.0' AMSL BASE ELEV. 22.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 44.0' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26 42.5 AMSL BASE ELEV. 15.25' AMSL BASE ELEV. 14.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26 41.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 48.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 51.5' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 40.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 53.0' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 57.1' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET PROPOSED CANOPY HGT. 46.2' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 45' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.25 AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35 49.8 AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43 AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43 AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' 51 AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 45' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 49' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 33.2' � HGT. (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 32' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 38' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 32' (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 36' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BASE ELEV. 16.5 AMSL - - ALLOWABLE AT +26' 42.5' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 51.5' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 51' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 38' TRUE PROJECT NORTH NORTH Revision By Appd. W.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 0 8 16 32 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL SP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD File Name: ROOF ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT 1 Permit-Seal own. Chkd. Dsgn. W.MM.DD SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" ELEVATOR, AUTO-LIFT, & STAIR ENCLOSURE 3 W J ALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS ASSUME F.F. ELEVATIONS = 13'-0" AMSL Project: a �I BASE ELEVATION ESTABLISHED PER NB ZONING CODE SECTION MI 20.30.050 AUTONATION 0 0 0 PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3 Title: _ = ROOF ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT V 0 Nm L yj V i Oy MO �- O Om Project No. Scale 2007105003 AS NOTED 0 o� Drawing No. Sheet Revision r, o� o� 7 of 0 >N ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 lis PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans 5 Stantec Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 Fax. 949.923.6121 LIGHTING LEVELS SHOWN www.stantec.com ARE ON THE ROOF Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that s . authorized by Stantec is forbidden. t./atmo .o. W W O.a W W+O.oW . W VO.o. W W O.e W x+9.0 W -fo.. LL W 2 W W 1.0 W W Wi.s. W W '2r2W W .o. W .1..3 W W WOr7W Consultants 0.0 ' . '0.0' W OOW ' W9.0 . W ' 0.4 W ' 00' W . �.0 'O.Q . WW 0 0.0' ' 0.0 W ' WQ.O W '0'0' ' . �v' ' '0.1 ' W .O.O W ' OdW ' WD.O . W 'O.QW 5 7 8.3 2.4 .5 3. 36 .5 3.3 4.2 2. _ + n D D D .3 5.5 5.6 .2 .9 b.8 b.4 0.1 W '"b.1' b"1 W 7.0 .0" W 0'.OW W 't.0" W b.a W 0".OW W t,0' W b.0 W W t.0 W 1o' W b.I W W b.l W "b.0` W b. W 7.0 W .0` W 3.8 D.1 2 9 .1 D +7.2 8.2 1 5 D .0 + . 6.9 95 11. .T 14. 1@f 10. 4.2 12. 9.4 W B ® E ' ' ' ' ' ' �� L D B 22.6 ® 48.6 4$7 22.1 .3 1.1 0.5 DE D 0.2W - W05 W+0.4LLWWO.BW - W0.0 . WWOWO- W . O.fl - W0.0 . W -0.0• W ' OoW . W0.0 - WWO.aWWWOOW . Wb.I - W -O.rWWW1iOLLWW �+O.OWW - O.BW W+6.0 . 9.1 4 4.3 8.8 10. 1 .0 .1 15.0 9.2 12.1 12. 9. 1 .2 14. v D7 1� 11. 4.4D 8.6 12D 10.0 .2 D3. D D D D D 25.0 ® 3�s 3&6 E24.5 .9 1.3 b.6 3 3.9 7 4.0 3.7� 2z 3. 3. 2 1. 9.3 0 4 3.2 3.5 6.5 1 .5 .6 10.6 6.5 1 .5 .6® 11.0 3.9 +7.3 1 10. $9 4.5 D +7.7 12 4 9.2 1 .0 D 3. D 1J D D -" - _.- 1i D D 2a. t(l� 30.4 E24.1 .1 ' ` 1.4 b.7 Client 8 ® L + 1 .6 D+7.3 4.3D +7.6 121) 3.7 + D� 3.7 D 3. 4.5 3.0 3z 2.1 N +.2 3.3 29 2.1 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 1. 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.8W 21.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 2.2 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.3 2. 3.1 2.9 v 4.9 2.9 1. + + b.0 b.0 6.0 ® \ / 4.0 49.5 49.6 23.6 .9 W LL 1.3 b.6 1 .1 D 6.5 D + + 11. 6.8 3.2 3.1 v + 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 3' W E E b.0 b.0 .� .1 3.9 W 2 19.9 ® 42.8 +® 19.7 .1 ' .1.1 b.5 _ I ,1 QI I�I _ _ �1 _ 4446661 ®®q n W 2+ + + - b.o b.1 I 2.a a.s s oz oz oz oz oz oz oz oz ^ o.�/2 z o. oz oz oz o. /2 oz oz oz oz ®12.3 oz oz 1.7� DN A El p . .9 .1 +7.2 1.1 3.a +9.6 10.6 +7.3 .7 b.8 b.4 200 SW 1 STAVE., 14TH FLOOR + \ / + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + p p O FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 b.0 b.l .2 b.6 b,6 0.5 0.6 OVA 2 0.4 0. 0.4 1. .� 0.3 0. 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3'x' 0.1 0.1 0.3® W b.3 b.3 b.3 b.3 b.3 b.4 19.6 3 4 38.2 35.8 32.8 35.6 32.4 35.1 33.4 32.0 30.7 20.1 12.0 .s +7.0 4.3 b.9 b.9 1.6 2.5 3.3 13.4 1 1.1 W Db.7 b.3 LJ W LJ LJ 1B b.1 b.1 b.5 b.7 1.5 4.9 +8.0 +8.3 +9.8 +8.2 +7.3 +8.5 10.2 +8.6 +9.0 +8.1 10.4 10.2 +8.0 +8.9 +9.0 10.2 +8.1 4.5 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1. 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 b.9 b.5 b.3 .3 b.4 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.7 18.1 13.7 ' W b.7 b.2 Key Plan: b.l b.4 1.9 2.5 2.9 4.7 3.7 7.7 7.2 3.4 6.1 3.5 7.5 8.6 7.6 8.7 8.6 8.4 9.0 8.3 9.3 8.9 7.9 6.8 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.6 4.7 3.4 3.0 4.9 3., 3.1 4.9 6.1 3.9 3.3 6.5 3.9 4.3 3.3 6.2 4.0 1.5 b.5 b.3 b. 2.1 6.1 11.0 9.8 6.5 .1b.4 b.2 b.1 b.6 48 15.5 9.1 .2 11.6 4.0 2.5 3.6 10.8 5 4. 15.8 146 3.4 16.4 14.4 2 .5 6.0 14.0 24. 159 4.3 25.2 15.5 13. b,.6 6.5 14.2 . `7 . 16.2 11. 2 .1 0.2 11.8 28.4 21.8 7. 1 .7 1. .0 b.4 b.2 b.4 1.8 1 .2 38.9 19.6 3.6 0 9 ' b.3 b.1 b.l b.4 1 .7 42.0 11.2 3.1 1 . 2. 5.2 2z b.8 1.6 10.3" ' 3' ' 6. 2. 3. 6.3 11. + 4. 6 11.6 4 . 46.3 5.1+ ' .a+ 6.0 3' *b b.l b.1 b.0 b.l 7 W 8W W41 W 1.4 ' 9 .3 W 3.5 14 b. 7 b.2 U.4 b. 2.3 W W1.4 W 1.2 W 2.2 W W 1.3W W 1.1 2.1 y W 1.2 W W1.1 W 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.0 b.9 1.9 b.9 W b.8 1.5 b.8 W W b.7 1.3 b.7 b.5 1.1 b.8 b.5 b.9 .7 b.0 b.0 b.1 b.2 b.1 b.2 b.1 b.2 b.0 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.0 b.1 b.2 b.1 b.1 b.2 b.1 b.1 b.2 b.1 .o 5.1 b.0 b.0 b.1 b.1 b.0 b.1 b.1 b.0 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.1 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 b.0 o 0 0 0 0 0 .0 WEST COAST HIGHWAY LIGHTING LEVELS SHOWN XLCS XPWS3 ARE ON THE GROUND LEVEL LED Strip S 4 LED LED Crossover Area Light LED Crossover Wall Mount Light LE Direct o END VIEW END VIEW PERSPECTIVE VIEW PERSPECTIVE VIEW END VIEW Calculation Summary PERSPECTIVE VIEW SIDE VIEW SIDE VIEW Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min � � � ALL CALCS @ 4' ABOVE GRADE Illuminance Fc 7.84 56.9 0.0 N.A. N.A. Gu s'SJ- Ver- JuU��°���p0 BACK LOT CALCS Illuminance Fc 0.47 12.9 0.0 N.A. N.A. 404�D=4ffG1ffG 4�6GIffOG96 40O 40D=4ffG1ffG 406CJffOG76 BUILDING_Top Illuminance Fc 4.82 15.2 0.0 N.A. N.A. SIDE VIEW PATH OF PARKING LOT EGRESS Illuminance Fc 18.84 35.0 7.9 2.38 4.43 FRONT LINE TYPICAL Illuminance Fc 21.85 49.9 4.1 5.33 12.17 .-)Jver LOT SUMMARY Illuminance Fc 12.54 56.9 0.1 125.40 569.00 53040D=9ffGIffG 406G7ffOG76 ROOF TOP PARKING Illuminance Fc 4.84 15.2 0.0 N.A. N.A. Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 Luminaire Schedule DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Description LLF Lumens/Lamp Arr. Lum. Lumens Arr. Watts BUG Rating PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 14 AA TWIN XLCS-FT-LED-SS-NW-HSS-TWIN-12' MH 1.000 N.A. 15396 197.2 B1-U0-G2 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Total Project Watts-1 1 B SINGLE XLCS-FT-LED-SS-NW-HSS-SINGLE-12' MH 1.000 N.A. 7698 98.6 B1-U0-G2 Total Watts = 9681.111 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD 72 D SINGLE SDL-8-LED-LW-CW-UE 0.300 N.A. 6852 58 B2-U3-G2 ® 8 E SINGLE CRUS-SCDL-LED-SS-CW-UE-C ANOPY-15' MH 1.000 N.A. 13084 114 B3-U4-G3 File Name: 15 R SINGLE XSL2-S-LED-50-SS-CW-10' MH 1.000 N.A. 6193 59.9 B2-UO-GO E WO � own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD 8 W1 SINGLE XPWS3-FT-LED-48-450-CW-UE-14' MH 1.000 N.A. 6159 72 B2-U0-G1 OPermit-Seal Based on the information provided, all dimensions and luminaire locations � imoo.u�.�azWc.cp..�,owo�-.w:3 usn shown represent recommended positions. The engineer and/or architect must ®� 15 W2 SINGLE SWS-2-LED-CW-UE-WALL MOUNT 3' ABOVE PARKING GRADE 0.400 N.A. 1328 14.4 B1-U0-G0 determine the applicability of the layout to existing or future field conditions. ®� 3 W8 SINGLE SWS-2-LED-CW-UE-WALL MOUNT 8' ABOVE PARKING GRADE 0.400 N.A. 1328 14.4 B1-U0-G0 LIGHTING PROPOSAL LU-128097-14 This lighting plan represents illumination levels calculated From laboratory data AUTONATION-NEWPORT BEACH taken under Controlled conditions in accordance with The Illuminating Engineering NEWPORT BEACH, CA Society (IES) approved methods. Actual performance of any manufacturer's luminaires may vary due to changes in electrical voltage, tolerance in lamps/LED's and other BY, SMB DATE,6/19/15 EV,9/12/16 SHEET 1 variable field conditions. Calculations do not include obstructions such as buildings, OF 1 curbs, landscaping, or any other architectural elements unless noted. 0 20 SCALE 1"=20' 3 Project: a TRUE PROJECT AUTONATION M O O 0 NORTH NORTH PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3 0 10 20 40 Title: PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLAN L � V M. SCALE: 1"=20'-O" 0 O T Om Project No. Scale r, 2007105003 AS NOTED 0 o^ PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLAN Drawing No. Sheet Revision 1 o� 8 0 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" of ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans 70/ II POOL `- w - o " POOL POOL �- S551Z - POOL x g0 -=-RETAINING WALLS _RETAINING%WAL� SD=NLEr PALM '� WAL RETAINING �- - L oFP -- / �----- - �H='19:0' HS7-6� ��-� •19:6 TW H=35.0' GB iGB -V=DITCH�G9 D INLET GB �'GB V-DITCH \Y8.6-FL/_T.G / J \-_-- SD-1NLEr=GB- HP �-GB GB 34 3 TWA=3=1 3-TW ;3=WIDEl-29..0 TW 24:0 TW 2:1 _4'TW- %20:6'TW� 2"WIDE- 15:60-INV-(W) _` 41-.0 TW= 4TW- 48.0 TW 45_ 0 TW .e 350 1W 32:8%FL�'29 8 FL 1:5' DEEP`-2Z:5=FL X22.5 EL- G- 19:9-FL-�'%T9 6_FL _ 1' EED P- 9:98-INV-(S)-\� PRO EPEP RTY�L'INE 48 0`TW- -�' 39:5=FL/TG-45-0_FL =46 5=FL _FL= VV 46:5-FL- F - -?q-V,. _ _ -" I - = - �.� �W //l .i � =y-�_ ✓✓. y �W =Z67%�%y�� ^ii W W� ii= 6.5%W W j 3:0�_ - % _ 1:"30- 18.7 FL WALL -�. '�� ,.�_ �W - . • ��:�.�s--_W�w- i 1.6.,7%�/�r-_-�18�_-33% °' ° _ �i7�_/i �-.-<i_--.-�W - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GB\ '„ J W W W -_RETAINING-WALL. 4'6`0 TW - �� ��� �•��W W W / % iW 13.00 FF 12.98 FS 12.90 FS 4'4-5`FL� GB �= RETAINING WALL/ W_- 5 � j H=35°0_'- =-�" 48O�TW_ -W_RETAININGWWAL _SD INLEr- = ��✓� �- RETAINING-WALL-= �`- " �_ H=34-�f V DITCH� %/j_SD INLEr�_ \46 5-FL,W_- 5 5 -43 5 1Y1 H_25T � HP HP` IDE �% 34 0 TW _ 35 O=TW , "I 13.00 FF y -W 420 FL/IG-� i % �% .b _ PROPOSED -SD-1NLEr-� - 48 5 TN �� - -w� 47.0 TW- W1.5 DEE% 32 5 FL/TG 33.5=FL _- 38=5_TW \� F ' 4 �„ �i 4_ � 9 5 INV= :8% _ 13.00 FF o i CANOPY 37.0=FL-/TGA Q ° - ��21-74% 1 1 i!%i ✓4 � iii p W �/ - - =33:50=IN , ._ <= i� .._ - - - - - - �-W 13.00 FF 12.50 TG o 9.50 INV N _62:80-FS\ PR. BUILDING �,1° 13.00 FF I \>>9 EX WALL- 13.00 FF FF ELEV = 13.0 � I \ �s 13.00 FF 13.00 FF 12190 FS II PRO PERTY LINE 12.9 i8 FS � PR. BUILDING ° � w �� ��f FF ELEV = 13.0 - - - - - - - - �`?� - - - - - - 12.85 FS / 13.00 FF I -, 12.90 FS 13.00 FF _ �6s 12.8 FS v=i 12.26 TG 12.84 FS 5q, - - - - v_ - a o 12.77 TG �. 12.97 FS - - - 8.26 INV - - - - Z >> 9.27 INV ! STORMWATER - - py_ _y, - - - -3'_CF - - - - - 2.66-FS- - - - - - - - - - DIVERSION STRUCTURE TREATMENT PAL� 12.98 FS I `� PEAK FLOWRATE BYPASSES o 9.58 INV. 13.00 FF MWS TREATMENT SYSTEM 12.80 FS 13.00 FF 12.46 FS 12.41 TG I� "CF I FLOWRATE Ih 12.83 FS I 12.36 FS 12.59 FS UPPER LEVEL 3 CF MODULAR WETLANDS SYSTEM RETAINING WAL'L� N ���% _ 3" CF 3" CF BUILDING PROJECTION 12,11 9.16 INV MWS-L FLOWRATE 9. MWS 9.52 INV. it�1- N �/ 12.95 FS I 12.36 FS �I 3" CF FS PEAK FLOWRATE BYPASSES I 113.00 HFOl ��12.55 FS j I 12.98 FS 12.50 FS 7,71 INV. DIVERSION STRUCTURE b` c l / MWS TREATMENT SYSTEM ��� 7:47-INV. a. 12.20 FS MODULAR WETLANDS SYSTEM 0' CF of �,I 7.43 INV. MWS-L-8-12-V-UG I � �+ � 69 12.21 FS 9.16 INV. I W �I SD CLEANOUT 8.70 INV. 9/ �` 11.27 TG 1 - ].2:64�FS PROPERTY LINE STORMWATER TREATMENT 8.20 INV. - -L O I I I N STORM DRAIN PIPE 7.77 INV FLOWRATE TO MWS 7.05 INV. nl - - - 7,90 INV. " -I - - - - - - 5=0.0050 - - - - - - -� - -� off° 12.13 TG SIZE TO BE DETERMINED + LP ° Ay " EX. ROCK WALL I 6" CF - - - - - 5=0.0050 q / 3" C FS 7.78 INV. S=0.0050.12.07 FS 7.46 INV. 1 8.22 INV. 8.07 INV. 11.61 FS 7.97 INV. - - - - ® ® HP 11.26 TG I 11.80 FS I 3 CF s . l s 12.3 FS 12.6 FS PROTECT IN 'PLACE - - - - A a 11.68 TG ` I 1.45 G LP 11. 0 FS 8.86 I V ' 11.09 TG BW , 11.60 BW 10 95 TG 1.2% 10.55 TG � 252% 7.68 INV I 1.82% 6" CF 6" CF 10.37 TG 7.301.26% INV - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - + 11. 8 TG N 8.03 INV 7.85 INV ' 11.86 FS 1.2 INV. .3% 12.2 FS 1.26 W W W W - - - - - O 76-FS 079 F�_W- - - - - - - - - c ° I I MATCH 8.1 INV 6" CF - _ - - - - W W a'a N FS' 10.15 BW 998 BW 10:10 BW W W W W W W saW .da W 11.14 BW v 3 e -. _ ND'FL p42 BW 1-1.2t FG W W _ a.a W "W W 0.90 BW 11.24 BW _ s _ 6v,��i�TC A - MATCHNEX - n ^ - a ;. a a . 10.62 BW 10.71 BW m s - - - -o-- - _E! --IN-TO a .a NI ° 0.46 BW 3 s s -00-4 I-BE-COORDINATED LI 10.19 BW 10.35 BW e m e s s r N. ------- I ... < 10.45 BW v o u _ _ - _ -� 10.61 FL 11:13 TC 10.69 FL 11.26 TC WITH THE A I s - v L e v - - - - °°- 10.98 TC 11.08 TC 0" CF a _ _ 1_ J -10.79 10.55 TC 10.74 TC - - - - - 10.63 FL- - - C- - - -- - - - - - - I 1 L 9.50 'FL _ - - - - 10.46 TC EX. 36" CALTRANS 10.48 FL 10 58 FL 0" F 10 76 FL 1.44 TC e a - 10.05 FL 10.24 FL / 10 94 F TC AND FL I o 10.29 TC 9.67 FL 9.5-3-FL 10.19 TC =- - - 11.56 TC 0" CF 10.30 TC EXISTING g,g6 FL STORM DRAIN a � -- c- - - _INSIALL NEW CURB _ �- FEEj 1 89 TC 11.45 TC' 11.49 TC �� TIE-IN TO }�I °D 9.79 FL 0" CF g,g4 TC ( .86) INV AND GUTTER T69 FL -g-80 FL-PROPERTY LINE - - - - 1 TC 10.78 FL I �J _ L�1- o I-- - - -P 10.42 FL 10.99 TC 11.04 TC 11.24 TC ( ) I BE COORDINATED I 9.4.4_FL / - - - - I- - - -- _ (10.84 TC 10.36 FL ) 11.32 FS � - 10.13 FL �•0. TC � ) � 11.06 FS 11.14 FS WITH THE_CITY I o =r_ _ _ _ -__ ,_ - - - - _,- -- - - - - - 10.51 TC 10.07 FL 10.97 FS 11.02 FS P--' - /9.78 FL 10.44 TC 1 . L - - - - - - - - - _ - FLl ) �, 6:80-INV-PR S 1x,,}91 TC 10.37 TC 0.25 TC - I 10.44 FS 1 S 10.62 FS 10.69 FS 10.86 FS 10.88 FS 10.57 TC 10.52 TC 10.46 TC fir]-Z (_ o �� EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER 10.18 FS 10.27 FS 10.34 FS (UNKt) INV-EX-SD/ 11.99 FS X - h� '9_91 FS TI©.(6EI REM,OVE010.07) FSI X0.13 FS CONNECT1 TO;CEXFS38" RCP �- � a 5}45 g5 FS 9.a '1 ra 9.88 S L CONFORM TO 11.51 FS 11.63 FS 10.16 FS 10.20 FS 10.17 FS AIS IS FS 10.02 FS = 6.86 INV. PER SD SEE NOTE1 11.17 FS 11.39 FS - - RELOCATE EX. (UNK±) INV EX SD EXISTING PAVEMENT 11.04 FS PR. RIGHT OF WAY o EX. RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATE EX. CATCH BASIN 10.9 PRIOR TO ST. DEDICATION CATCH BASIN 10.50 ----10.57 -- CQNNEC-.T_TOOEX: 36RCP - - -------- P_OST STREET DEDICATION �. 10.5 - 10.7 - - - -------------- ------ - ------- --_-----------WEST_-COAST-RIGH - AY ---------- - AREA U/C - ASPH. yy�� 7� a s 0 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT = 9,349 C.Y. FILL = 252 C.Y. 0 NET = 9,097 C.Y. (EXPORT) N N m W O J d 0 NOTES 0 1 . ABOVE GROUND FEATURES AND UTILITIES INCLUDING M BUT NOT LIMITED TO PIPES, STREET LIGHTS, UTILITY BOXES AND FIRE HYDRANTS TO BE RELOCATED OR ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE STREET DEDICATION. GRAPHIC SCALE j 20' 0 10' 20' 40' 80' 3 0 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20' ft DATE: 9/12/16 M S DESIGNED BY: DEVELOPER: PREPARED BY: PLAN CHECK NO. VSYI eRolEssioN9/ CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN - N do S.r, c DRAFTED BY: Q ~ roFy a e PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH PERMIT NO. VSYI r No. 73766 38 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 100 550 WEST COAST HIGHWAY, NEWPORT BEACH, CA Aut@Nation It It 4` Exp. 06/30/15 * IRVINE, CA 92618 200 SW 1STAVE., 14TH FLOOR s CIVIL Q 949.923.6000 stantec.com SHEET CHECKED BY: FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 ryTF OF CNVECITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a NO. DATE REVISIONS ENG. APPR. DATE VSYI VICKY S.Y. ITO R.C.E. 73766 (EXP. 6/30/17) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT G =1 11� 1 :i;woj 0 601=I MMAIN I M 0 o 1 1 • • 1 . ♦ • - - � ` • - e - • - • : • • ♦ . . e . • ■ ♦ � - • � ; : � � •- ■ ■ : �♦ ••:. •-. : - 111 1 11 • • - • - - • - - : • - ♦ ♦ "kill f 011 FA me • - . . • • •111 ■ IN ■ 11 1 '1 s ° OtS �, • - - FWAN l � _ � � SMI �� �� ��� '' - �. ti•'. .r v y, - •q� '� ��iC��� !��.�RI('FEA11��� 11 'T X17,� • 1 e - - • e - : : � e e ` r - r\�h•- . V � i'ii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiGia i ■iiiiiiiiGiiGGala liiii■i■i■io■io■TooioTo■ioili■iGGalaGiiGGiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiGiaGiGGGGi oiilaaaiaaai //// ; aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a/iaaaaaaaaaaaa■ia aaaa/iaaaaaaaaaaaaCHUM aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■ia i/aaaaaaaa■aaaaai 1/�J'���nnff; �` A���i/■■i..�■�//.�■.■ ----- OR �� . - rrdrdrr/oioir-idid rr ir- . briiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�ii�iiibrrMbrr ro/--/ r - /r- r ■- . ■■II/n/Y.■■/t■/■■/af///////////////////////////////r■///■■/■■/////////////a /////////////////////////■■:1/■■/■■/■/■■/■■/////////////////////// /■n/o/oo/o/o/000000000/o/r/o/o/oo///o/o///� /.. ��, ��,. ,.....�.,�..�...��.��..�..�„�„�q, .��.,,,,�,��,��,.,,,.��.,.,.,■ - Oo-ooa'D-:c,.0o'•a>o0-e-ALO-.® .':,.;Stn. A° • .. m i/000000000000oo/■/u■/o 00000000000 ■ `y1 I,,i ou/00000000000000/000000000000000 ■ � `,IIIIIII,e U� C�Z•7 f•[ •[.I• - Co=o7. II III _ /ni/000000000000/0000000000000000// ■ i I ;i % � _>�. /■u/000000000000000o/000u000000///--- a0a = = , <, 1 11. � �� 0000000000000000/0////00////00000000 0 on/0000000000000000000000/0000000 a/0■a �; - 1111 ✓; �orn00000000000000/o/0ouo0/oo000000 /0/ — ,) orn00000000000000/0000./0000000000 000ml■o 6 ME mmumm IN IS n/o00000000/000u000ur/00000000000000/0/0/0.00/00000000 a0000uo■ — • .• ' r ■ ■ ■ ,,.I �_� .....n0000000000000000r00000000000000/............................... ............ —-- r ■000000 000000000000/0/000000000/ 000.01100 _„■ ■ -01 aaaaaaaaaHIM aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiaiiiaiiiiiaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ioi, aaaaaaaaaaiiaaiaaaooioi000-r � ISI � �' •' r•S� •' , '7■ -•- ��) 1 1111111111 �, ,\ � '� � � i �♦ i � �'_ � �► -■11111111 � � � `O • 1: L I 1IMM I V XTA I1 1: •• • • '� �, • • 1 1. 1• 1,'�oY �fllll�� O • • MWA -21 /CfOi WRIM ”' ^ ,.,. � ♦ ,�' I 1 ��1 � � �� ��������_��--��� e.-.---...'� �.- �T •----:,,M--t.--., -�G1 O O O ID tl_ O P IC....”�.}� .�i' O,.O`sf O IJ�OnS O I'�O��O` O O OC ,»Gi . T ter._-�.� .�— - - _ ♦vY.. '`ice ♦ ♦..r w..... . ww`�♦ �.Tl_�• , �� •� - - - -_—-- -- - •: -'-:>> ::, _�. :_ o 00 _a_o7!t.°7 --c`tos:.- :.,apo r� -e ,����1� _ .°: O • . --T-s -^- T---o- ♦- 'r v6°^. v. 1 <o� .00.. - _ _ _ �1� _ �c�- .:,. •; r . • O 0 O a..-. . .. . `rti ♦Y•.r v.: rw�.. •yA�� Y �r .�.,� ...� � va di a.. ..,,....000t. - ” _ __ • T ,T Ti 1 D � � ,�i.• r � ..0 00_01/ `a�� N w�:'v C w.�dA° .Ov_. +00 6.1 _ 0d 00.., .000 Cai C,"••dr_ _ __-' .`___ ar- oac — � � � • O <I 0 7 0 ee) O 7 O J �O O O O �....;Or.-. \ e - ,- - - - - - _ - {I w• - .w ,,.•:. °cam\ %i':.��. :' • ":,,_�' A rnw.��,1. .�" •. [` .O O O @�:_� O O Oho:_. O �J O Oiv' -F•.,.\\ ■ J1' ` mi " _ err _►_:__ � I ► - �1 = .� + t '' , • AAAAAAA • - • - • WAN 1 • ME m • 1 1 � 1 ■ • 1 • 1 1ME ME1 ME1 v • 1 • PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans AB 1881 LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION IRRIGATION LEGEND PVC LATERAL SIZING GUIDE X❑ PROJECT INFORMATION MANUFACTURER & LATERAL MAXIMUM GPM THRU PROJECT APPLICANT: AUTONATION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION MODEL NUMBER REMARKS Stantec SIZE 100' MAX LENGTH LATERAL PROJECT ADDRESS: 550 WEST COAST HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE AREA: 13966 3/4" 0-10 GPM PROJECT TYPE: NEW ® 6" POP-UP ROTARY SEE VALVE Q=QUARTER SPRINKLER SCHEDULE H=HALF 1 " 11 -16 GPM WATER SUPPLY TYPE: POTABLE F=FULL Stantec Architecture 1 -14" 17-26 GPM CLIENT CONTACT: LARY TIDBALL / PROJECT CONTACT: LARRY TIDBALL, STANTEC 0 AUTOMATIC RAIN SENSOR RAINBIRD INSTALL PER MFR 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 1 -1 /2" 27-35 GPM SEE LEGEND FOR LATERAL MATERIAL RSD-BEx RECOMMENDATIONS Irvine, CA 2" 36-55 GPM WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET 92618-5312 3.6121 . 94992 HYDROZONE TABLE � 4" POP-UP BUBBLER SCHEDULE SEE VALVE Fax.FLUSH WITH GRADE Tel. 949.923.6000 (3 HYDRO- VALVE # IRRIGATION AREA °/6 OF LANDSCAPE PLANT FACTOR Fox.wwwant .92 ZONE * VALVE USE METHOD ** S.F. AREA (FROM WUCOLS) PVC TO POLYETHYLENE LW # 0 D 13966 100% 0.30 A TUBING CONNECTOR RAINBIRD IRRIGATION WATERING SCHEDULES SHRUBS & GNDCVR 6 Copyright Reserved TOTAL 13968' 100.0% REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER LEAD-FREE PER LOCAL CODES The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO * HYDROZONE IRRIGATION METHOD FEBCO LF825Y x NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. 0 - 0.3 LW=LOW WATER USE PLANTS MWALL-WEATHER BLANKET S = MICROSPRAY 6=BUBBLER / The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of 0.4 - 0.6 MW=MODERATE WATER USE PLANTS S=SPRAY D=DRIP I Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that 0.C.0.7 - 1.0 HW=HIGH WATER USE PLANTS R=ROTOR O=OTHER P.� POINT OF CONNECTION AT NEW x" METER authorized by Stantec is forbidden. WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS LINE SIZE BRONZE Consultants MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA) GATE VALVE WATTS GV SERIES IN VALVE BOX ETO 48.2 CONVERSION FACTOR 0.62 QUICK COUPLER VALVE ET ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.45 LANDSCAPE AREA S.F. (INCL. SLA) 13966" W1 LOCKING COVER & RAINBIRD 44LRC FLUSH WITH ADDIT WATER ALLOW FOR SLA 0.3 2 KEYS, 2 SWIVEL W/ 2049 GRADE SPECIAL LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE S.F. 0 HOSE ELLS MAWA=(ETO)(CONV FACTOR)[(ETADJ FACTORX LANDSCAPE S.F.)+(ADDIT WATER ADJ X SLA S.F)] O CREATIVE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY 1 " FSI-T000 MAWA= 187,811.97 GaUYr FLOW SENSOR\SHUT OFF WITH A HUNTER ICB WITH A FILTER CENTURY. Client INSTALL PER MFG. INCLUDING SETBACKS. USE ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) 3M DBR-Y600 WEATHERTIGHT CONNECTORS. ETWU=(ETO)(CONV FACTOR)[(PLANT FACTOR x HYDROZONE AREA) + (SPECIAL LSCAPE ALLOWANCE S.F.)] IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY WEATHER-TRACKING IRRITROL MC-E 12 W/ AutoNation. LOW WATER USE HYDROZONES AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER WIRELESS CLIMATOLOGIC WALL MOUNT ETo 48.2 WEATHER STA. 200 SW 1ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR CONVERSION FACTOR 0.62 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 PLANT FACTOR 0.3 REMOTE CONTROL VALVE IRRITROL 700 IN INDIVIDUAL HYDROZONE AREA S.F. 13,966 O SEE VALVE SCHEDULE SERIES VALVE BOX IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY 0.9 SPECIAL LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE S.F. 0 O DRIP VALVE COMPONENTS: Key Plan: ETWU= 139,119.98'GallYr 1 . IRRITROL 700 REMOTE CONTROL VALVE IN INDIVIDUAL MODERATE WATER USE HYDROZONES 2. SENNINGER PMR-MF, 30 PSI PRESSURE REGULATOR VALVE BOX ETo 48.2 3. AMIAD 3/4" WYE FILTER CONVERSION FACTOR 0.62 PLANT FACTOR 0.5 HYDROZONE AREA S.F. 0 _ _ _ x" P.V.C. SCHEDULE 40 MAINLINE „ IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY 0.71 EXCEPT FOR 1 " QUICK COUPLER 18 COVER SPECIAL LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE S.F. 0 ETWU= 0.0dGallYr HIGH WATER USE HYDROZONES -- - P.V.C. SCHEDULE 40 SLEEVE, 2X LINE 24" COVER W/ ETo 48.2 I---- _J SIZE, BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR 6" SAND BED CONVERSION FACTOR 0.62 EXCEPT WHERE KEYNOTED PLANT FACTOR 0.7 HYDROZONE AREA S.F. 0 P.V.C. CLASS 200 LATERAL, SIZE PER „ IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY 0.71 CHART OR SCHEDULE 315 LATERAL 12 COVERAGE SPECIAL LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE S.F. 0 ETWU= O.OdGallYr DENOTES RCV I'III'I. SUBSURFACE IN LINE DRIP LINE TO BE ETWU= 139119.98 Gal/Yr CIRCUIT � 5 �1 NETAFIM TECHLINE CV 1 /2" POLYETHYLENE ETWU= 74% MAWA INLINE DRIP LINE WITH FLUSH END CAP IN 6" COVER X❑ SOIL MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS VALVE BOX. POST GRADING HORTICULTURAL APPRAISEL REQUIRED. EMITTERS AND LINES TO BE SPACED PER WATER QUALITY REPORT REQUIRED ON RECYCLED WATER PLAN.. SEE VALVE CHART AND NETAFIM SOIL RE-EVALUATION OF PLANT SELECTION REQUIRED WITH CHART. RECYCLED WATER TEST RESULTS, CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 3/4" 3/4" �rTrTr� rTrTrrrTrTr�� �rTrTr�� �Trrr�r�r�� . I . . I . . I . . I . . I . . I .2 . r! T I I I I I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, r l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, TECHLINE CV IN LINE T T _ EMITTERS-XXGPM .26 GPH T r 1 riTr rTr�Tr�rTri-r�r r�Tr�r ri ,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _LJ-J_J-1�LJ_LJ-J-�_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT ,8"DG-LATERALS I . 9 24" OC XXXX SIi1 II � I .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II' I • II • I III ' I IIII • I I I ,,,, k, � J o. I�LUE ANTECHLINE CV IN LINE s 3/4' II ? 111111111EMITTERS-XXGPM .2B GPH ; II 1 � III I I I+I I I I I I I I I I II I I I 1141 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I14 IIIAT 18"OC-LATERALS ,8' I [ ��rt 1 I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRIVER'S F AND D I ANDI 'dGCE D ISOERS Q ~ C - �24" OC XXXX SF I SELECTION BOIJTIQUE FITTING LOUNGIl1lI ' 11ECH.COUNTER I . TECHLINE CV IN LINE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NVD I I CPO EMITTERS-XXGPM .26 GPH � I AT 18"OC-LATERALS 18" - - - ARCHITECTURAL I I I CANOPY L 24" OC XXXX SF I J ,+� . ®\' �'°' \/ / .� \ °� \ %� Fe" e \ I STAIR AUTO LIFT LOBBY AIITCi [IF � , �' \ � \ ' \ y \ H ,,,,,,LLLLLL REOE('TI61� i-i F� FI = I RUN LINES IN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ SERVICE DRIVE CUST MER I I I PLANTERS I r \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ LOU GE I I ss \ V \0"', ee A \0, A\ ae \ \ \ \ ea V l L J W1 \ \ /\ >\ , \ , , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - " SHOWROOM I Revision By APpd. YY.MM.DD LJ _ _ _ _ � ! i r 9 SERVICE WORK STALLS I r - - - - - _ _ P.C. EXHIBIT BP L7 2016.09.13 H H 1" - I PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.08 LJ I I I I l a ° _ - _ - - e l H H I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I PORSCHE REVIEW VK 2015.11.16 - - -J L_ - _ - - - - - - I i PORSCHE REVIEW LGT 2015.11.10 SHOPLQUIP_ TOOLS - - - - -- I PORSCHE REVIEW LGT 2015.08.21 AUTONATION REVIEW LGT 2015.08.19 AUTONATION REVIEW LGT 2015.08.03 �I 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Iii I III I I I I I !I Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD I ® ® I III File Name: I i I I III I I ISI! i I own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD Permit-Seal I I I I 15 I I I I - - - - - - Z I ! 1 I I I 8 8 i. 8 g_. g. 5 - ��k�\y�NRUTH qPM . . 8 o 18. e. 5, r - - - - - - - -I KSI . I . h e a 8 ' s11 11111111 s V Li PALM TREE BUBBLERS I `6/0/ 17 wXXX Rae u w� Of M 9/11/16 o_ I wre o IN- 3/4" � 3/4" 3/4 I I I I �qTF �F1 - 1 I 8 1 I 9 OF CNS 3/4" 3/4" 6 3/4" I L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u L-- - - - - - J Project: toL -- - - -- - J NI I TECHLINE CV IN LINE TECHLINE CV IN LINE TFQ.HI INF GPH EMITTERS-XXGPM .26 GPH A U T O N A T I O N AT 18"OC-LATERALS 18" n o _ EMITTERS-XXGPM .26 GPH AT 18"OC-LATERALS 18" o AT 18"OC-LATERALS 18' AT 18"OC-LATERALS 18" 24" OC XXXX SF 24" OC XXXX SF PORSCHE O F 24"WA OC XXXX SF VL 24" OG XXXX SF NEWPORT BEACH g I WATER USE WEST COAST HIGHWAY Sso WEST COAST HWY. - - - - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 0 Title: �T woo PRELIMINARY POST DEDICATION N� LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN �a N oa NOT FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION ROOT BARRIER INSTALLATION ^g THESE DRAWINGS ARE UNDER REVIEW AND SUBJECT TO INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER IS Project No. Scale PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN REVISIONS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO RECOMMENDED TO BE INSTALLED AS PART 0 10 20 40 2007105003 AS NOTED OBTAIN FINAL DRAWINGS, (INITIALED IN TILE BLOCK), OF THE IRRIGATION TRENCHING. SEE '� BEFORE FINALIZING BIDS OR BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN FOR ROOT Drawing No. Sheet Revision �� BARRIER LOCATIONS. SCALE: 1"=20'-0' NORTH L2 of 0 >N ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 t2_71- PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2016-XXX I\ . PARCE � L _ LBOUNDARY — N88 57'49_'E _549 96'_ =� - - - -- - - - x -�- - -T - y X / III L I EXPARCEL BOUNDARY / EX. PARCEL BOUNDARY EX. PARCEL BOUNDARY I � TO BE REMOVEDo I EX PARCEL BOUNDARY — E- -PARCEL BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED I TO BE REMOVED pREMOVED� TO BE REMOVED I ET TO / I � EX. BUILDING TO I I ASPH. NO. 1210 BE DEMOLISHED CD � � o LOT 9 LOT �'" L T 7 ° W _ I to LOT 15 I�LOT 14OT 13 L T 1 LO 11 LOT 10 i I ( /— i ZE ° LOT 17 LOT 16 I I EX. BUILDINGI I PARCEL 1 I I TEEs DEMOLTO S HED cyl ASPH. I EX. BUILDING TO I o N I ® BE DEMOLISHED Z o EX. BUILDING TO I Cr) 1 I BE DEMOLISHED I I — ASPH. PARCEL- z I _�_ ® I EX. BUILDING I cn V I I I I I BOUNDARY TO BE [cam ��N rnJ EX. BUILDING TO DEMOLISHED it D I BE DEMOLISHED EL, BOU 51 217I—ARCo 34PEX, BJNDARY BE DEMOLISHED (—E 549:91 N88°11'30" ALMS -- ® �--N ITO EM 7 WDTH VAR IES - - EX. RIGHT] OF WAYS ❑ o - ❑O O tNSI=NO� DI D O ® PARCEL BOUNDARY o TREES- 2013-124704 O.R. EJ PR. RIGHT OF-WAY O POST STREET-DEDICATION I a I WEST COAST HIGHWAY ASPH. ------ --————— ———————— — - - ———————— ———— -- -—— ——————— — s^—rr�>I—=—II ---------- ---------- — — — ---- ------------- --- - —4--STREET C/L I --I---- — — — — — F.RtA USC ---- — — — O o ASPH. 2 o w U � U � OJ `n c - 0 } 0 O - - - - TREES 0 p.CC D> NO"'� z U� WAN = U LlIN w Zo: tn � -rn o° 5V 00 -P m (60 W Q d W d \ O ED CV II N o CO > Y J BENCHMARK EASEMENTS SITE ADDRESS TITLE REPORT W Q U W 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE VERTICAL CONTROL DATA - BM DESIGNATION NO. 3K-24A-82: 1. AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR CONSTRUCT, 6. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "NUISANCE 550 WEST COAST HIGHWAY PREPARED BY REPUBLIC TITLE OF TEXAS AND o N o 1988. ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE JUNE 2011 STAMPED 3K-24A-82 MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND USE SANITARY SEWERS AND APPURTENANCES AND ABATEMENT AGREEMENT" RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NO. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 UPDATED JANUARY 20, 2015 ELEVATION: 19.259 LEVELED 2011. INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 1955 IN BOOK 3237, PAGE 480 2010000093757 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (DOES AFFECT - NOT SHOWN - COMMITMENT NO. 1002-128403-RTT. DESCRIPTION: 3 3/4 OCS ALUMINUM DISK STAMPED 3K-24A-82 SET IN THE TOP OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (DOES NOT AFFECT - NOT SHOWN). BLANKET IN NATURE). PARCEL 1 LAND AREA y OF A CONCRETE DECK BRIDGE. MONUMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 2. A PERPETUAL AIR OR FLIGHT EASEMENT, SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS AVIGATION 7. AN OFFER OF DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A MUNICIPAL 71 ,464 SQUARE FEET OWNER THE INTERSECTION OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NEWPORT BAY CROSSING; 32 RIGHTS, IN AND TO ALL THE AIR SPACE ABOVE THOSE PORTIONS OF PARTICULAR CORPORATION; FOR STREET, HIGHWAY AND UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, 1 .64 ACRES FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF P.C.H., 37 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST PLANES OR IMAGINARY SURFACES THAT OVERLIE SAID LAND FOR USE BY AIRCRAFT, FLUTER PROPERTIES Ca RECORDS END OF SOUTHERN GUARD RAIL ALONG BRIDGE. MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE PRESENT OR FUTURE, FROM OR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT, SAID EASEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, - A AS INSTRUMENT N0. 2013-124704 OF OFFICIAL 2025 W. BALBOA AVENUE x SIDEWALK. AND RIGHTS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND DEFINED IN AND GRANTED . (DOES AFFECT AS SHOWN HEREON). ZONING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 x N TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 17,1964 IN BOOK 6965, 8. THE EFFECT OF A MAP PURPORTING TO SHOWN THE LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY x PAGE 721 , OFFICIAL RECORDS, UPON THE TERMS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) / FILED BOOK 270 PAGE 21 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS. (DOES AFFECT NOT 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THEREIN. THE PLANES ABOVE WHICH SAID ESEMENT LIES ARE MORE PARTICULARLY MARINER'S MILE CIVIL ENGINEER eeoFS N SHOWN - BLANKET IN NATURE). a� r 0 DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED AND SHOWN ON A MAP THEREIN REFERRED TO. (DOES e° c � s•r, I F 0 Q ('0 LO THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT AFFECT - NOT SHOWN - BLANKET IN NATURE). VICKY S.Y. ITO (RCE 73766) o BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STORM DRAIN STANTEC r No. 73766 a _ 3. THE CONVENANT CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY TO BAY 38 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 100 * Exp, 06/30/17 * 0 /R o TIE INTO EXISTING CALTRANS STORM V LOT 7 TO 17, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 1210, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AS CLUB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RECORDED JUNE 2, 1969 IN BOOK 8974, PAGE DRAIN ON WEST COAST HIGHWAY IRVINE, CA 92618 sfr CIVIL �Q 3 SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 40, PAGE(S) 45 AND 46 OF MISCELLANEOUS 265 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, THAT, AS A PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR (949) 923-6000 F of Ca`F°� z = U 00 MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ENHANCING AND PROTECTING THE VALUE, ETC., OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED AND O ADJACENT LAND, THAT NO BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE OF ANY KIND SHALL BE FLOOD ZONE Q = 00 EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES ERECTED EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. (DOES AFFECT - NOT SHOWN - LYING BELOW A DEPTH SHOWN BELOW BUT WITH NO RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, BLANKET IN NATURE). ZONE 'Y' Q U cV o DEPTH 500 FEET, AS PROVIDED IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 2, 1969 IN BOOK 8974, AREA DETERMINED TO BE Q o VICKY S.Y. ITO DATE J 0 0 PAGE 265 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 4. AN UNRECORDED LEASE DATED AUGUST 4, 2005, EXECUTED BY MARINERS MILE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL R.C.E. 73766 W GATEWAY, LLC, AS LESSOR AND THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION CHANCE FLOODPLAIN EXP. 6/30/17 m 0U AS LESSEE, AS DISCLOSED BY MEMORANDUM OF LEASE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 28, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005000768754 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (DOES AFFECT Q CL - NOT SHOWN - BLANKET IN NATURE). 049-280-86 Q 5. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "NUISANCE W CL ABATEMENT AGREEMENT" RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NO. > 0 3 2010000093756 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (DOES AFFECT - NOT SHOWN - Lo Z BLANKET IN NATURE). z a W GRAPHIC SCALE ~ 0 zo• o ,o• zo• ,w• 60• 0 0 N ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20' ft. 0 0 N SHEET NO. z 1 of 1 0 ��g 1 1 • • • • • w ' • • . i MWA R -;ri ,• '�` v iYY'. R \ .,.,.-ri �• .µam nn. ._'G:.. T. m y xa " ' ■ C .ww+.'^_^'�,�'^ - w�`^�`vv.,wvJ.y`I ,.• .. .. ... ��,'�yi/,r RR?�:. .. v` m t:.v-nvn /yyY-vw���w•�'� i .• .-. W y Mti JN ��'NY N�'~YJJrY /.A'�' VYJ M JN.hfW.'Y Y Y4.Y.�V��YµJwM1 _n.MM1 �� � - � R .. . A • . � � ; ""' v.+Ym'�^. r����w.M�wv+'. .�StN+v.r..�-;Fw✓V 4y. .., m �M Op u, lilt � n c PA2015-095 Attachment No. PC 6 - Updated Project Plans - I SO r J IIIIIIIIIIQII I�I�II ' i-._\_. •rc:�.-_. _._•_•_. _I ___il _I _iii ___O ._._._._.. * •_._._ __ _ ___ _ ilii i__G e r OR C E Maw , •,t Be M y Fl Attachment PC 7 Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework Discussion 121 V� QP �P 2�� Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework (Design Framework) The Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework was adopted by the City in 2000, following a four-year discussion with the Mariners' Mile Business Association and the community with a common goal to improve the area that was perceived to be in decline. The document has two components: 1) Strategic Vision and 2) Deign Framework. The following discussion highlights the relevant sections of the Design Framework and how the proposed AutoNation project relates to it. STRATEGIC VISION — the following initiatives establish the vision for Mariners' Mile. Initiatives not relevant to the project are listed at the end of this section. 1.10 Improving the Auto-Reliant Strip — The vision refers to Inland East end of Coast Highway, which includes the project site, as the "auto-reliant strip" on the basis that it includes auto dealers, drive-thru and stand-alone restaurants, car washes, and convenience retails uses. The vision calls for instituting improved planning and design for auto-oriented businesses by requiring better quality buildings and landscaping to fit in with Mariners' Mile. The project includes a contemporary design with quality materials and landscaping consistent with the vision. 1.20 A Vibrant Public Waterfront—the project site is not a waterfront parcel. 1.30 Creating Mariners'Village—the project site not located in the "village" which is defined as the area around Tustin and Riverside Avenues. 1.40 Upgrading the Public Realm — Each project is required to establish a consistent hedge and palm row across their frontage to create continuity along the corridor. The project partially achieves this goal through the use of a palm tree row, but does not provide a hedge row. This issue will be discussed below. 1.50 Upgrading Private Development Standards (Signs, Architecture, and Lighting)—the strategy seeks to encourage higher quality development projects, while not restricting the individual expression businesses need to successfully convey their identity. Elements which apply to the proposed project include: • Remove nonconforming signs and update sign code. The proposed project has two small monument signs and two walls signs that are consistent with the sign code based on review of the conceptual plans. All existing signs will be removed with redevelopment including one non- conforming roof sign. • Require five-sided architecture (i.e. designs must consider views of all walls and the roof). The revised project including the partial or full roof cover considers views from Kings Road and is therefore consistent with this strategy. • Encourage a neutral color pallet and painting system throughout the corridor. The proposed structure includes dark grey and silver tones which are consistent with its contemporary design. 123 Although more neutral colors are encouraged, the proposed colors reflect the "identity' of the dealership, as recognized by this strategy. • Control light spill-off. The proposed lighting design with 12-tall parking lot light standards, cut- off wall lights on the service building, roof parking area lighting under a canopy, dimmable designs, and limited hours of operation will properly control lighting within this sensitive environment. 1.60 District-wide Cooperative Systems — Establish a district-wide parking management district where public and private parking lots can be shared, and selectively eliminating parking requirements. 1.70 Catalyst Developments and Model Projects—The strategic vision identifies six opportunity areas or properties based on their size, visibility, and/or location. The project site is within one of these areas. The strategy recommended developing a "model project" for these areas, which has not occurred. Therefore,the project should be reviewed in the context of the remaining strategies. 1.80 A Comprehensive Strategy — A comprehensive vision for Mariners' Mile with an implementation program to have the greatest positive effect. This effort is currently underway with development of the Mariners' Mile Revitalization Master Plan. DESIGN FRAMEWORK—the follow represent design recommendations relevant to the propose project: Planning and Urban Design 2.1 Physical Framework —The design framework seeks to improve the physical clarity of the district by defining the boundaries: entry features, the bluffs, the Arches Bridge, the Back Bay Bridge, and the Lido Channel. This recommendation is not related to the proposed project. 2.2 Entry Features— Reinforce entries with the use of signage and landscaping. This recommendation is not related to the proposed project. 2.3 Mariners' Village — reinforce potential to become active "heart" of Mariners' Mile. The project is outside this area. 2.4 The Waterfront — Consider capital improvements and private-sector incentives for opening—up the waterfront. The project is not on the waterfront. 2.5 Pacific Coast Highway — the following recommendations are intended to mitigate the impact of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile: 2.51 Encourage consolidation of driveways.The project reduces the number of driveways from 4 to 2. 2.52 Maintain and expand on-street parking. Widening of the highway would eliminate on- street parking. 124 2.53 Encourage access rear parking lots to take access off of Coast Highway. This recommendation is not feasible for the proposed project. 2.54 Discourage transportation policies and practices which would increase vehicle volumes and speeds. This is a broader recommendation related to the corridor and is not related to the proposed project. The project is projected to increase 672 daily trips, 73 of which would occur during the morning (AM) peak hour, and 64 of which would occur during the evening (PM) peak hour. The traffic study concludes no significant impact to area intersections. The City Traffic Engineer does not expect an increase in traffic speeds due to the highway widening and improvements especially as it relates to the village area further to the west. The capacity of the highway would remain constrained just west of the project site and this with the signals at the Balboa Bay Club and at Dover will keep traffic speeds from increasing significantly with the required highway improvements. 2.55 Support planted medians. This recommendation is not relevant to the project. 2.56 Explore the addition of 2-3 traffic signals. This recommendation is not relevant to the project. 2.57 Explore rededication of Coast Highway from Caltrans. This recommendation is not relevant to the project. 2.58 Discourage widening of Coast Highway unless all regional alternatives are exhausted. The 2006 General Plan and Mobility Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) recognizes this segment of Coast Highway as a 6 lane roadway in order to accommodate regional traffic volumes. In early 2016, the City participated in a corridor study conducted by OCTA and, as an extension of that study, evaluated alternative lane configurations for Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard. The conclusions of the study were reviewed by the City Council at a Study Session on May 24, 2016 and indicated general support for proceeding with the six lane configuration. The non-binding guideline was included in the Design Framework prior to the 2006 General Plan and is considered outdated. 2.59 Encourage temporary landscaping in areas of potential widening. The project includes widening of the highway, so temporary landscaping is not necessary. 2.6 Street names. Rename the disconnected sections of Riverside and Tustin Avenues. This recommendation is not relevant to the project. 2.7 Land use considerations. Necessitate sensitivity to adjacent uses including Bayshores and Kings Road. Consider mitigating potential impacts, while balancing business interests, through landscaping, equipment screens, limits on signs, lighting controls, building colors or other appropriate measures. The project includes equipment screens and a partial roof-top cover. Lighting will be controlled and dimmed after 9:00 p.m. Signs are limited and must be consistent with the Zoning Code. Building design and color 1215 is discussed below. The Framework also recommends a balance between commercial, marine uses and visitor uses, while allowing limited auto-serving retail on the land east end where the subject site is located. 3.0 Landscape — The Design Framework recommends a 4 to 6-foot wide hedge and palm row along Coast Highway. The preferred hedge is the Texas Privit and the palm tree is Washingtonia Robusta. The palms are to be planted every 18 feet or clustered in groups of three to provide needed openings. The ground plane should consist of a tall fescue (Marathon II) grass. The project does not provide the hedge row intended to screen parked cars. It also does not use a tall fescue grass but rather it uses a variety of interesting drought tolerant plants. The proposed landscape plan includes more than the minimum number of palms (Washingtonia Robusta). The Design Framework also calls replacement of invasive species on the bluff with red bougainvillea and other shrubs, trees and groundcover appropriate for the slope. Visibility of the bluff from the highway will be limited, but the proposed landscape plan would remove all invasive plant on the bluff and it would be planted with a red bougainvillea, consistent with the recommendation. 4.0 Signage —The Design Framework recommends the adoption of new sign regulations to encourage legibility, visual coherence and coordination. The City comprehensively updated the sign code in 2005, and it did include sign types identified in the Design Framework. The proposed project has two small monument signs and two walls signs that are consistent with the sign code based upon review of the conceptual plans. 5.1 Architecture Objectives — The Design Framework states that a rigid architectural theme would be inappropriate for the area and recommends establishing key design principles and promoting thoughtful and tasteful design while allowing creative flexibility. The key objectives are: 5.11 Responsible and sensitive design that "fit in" to their surroundings. Roofs that respond to views from above and design freestanding buildings as "five-sided".The project complies in that the design meets the required height and setback standards and is consistent with the height of the project to the east. The roof is partially covered to screen views of vehicles. 5.12 Site Planning considerations include larger Design Framework urban design considerations, buildings that orient to the street in the village area, and promote pedestrian connections. The larger urban design framework is supported by the street facing auto-oriented project. Pedestrian connections across the site at the public sidewalk will be maintained. Pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the dealership is provided in the proposed site plan. The site plan consolidates lots and reduces driveways to the highway from four to two. 5.13 Landscaping that complements buildings and sites as fundamental components of the design and to coordinate utility connections to support landscape objectives and to screen utilities from Coast Highway. As noted above, the project contributes to the continuity of the district by providing more than the minimum number of palm trees. The use of alternative plants to a hedge complements the proposed use and aesthetically enhances the streetscape, consistent with the overall intent of the landscape guidelines. 120 5.14 A palette of colors, materials and details includes "neutral" building color schemes with nautical trim. 5.15 Purposeful and respectful lighting that is contained to the site, designed with a photometric study, down lighting, accent lighting in a coordinated fashion to avoid harsh intense lighting and hard shadows. A photometric study has been prepared for the lighting plan. The lighting levels are not excessive and can be dimmed after installation to ensure an optimal lighting level. The proposed lighting design includes 12-tall parking lot light standards, cut-off wall lights on the service building, roof parking area lighting under a canopy, and dimmable designs (including the signs). These features coupled with limited hours of operation when lighting will be reduced to minimal security lighting settings will properly control lighting within this sensitive environment. 5.16 Organized and coordinate signs that are consistent with standards and overall goals of the guidelines. As noted, the project includes two building wall signs and two monument signs that are proposed near the driveways.The signs are modern and complement the proposed modern building. The monument signs will be white or silver in color (neutral colors) and will be consistent with all applicable sign requirements for the Zoning Ordinance. 5.2 Color Palette and Materials. The Design Framework recommends a range of neutral shades and hues as follows: • Base building color should be about 90 percent of a building's exterior. • Contrasting trims elements (dark or lighter)would be up to 10 percent. • Accent elements with bright colors would be up to 5 percent of the building exterior. • Nautical materials listed are shiplap/clapboard/shingled siding, varnished teak handrails, navy blue or dark canvas awnings, white nylon or Dacron shades, bras or bronze hardware, stainless steel or chrome for rails, cable and fittings, hardware and ornament, wood or aluminum poles with stays/spreaders(masts/spars)for signs or theme elements. • Other nautical elements and details listed as examples includes; wind vanes, ships flags, charts, sextants, dividers and other navigational tools, portholes, ships wheels, compass rose,ships and sailor icons, cleats, bollards and other dock motifs. The proposed building design has no contextual relationship to nautical and the design uses three neutral colors, gray, black and silver. Accents are provided with the stainless steel mesh and signs. The project exhibits none of these nautical elements listed with the exception of the use of stainless steel for the mesh screens. The Mariners' Pointe project does not provide any nautical building elements but includes Washingtonia Robusta palms and a hedge called for by the guidelines. It also includes high quality materials. The use of nautical building elements along the stretch of Mariners' Mile between the Pelican Wall and Dover Drive is very limited. McDonald's remodeled in 2003, and included horizontal siding, a good example of the encouraged color pallet, the hedge and palm row, and a nautical flagpole design. The Maserati and Ferrari dealerships were remodeled after the adoption of the Design Guidelines but they did not require discretionary review where 227 nautical building elements could have been required. A hedge and palm row was implemented as they were required by the Zoning Code at the time. 6.0 Shared Parking — The proposed project makes full use of its parking resources when open for business. Using this site for shared parking after hours does not seem feasible given the proximity to residential uses; however, if the applicant chooses to allow nearby uses access to the customer parking spaces when the dealership is closed,they could do so provided all nuisances are controlled. 122 Attachment PC 8 Correspondence 129 V� QP �P 130 From: pale demmer To: Campbell,James Subject: AutoNation Porsche Project-Mariners Mile Date: Tuesday,July 12,2016 10:40:37 AM Hi Jim! I ask for your sensitive review of the storage and employee parking on the roof of the AutoNation facility.. I am opposed to allowing cars, lights, storage and landscaping to be a visual part of the scenic vista the residents enjoy overlooking this area,. Though this project does not affect me directly, I am concerned about the precedent this may have on all future developments on Mariners Mile. While the community thinks of this area as a viable economic resource for our community, (and it certainly is) the residents also think of it as part of our scenic environment and care very much about the visual enhancements that are planned for the area.. Storage can become an all inclusive nebulous thing. The precedent of allowing open roof top parking and storage on Mariners Mile I have always opposed. Thank you so much for listening and thank you, for what you do. Gail Demmer 131 Pagel of 2 August 9, 2016 a�6 1:60dM31V yo �0 1N3wd013A30�Gv City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive 9601 91 9fld Newport Beach, CA 92660 wNnwwoo Attention: James Campbell, Principal Planner ie O3A1g�3d Subject: AutoNation Porsche Project General Plan, Newport Beach File No: PA2015-095 Reference is made to your notice of Public Hearing on August 18, 2016, a copy of which is attached. We note that the city has prepared a Negative Declaration stating that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment and requests comments. We, the undersigned, who live adjacent or in close vicinity to the proposed project, find it unacceptable as presented. It is to be way overbuilt for the size of the property. The existing zoning laws and requirements therein are presently fair to both the residences and to the business properties without any special user permits. As you are aware, this section of Pacific Coast Highway differs in that it has near residences on both sides. We are most concerned with the following: 1. Massive buildings 2. Height of buildings and elevator tower 3. Parking on roof a. Noise from car engines, horns, shutting doors b. Car lights 4. Anything else on roof that creates problems for neighbors If the project is approved, a roof(no screen) covering the entire structure should be mandatory and without parking thereon. We believe that unless this property is properly developed, it will reduce the value of homes in the area. Your careful consideration of our concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 132 Page 2 of 2 I Homeowners Addresses�J yC 3 ` a � V w) -Ki yZ0 /G � til �pl ; div Kllg5n6(U _6-02- 16 4�s R � NA 133 From: Ned McCune 7o: Kramer, Kory Cc: Koettina.Peter; Zak.Peter; Dunlap. Bill; Hillaren.Bradley; rlawlenolnewportbeach.ca.goy;Weigand. Erik; Campbell,lames Subject: PA 2015-095,320-600 West Coast Highway Date: Monday,August 08,2016 12:46:07 PM Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Reference: PA 2015 — 095, 320-600 West Coast Highway I am the owner of the building at 2700 West Coast Highway. I am vitally interested in the redevelopment of Mariners Mile. The one thousand front feet on the inland side at the southeast end had been an embarrassment for decades. Finally, the lower half became the modern and attractive Mariners Pointe. The upper half begs to follow suit and become something the city can be proud of. The Auto Nation plan would fit the district like the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle. It would consolidate the district's reputation as the place to shop for luxury automobiles. Along with fine dining, this is Mariners Mile's new identity. To reject this application would say to businesses here that we must always remain a living reminder of the 1950s. I assume you have taken a close look at the buildings there now. They have been refurbished and painted, but that's as far as any landlord will go absent approval from you of a plan. If not this plan, then what? Most other ideas won't work on this narrow parcel. Auto Nation is the answer. Ned McCune 949 646 2076 IS4 A I , LI Tustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA 1N 923-007 P I A N N I N G 17542 East 17th Street, Suits 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 }714.505.6361 August 15, 2016 Jim Campbell, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach RE: AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mr. Campbell: As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consultant contracted to prepare the AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), you asked that I supply a response to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)comment letter received by the City of Newport Beach related to IS/MND after the close of the public comment period. A response to the substantive points of the comment letter is provided below, and the comment letter is included as an attachment to this letter. California Department of Transportation (August 12, 2016) The commenter accurately describes the proposed Project in its introductory paragraph. Responses to each of the commenter's subsequent enumerated comments are provided below, with the response number corresponding to the comment numbers indicated in the comment letter. 1. The City would require the developer to comply with all applicable provisions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, including the design of driveways. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 2. The City would require that the developer comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including the design of wheelchair ramps at pedestrian crosswalks. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 3. A traffic impact analysis was prepared forthe proposed Project and included as Appendix G of the IS/MND. Intersections within State right-of-way were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology and summarized in Section IV titled "State Highway Facilities (Delay Analysis)" beginning on page 45 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic volumes used for analysis of State highway facilities are the same as those shown in Section III (Existing Conditions) and Section V (Future Traffic Volumes). The Level of Service analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix G of the traffic study. The intersection delay and Level of Service results are summarized in Table 7 of the traffic study. As stated on page 46 of the traffic study, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant impacts at the State Highway study intersections for the evaluated scenarios based on the results of the Highway Capacity Manual analysis. 4. The City would ensure that the geometric designs are submitted to Caltrans for review and approval prior to construction. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 13.E A I AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS L I August 15, 2016 J Page 2 of 3 P L A N N I N G 5. The City would require the developer to comply with all applicable provisions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, including stopping sight distances and corner sight distances. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 6. A detailed HCS analysis was not warranted based on the following qualitative analysis. Potential project impacts to on/off-ramp queues at SR-55 (Newport Boulevard)/Coast Highway are forecast to be less than significant based on the nominal number of project trips contributed at the off-ramp (see Figures 12 and 13). The proposed project is forecast to add 11 morning peak hourtrips at this location,which is equivalent to less than one project trip every signal cycle (or roughly one vehicle every three cycles). Project generated trips at the off-ramp are forecast to be even lower during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project is not forecast to result in appreciable changes to existing queue lengths at the southbound SR-55/Coast Highway off-ramp. Based on the project trip distribution patterns shown on Figure 11, the proposed project is not forecast to contribute any trips to the SR-55 SB on-ramp (Newport Boulevard) at Coast Highway. Northbound SR-55 is accessed via Old Newport Boulevard, which provides an additional lane downstream of the on-ramp from Old Newport Boulevard and precludes the need for ramp metering. Furthermore, the segment of SR-55 within the study area is designed as an arterial roadway as opposed to a freeway facility; ramp-metering would appear inappropriate in these settings. 7. The requested information regarding the lane transition will be provided to Caltrans by the City. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 8. The conceptual construction drawings (subject to review and approval by Caltrans) for the proposed Project indicate the installation of a bicycle lane along the Project frontage associated with the widening of West Coast Highway. The proposed conceptual improvements to the westbound side of West Coast Highway would include the installation of a 7-footwide bicycle lane within the improvement area,adjacent to the three 12-foot wide westbound travel lanes and an 8-foot wide sidewalk within the westbound right- of-way. Accordingly, the conceptual construction drawings were designed to accommodate the installation of a Class II bicycle lane along the westbound side of West Coast Highway. 9. The proposed Project would divert storm water to an existing storm drain pipeline, no storm water flows would be discharged as surface flows to the State right-of-way. During construction,the proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with water quality, including the implementation of a SWPPP. 10. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, including RWQCB dewatering/de minimus discharge requirements if groundwater is encountered. 11. The comments regarding the maintenance of the proposed water treatment facilities are noted. The proposed Project includes water treatment facilities and the City will condition the project to require regular maintenance of these components. 12. The need for an encroachment permit was identified in the IS/MND. The specific details identified by the commenter are acknowledged. WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 13( A I AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS L I August 15, 2016 J Page 3 of 3 P L A N N I N G 13. The IS/MND disclosed that a traffic management plan would be required for construction within West Coast Highway. All haul vehicles would be required to comply with applicable California Vehicle Code Section 23114,which requires all haul loads to be covered. 14. The administrative process regarding the review of all construction plans, hydrology, and hydraulic calculations are acknowledged. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 15. See response#9, above. 16. The need for a letter from the City concurring/approving the Project is acknowledged. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 17. The proposed improvements within West Coast Highway would be required to be consistent with all applicable Caltrans standards. 18. The proposed monument sign would be utilized only for on-site business advertisement associated with the proposed car dealership. The responses provided above to the Caltrans comment received by the City of Newport Beach indicate that the impacts associated with the AutoNation of Newport Beach project were adequately analyzed in the IS/MND and no revisions or additional analysis is required. Sincerely, qmbn /' Shawn Nevill, Senior Project Manager T&B PLANNING WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 13� STATE•OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN Jr G.,e..r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE,SUITE 100 IRVINE,CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949)724-2086 FAX (949)724-2592 Serious drought. TTY 711 Help save water.! www.dot.ca.eov August 12, 2016 File: IGR/CEQA Mr. James Campbell SCH#: 2016071023 City of Newport Beach 12-ORA-2016-00065 Community Development Dept. SR-1 PM18.531-18.622 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Campbell: The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership project(SCH#2016071023). The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and efficient development. The proposed project consists of construction and operation of a 37,347 square feet automobile sales and service facility including a showroom, outdoor vehicle display areas, offices, service facility, vehicle inventory storage and employee parking on the roof of the building. A tentative parcel map is proposed to consolidate I 1 existing lots creating one 1.64 acre lot. Existing commercial uses and buildings will be removed. The project also includes a 12 foot dedication along the Coast Highway frontage and will include the widening of Coast Highway creating a new 3rd northbound traffic lane fronting the project site and the two abutting properties to the east and west. Caltrans is a Responsible Agency on this project, and has the following comments: Traffic Operations: 1. The design of the driveways should be based on Section 205 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). Caltrans HDM Chapter 200 Geometric Design can be found here: http://www.dot.ca.eov/ha/onnd/hdm/ndf/en lig sh/chpO200.pdf Also refer to 2015 Standard Plan A87A. http://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/esc/oe/construction standards.html 2. The wheelchair ramps should be provided across curbs that are constructed and/or replaced at pedestrian crosswalks. All design and construction must be in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements. Please see Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-05 Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/oppd/dib/dib82-05.pd "Provide a safe,sustainable.integrated and efficient transportation system 131D to enhance California's economy and livability" a Mr. Campbell, City of Newport Beach August 12, 2016 Page 2 3. All intersection Capacity Analysis for the intersection within State Right-of-Way (R/W) should conducted by the Highway Capacity Manual Methodology (HCM) 2010 methodology. Caltrans' requests all applicants to use the method outlined in the latest version of the HCM when analyzing traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities. Caltrans prefers the use of HCM because it is an operational analysis as opposed to the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)method, which is a planning analysis. In the case of projects that have direct impacts on State Facilities, Caltrans recommends an encroachment permit, Traffic Operations may find the Traffic Impact Study based on ICU methodology inadequate resulting in the possible delay or denial of a permit by Caltrans. All input sheets, assumptions and volumes on State Facilities including ramps and intersection analysis should be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. The MND should include appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts. The traffic impact on the state transportation system should be evaluated based on Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which is available at: httt ://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/iar ceaa files/tisguide.pdf 4. All Geometric Designs are to be submitted for further review and approval. 5. Sight distance, per Table 405.1 B of HDM,will need to be designed for stopping sight distance and comer sight distance. Stopping sight distance is 500 ft. Corner sight distance is 605 ft. Refer to section 405.1 for details. Caltrans HDM Chapter 400 can be found here: bU://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/onnd/hdm/pdf/en lig sh/chp0400.t)df 6. The Traffic Impact Study(TIS) should include a queue analysis of the on/off-ramps for Caltrans facilities at Coast Highway at Newport Blvd. using actual signal timing, not optimal (default) signal timing. For queue analysis on Caltrans off-ramps and intersections, refer to the HCM 2010 methodology, and utilize Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010. For queue/storage length analysis on Caltrans on-ramps, refer to the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual (RMDM)methodology. Please update the TIS with this information, and resubmit to Caltrans for review. 7. Provide an outline for Lane Transition from 3 lanes to 2 lanes. 8. Provide an explanation on how to incorporate the Class II bike lane as part of this project. Storm Water/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 9. Discharges of storm water and non storm water discharging towards the State R/W must comply with the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Storm Water Permit as well as the NPDES Construction General Permit(CGP) for construction site discharges. Any discharges or construction that impact State R/W must obtain an "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system �3 n to enhance California's economy and livability" J Mr. Campbell, City of Newport Beach August 12, 2016 Page 3 encroachment permit from Caltrans including providing a SWPPP for approval for work within State R/W as well as a WQMP for reference. 10. The project proposes the construction of a retaining wall at the back of the slope adjacent to the property. If subsurface groundwater is encountered and must be discharged towards the State R/W, these discharges must comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) dewatering/deminimus discharge requirements. 11. The project proposes a treatment Best Management Practice (per the MND and WQMP) within private property that eventually connects to the State's drainage system on Coast Highway. To ensure that the treatment BMP (Modular Wetland) functions as designed by the manufacturer, proper maintenance by the property owner must be carried out so that the discharges sent towards the state drainage system is not in violation of a local water quality requirements regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Encroachment Permit: 12. Any work performed within Caltrans right-of-way (R/W) will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W prior to construction. For specific details Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition is available on the web site: htti)://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ea/. 13. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for construction vehicles should be submitted to Caltrans as part of the Encroachment Permit process in order to minimize the impacts to State Highway facilities, and in order to provide notification of potential bike/pedestrian detour routes to interested parties. Any hauling of materials should not occur during A.M. and P.M. peak periods of travel on State facilities during demolition and/or construction of the proposed project. All vehicle loads should be covered so that materials do not blow over or onto the Caltrans' R/W. Hydraulics: 14. Final construction plans, hydrology and hydraulic calculations need to be reviewed and approved by hydraulics branch during Encroachment Permit Process. 15. Run-off from the proposed property must be intercepted before it reaches the State R/W. 16. Caltrans will need a letter from City of Newport Beach concurring, approval of this proposal prior to Caltrans final approval. 17. Use Caltrans Standards for any construction within Caltrans R/W. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportalion system `I O to enhance California's economy and livability" 4T Mr. Campbell, City of Newport Beach August 12, 2016 Page 4 Outdoor Advertising(ODA): 18. The proposed monument sign appears to be intended for on-premise advertising, so long as these displays only operate as an on-premise display, as defined in Business and Professions Code 5272(a)(4) of the Outdoor Advertising Act, ODA will not require an ODA permit and will consider them to be legally conforming. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Leila Carver at (949) 756-7827. Sincerely, f�l� MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional-Community-Transit Planning District 12 c: OPR State Clearinghouse Socheata Chhouk, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Newport Beach Public Works "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient nansportatton system to enhance California's economy and livability 2J 2 A I , LI Tustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA 1N 923-007 P I A N N I N G 17542 East 17th Street. Suits 100 Tustin. CA 92780 p714.505.6360 }714.505.6361 August 10, 2016 Jim Campbell, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach RE: AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mr. Campbell: As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consultant contracted to prepare the AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), you asked that I supply a response to the comment letters received by the City of Newport Beach related to IS/MND. A response to the substantive points of the comment letters are provided below, and each of the comment letters are included as attachments to this letter. Gale Demmer(July 12, 2016) The commenter raises issues with allowing the storage and employee parking on the roof of the structure, and issues associated with scenic resources. Impacts associated with visual resources were addressed in section 5.41 of the IS/MND. The commenter does not identify any specific deficiencies related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Aesthetics section of the IS/MND or elsewhere in the document. Ned McCune (August 8,2016) The comment expresses support for the project and does not specifically address the IS/MND. Roger R. Otte(August 3,2016) Impacts associated with glare from the proposed Project are discussed on pages 5-21 and 5-22 of the IS/MND, which identify that potentially significant impacts associated with glare could occur related to windows along the Project's frontage. Mitigation Measure AE-1 was identified to reduce the potential for glare impacts to less than significant. No large components that would have the potential to produce substantial levels of glare (i.e., large expanses of glass or reflective/metallic elements) are proposed on the roof of the structure. Impacts associated with glare were fully addressed in the IS/MND and no further analysis is warranted. Noise impacts associated with the operation of the Project were addressed in Section 5.4.12 of the IS/MND. The operational analysis was based on a technical report that quantified operational noise levels at sensitive receptor locations within the Project area and identified that the Project would not exceed the City's noise thresholds for operational noise. However, in an abundance of caution, a mitigation measure (MM N-4) was included in the IS/MND which would restrict the use of car horns within the dealership in orderto further reduce the potential for operational nuisance noise to nearby residents. The commenter does not identify any specific deficiencies in the noise analysis. WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 11 A I AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS L I August 10, 2016 J Page 2 of 2 P L A N N I N G Todd Otte (August 3, 2016) The commenter indicates disagreement with the noise analysis in the IS/MND. As discussed in the response to the comment from Roger R. Otte, the noise technical study did not identify that a potentially significant operational noise impact would occur. Accordingly, while the mitigation measure MM N-4 was included to avoid nuisance noise to nearby residents,a mitigation measure requiring a physical noise barrier at the roof of the structure is not warranted. The retaining wall would be subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to approval of the building permits,which would ensure that the design of the improvements would be structurally adequate. The responses provided above to the comments received by the City of Newport Beach indicate that the impacts associated with the AutoNation of Newport Beach project were adequately analyzed in the IS/MND and no revisions or additional analysis is required. Sincerely, 44 Shawn Nevill, Senior Project Manager T&B PLANNING WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 2� From: pale demmer To: Campbell,James Subject: AutoNation Porsche Project-Mariners Mile Date: Tuesday,July 12,2016 10:40:37 AM Hi Jim! I ask for your sensitive review of the storage and employee parking on the roof of the AutoNation facility.. I am opposed to allowing cars, lights, storage and landscaping to be a visual part of the scenic vista the residents enjoy overlooking this area,. Though this project does not affect me directly, I am concerned about the precedent this may have on all future developments on Mariners Mile. While the community thinks of this area as a viable economic resource for our community, (and it certainly is) the residents also think of it as part of our scenic environment and care very much about the visual enhancements that are planned for the area.. Storage can become an all inclusive nebulous thing. The precedent of allowing open roof top parking and storage on Mariners Mile I have always opposed. Thank you so much for listening and thank you, for what you do. Gail Demmer 1-4.4- From: Ned McCune 7o: Kramer, Kory Cc: Koettina.Peter; Zak.Peter; Dunlap. Bill; Hillaren.Bradley; rlawlenolnewportbeach.ca.goy;Weigand. Erik; Campbell,lames Subject: PA 2015-095,320-600 West Coast Highway Date: Monday,August 08,2016 12:46:07 PM Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Reference: PA 2015 — 095, 320-600 West Coast Highway I am the owner of the building at 2700 West Coast Highway. I am vitally interested in the redevelopment of Mariners Mile. The one thousand front feet on the inland side at the southeast end had been an embarrassment for decades. Finally, the lower half became the modern and attractive Mariners Pointe. The upper half begs to follow suit and become something the city can be proud of. The Auto Nation plan would fit the district like the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle. It would consolidate the district's reputation as the place to shop for luxury automobiles. Along with fine dining, this is Mariners Mile's new identity. To reject this application would say to businesses here that we must always remain a living reminder of the 1950s. I assume you have taken a close look at the buildings there now. They have been refurbished and painted, but that's as far as any landlord will go absent approval from you of a plan. If not this plan, then what? Most other ideas won't work on this narrow parcel. Auto Nation is the answer. Ned McCune 949 646 2076 145 From: Roper R. Otte 7o: Campbell.lames Subject: File No: PA2015-095 Auto Nation Porsche Date: Wednesday,August 03,2016 2:00:58 PM James Campbell Steve Rosansky recently presented us with the revised plan for the subject project. This new plan is just not acceptable . Without a solid roof covering the third floor level, we are exposed to significant noise and glare from the employee parking lot and the Auto Nation Porsche storage area in the location. I understand there is an attempt in the Design to cover the Auto Nation Porsche portion with metal sectional roofing to reduce sun glare. Nothing for the employee parking. The height pf this third floor level and the proximity to our home is a big problem for us, both for noise and glare. We would like the third floor level to be covered with a solid roof to mitigate these problems. This same issue was solved at Mariners' Pointe by adding the top floor with a roof. Please enter this request with your file for the August 18,2016 Planning Commission Session. Please confirm your receipt of this communication. Thank you Roger Otte 521 Kings Rd Newport Beach Ca 92663 949 642 6918 140 From: Otte, Todd To: Camcbell.lames Subject: Porsche Dealership on PCH Date: Wednesday,August 03,2016 11:17:54 AM Importance: High James, First I would like to say thank you for taking the time to talk with me the other day regarding the Proposed Porsche dealership on PCH Although I have not looked at the application I have seen they have completed a full CEQA,analysis on the proposed development which includes a Noise Study. The Noise Study does take into account the proposed parking on the third floor and states that the "impact is less than significant to the nearest receptors (housing)" which I do not believe to be accurate. They have a mitigation measure that restricts the use of horns by the employees, but I do not see any recommendations in the report to cover the third floor since they claim that the impact is less than significant. As I mentioned on the phone I believe there should be a condition put in place that requires the developer to enclose the entire structure completely(not just the retail cars), not with just soft roofing but an actual hard lid. I firmly believe the developer has VEed the project to protect their retail cars and have left the employee and visitor parking open/exposed to the neighbors based on cost. This development will significantly impact the property value of the houses above the dealership, subjecting them to noise, reflection and visual eyesores for those having to look down on the parking deck. In addition, I would like to formally request further studied be completed on the retaining walls/soils and how it is being tied into the slope.As we all know the design, method, quality and extensiveness on how this accomplished is critical to the stability of the slope and the houses above If submitting letters to the Planning commission would be helpful to motive the developer to "do the right thing"for the neighborhood, that can be arranged as well. Please let me know that you have received this email and that it is being submitted to the commission as an opposition to the project based on its current designs. Again, if the developer would like to spend time with me on site or on the phone I am happy to accommodate this conversation Thank you, Todd Otte Mariners Church Development & Operations Officer 5001 Newport Coast Dr. 247 Irvine, Ca 92603 949-769-8496 248 From: Roper R. Otte 7o: Campbell.lames Subject: File No: PA2015-095 Auto Nation Porsche Date: Wednesday,August 03,2016 2:00:58 PM James Campbell Steve Rosansky recently presented us with the revised plan for the subject project. This new plan is just not acceptable . Without a solid roof covering the third floor level, we are exposed to significant noise and glare from the employee parking lot and the Auto Nation Porsche storage area in the location. I understand there is an attempt in the Design to cover the Auto Nation Porsche portion with metal sectional roofing to reduce sun glare. Nothing for the employee parking. The height pf this third floor level and the proximity to our home is a big problem for us, both for noise and glare. We would like the third floor level to be covered with a solid roof to mitigate these problems. This same issue was solved at Mariners' Pointe by adding the top floor with a roof. Please enter this request with your file for the August 18,2016 Planning Commission Session. Please confirm your receipt of this communication. Thank you Roger Otte 521 Kings Rd Newport Beach Ca 92663 949 642 6918 149 From: Otte, Todd To: Camcbell.lames Subject: Porsche Dealership on PCH Date: Wednesday,August 03,2016 11:17:54 AM Importance: High James, First I would like to say thank you for taking the time to talk with me the other day regarding the Proposed Porsche dealership on PCH Although I have not looked at the application I have seen they have completed a full CEQA,analysis on the proposed development which includes a Noise Study. The Noise Study does take into account the proposed parking on the third floor and states that the "impact is less than significant to the nearest receptors (housing)" which I do not believe to be accurate. They have a mitigation measure that restricts the use of horns by the employees, but I do not see any recommendations in the report to cover the third floor since they claim that the impact is less than significant. As I mentioned on the phone I believe there should be a condition put in place that requires the developer to enclose the entire structure completely(not just the retail cars), not with just soft roofing but an actual hard lid. I firmly believe the developer has VEed the project to protect their retail cars and have left the employee and visitor parking open/exposed to the neighbors based on cost. This development will significantly impact the property value of the houses above the dealership, subjecting them to noise, reflection and visual eyesores for those having to look down on the parking deck. In addition, I would like to formally request further studied be completed on the retaining walls/soils and how it is being tied into the slope.As we all know the design, method, quality and extensiveness on how this accomplished is critical to the stability of the slope and the houses above If submitting letters to the Planning commission would be helpful to motive the developer to "do the right thing"for the neighborhood, that can be arranged as well. Please let me know that you have received this email and that it is being submitted to the commission as an opposition to the project based on its current designs. Again, if the developer would like to spend time with me on site or on the phone I am happy to accommodate this conversation Thank you, Todd Otte Mariners Church Development & Operations Officer 5001 Newport Coast Dr. 150 Irvine, Ca 92603 949-769-8496 152 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Pagel of 2 August 9, 2016 co�Man City of Newport Beach AUG MIS Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 p DEVELOPMENT Attention:James Campbell, Principal Planner �FOP'VEWPoa"m�P4 Subject:AutoNation Porsche Project General Plan, Newport Beach File No: PA2015-095 Reference is made to your notice of Public Hearing on August 18, 2016, a copy of which is attached.We note that the city has prepared a Negative Declaration stating that the subject development will not result In a significant effect on the environment and requests comments. We,the undersigned,who live adjacent or in close vicinity to the proposed project, find it unacceptable as presented. It is to be way overbuilt for the size of the property.The existing zoning laws and requirements therein are presently fair to both the residences and to the business properties without any special user permits. As you are aware,this section of Pacific Coast Highway differs in that it has near residences on both sides. We are most concerned with the following: 1. Massive buildings 2. Height of buildings and elevator tower 3. Parking on roof a. Noise from car engines,horns,shutting doors b. Car lights 4. .-Ahything else on roof that creates problems for neighbors If the project is approved,a roof(no screen) covering the entire structure should be mandatory and without parking thereon. We believe that unless this property is properly developed, it will reduce the value of homes in the area.Your careful consideration of our concerns wilt be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 152 CITY OF NEWPORT'BEAGH Plarjnmg Commissrc3rz August 1$ 2U16 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN Cf3eM No. 4e Additional Materials Received NOTICE IS,HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, August Ik2 a6itimhaila4 �f i pfdt rr khh d95) shall be heard, a public hearing -will be-1.conducted in the Council Cham,Ws at 100.,Civic Center.Driven'Newports:; Beach. The Planning CommissionW-the City,of Newport Beach Will.consider.the-fdllowing;appllcation _ AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beactt Site Development Review Conditional Use Permit,'and Traffic Study for the construc�tion'.and operation of a 37 34f square foot automobi(e4sales and service faality (dealership) ' includtrig a showroom outdoor vehicle display areas offices, service# `ciitty, vehicle inventory storage and employee parking an the roo ,of the builtling A `fentative.Pacelt%""'11,klepursec� to consolidate 11 existing lots creating ane 1 64 afire lot 1 �ci3#i`ng commercial uses and buildThe protect also inclutla's a 12 foot dedfcatron along the boast Hicj3tvJ y frof�tage end yU1f� ett�� w ep[hg of Goas# Highway cr etif}g a riew,3 northbound=traffic lane°fron#mat Ete ptole sc#e artd the°fuyoxabUt n r6 ernes_#o the east-anti west g P NtOTIGE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negafi-v "Deci`aration has been prepared by the Cityvof Newport Beach in ednnection with the application noted above The Negative Declaration states that the sutleot d�velaprnent will not result in a"significant effect on tfi'e enwrorirtien�t 1t is;the present intention of tfie Cify to aocept the' GJegafive,_ f�ealaratiari:and supporting documents 'This is not to be construed as either approval or denia�'by the City of tkio sublet# application _;,Ther City° encourages members of�the ,general public to review and comment :an this,. doeuntentafion Copies.ofetNegatly Deel toh and �f csi-ti ��ci ulr�er�ts�r�a�valabieRfof ubhc review ands www.riewpartbeachca aoY/ceaadacuments, . Ali`interested parties may appear and present#esfimony in tegard,to this application If you cha1lefige thisrofeot rcur#, pimpylt,aybe limited to r2isi onathpse tSsiae`s ypu raised at the public.hearing of irtvur+tter corCe'si5otid rice fi delivered to the C ty ate or prior fc fife, public heanrfg °Ai ministratige procedures.I o appeals aT provided ih foie Newport Beach Murncipal Gode Ghapter0 64. The application may"be continued to a;sTreciflp lu#uYe rheettng date aitl if such an action occurs atldifional public"notice of tte`e cantinuanoe:wilt ;not be'provided:'"Pndr to the public hrKarmg, the agenda; staff report, and"documents may be reenewed a# the Ccommunify-Ciavelapinant impartment 1' rrriit Gerter (Bay C 1st Fioot) at 7 DO_CiVio Center Drive; Newport,Beach3 Califomia,.GA 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www newportbeachca raav/planningcairlinission.. ` individuals riot ak le to a tentl fire meeting may eontact_the Planning Division or c s the City's website after the meefind:to review.the acfiiesn on#his -application For questions regarding this pub6cVheanng iterit`.please contact James Campbell, Principa! 'P#ani er, at (949) 6A4 3210 or IcainpbellCe?nev�poitbeachca raoy. Protect Fite No:; PA201"5-095 Activity No SD2015 002, 11P201s0 NP2015 010 Zane CG(General Commercial} General Plan CG (General Commercial) LoOtion X320 600 WY�Coa' t lit I wayhl0 the Markers 3 a. - _& -`Mite"area app c5xii teljrs60 fee Vve'strfeme - -= : ���i•ift" tfott 1 c intersection of West Coast Hrgt way and Dover Drive Feter Koetting, Secretary, Planning commission, City of Newport Beach: .. _ x MIT A 0 153 - Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Subject: FW: Comments:Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Attachments: Autonation_Comments_PC_160816.pdf From: Stop Polluting Our Newport fmailto:Info(cbSPON-NewportBeach.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:17 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik Cc: City Clerk's Office; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Campbell, James Subject: Comments: Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Chair Kramer and Commissioners, Please consider further review and opportunities for neighbors and public to comment on this project. We have identified reasons why this is important in our attached comments. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Marko Popovich President Still Protecting Our N, o k r crmertm=� PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 VIV/Text 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT(SPON)is a S01(c)(3)non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. 1 _T Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received -__ -= port Beach (PA2015-095)AutoNation Porsche of New i • rd Still SProtecting ur Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 OFFICERS PRESIDENT August 16, 2016 Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT Dorothy Kraus Planning Commission TREASURER City of Newport Beach Dennis Baker 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 SECRETARY Allan Beek RE: Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Dear Chair Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: BOARD MEMBERS Nancy Alston Please consider further review and opportunities for neighbors and public to Bruce Bartram comment on this project. Pacific Coast Highway is the central corridor for Don Harvey everyone in Newport Beach, to be seen, heard and lived with pretty much every Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle day. Elaine Linhoff Bobby Lovell If only the public could be given a graphic image of the site which would do justice Jennifer McDonald to the length and visual changes, including the length of the building and the Jeanne Price abrupt change in design and materials from what exists along PCH in that area. Melinda Seely Jack Skinner Nancy skinner Oddly,this project is proceeding even when the new Mariners' Mile Revitalization Jean Watt Master Plan is under consideration. Residents are being asked to attend meetings Portia Weiss to that end but nothing is brought forward regarding this immediate project at Terry Welsh STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport 1515 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received -__ -= port Beach (PA2015-095)AutoNation Porsche of New i • rd Still SProtecting ur Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 August 16, 2016 Page Two Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) the southerly of the Mariners' Mile corridor as it approaches the transition to Upper Newport Bay. Why is Policy LU 6.19.6, Corridor Identity, not a consideration? Why is the City's adoption of a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code in 2010 stated as no longer applicable? The Planning Commission has discretion to modify plans so as to achieve a pleasant and unimposing transition in the appearance of such prominent projects and prominent locations as this one. We hope that the Planning Commission will be sensitive to the sensitive nature of this location and consider the following comments and questions among others. 1. We question the wisdom of the allowed left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway at this location. 2. This is a significant and glaring change to the currently existing views of coastal bluffs and low-rise, low-intensity development. It is also an abrupt and significant change to the area's visual characteristics in its long expanse of connected development. The materials used, such as black smooth corrugated metal panes, black anodized screen mesh, and glazed glass panels, have the appearance of being high tech and glaring in appearance compared with any other development in the area. 3. The height of the whole development including the cars on the roof is very close to the properties above on Kings Road —the cars on the roof are not counted in height. It seems that at the very least, the whole car activity on the roof should be covered completely to do justice to Land Use Policy LU 5.2.2, Buffering Residential Areas. STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and S environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport 750 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received -__ -= port Beach (PA2015-095)AutoNation Porsche of New i • rd Still SProtecting ur Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 August 16, 2016 Page Three Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Thank you for consideration of these and other comments and the sensitivity of this location. .Sii�n,�cerely, / President cc: CNB Planning Commission Kory Kramer, Chair kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Peter Koetting, Vice Chair pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Peter Zak, Commissioner pzak@newportbeachca.gov Bill Dunlap, Commissioner bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Raymond Lawler, Commissioner rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Erik Weigand, Commissioner eweigand@newportbeachca.gov CNB Community Development Staff Kim Brandt, Community Development Director, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Asst. Community Development Director bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Jim Campbell, Principal Planner jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov STOP o A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and S environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H ouA www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport ZJf Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received A ' AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) L ; L Tustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA JN 923-007 P I A N N I N G 17542 East 17th Street, Suits 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 }714.505.6361 August 15, 2016 Jim Campbell, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach RE: AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mr. Campbell: As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consultant contracted to prepare the AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), you asked that I supply a response to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)comment letter received by the City of Newport Beach related to IS/MND after the close of the public comment period. A response to the substantive points of the comment letter is provided below, and the comment letter is included as an attachment to this letter. California Department of Transportation (August 12, 2016) The commenter accurately describes the proposed Project in its introductory paragraph. Responses to each of the commenter's subsequent enumerated comments are provided below, with the response number corresponding to the comment numbers indicated in the comment letter. 1. The City would require the developer to comply with all applicable provisions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, including the design of driveways. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 2. The City would require that the developer comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including the design of wheelchair ramps at pedestrian crosswalks. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 3. A traffic impact analysis was prepared forthe proposed Project and included as Appendix G of the IS/MND. Intersections within State right-of-way were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology and summarized in Section IV titled "State Highway Facilities (Delay Analysis)" beginning on page 45 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic volumes used for analysis of State highway facilities are the same as those shown in Section III (Existing Conditions) and Section V (Future Traffic Volumes). The Level of Service analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix G of the traffic study. The intersection delay and Level of Service results are summarized in Table 7 of the traffic study. As stated on page 46 of the traffic study, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant impacts at the State Highway study intersections for the evaluated scenarios based on the results of the Highway Capacity Manual analysis. 4. The City would ensure that the geometric designs are submitted to Caltrans for review and approval prior to construction. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 2�� Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) I AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS L I August 15, 2016 J Page 2 of 3 P L A N N I N G 5. The City would require the developer to comply with all applicable provisions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, including stopping sight distances and corner sight distances. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 6. A detailed HCS analysis was not warranted based on the following qualitative analysis. Potential project impacts to on/off-ramp queues at SR-55 (Newport Boulevard)/Coast Highway are forecast to be less than significant based on the nominal number of project trips contributed at the off-ramp (see Figures 12 and 13). The proposed project is forecast to add 11 morning peak hourtrips at this location,which is equivalent to less than one project trip every signal cycle (or roughly one vehicle every three cycles). Project generated trips at the off-ramp are forecast to be even lower during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project is not forecast to result in appreciable changes to existing queue lengths at the southbound SR-55/Coast Highway off-ramp. Based on the project trip distribution patterns shown on Figure 11, the proposed project is not forecast to contribute any trips to the SR-55 SB on-ramp (Newport Boulevard) at Coast Highway. Northbound SR-55 is accessed via Old Newport Boulevard, which provides an additional lane downstream of the on-ramp from Old Newport Boulevard and precludes the need for ramp metering. Furthermore, the segment of SR-55 within the study area is designed as an arterial roadway as opposed to a freeway facility; ramp-metering would appear inappropriate in these settings. 7. The requested information regarding the lane transition will be provided to Caltrans by the City. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 8. The conceptual construction drawings (subject to review and approval by Caltrans) for the proposed Project indicate the installation of a bicycle lane along the Project frontage associated with the widening of West Coast Highway. The proposed conceptual improvements to the westbound side of West Coast Highway would include the installation of a 7-footwide bicycle lane within the improvement area,adjacent to the three 12-foot wide westbound travel lanes and an 8-foot wide sidewalk within the westbound right- of-way. Accordingly, the conceptual construction drawings were designed to accommodate the installation of a Class II bicycle lane along the westbound side of West Coast Highway. 9. The proposed Project would divert storm water to an existing storm drain pipeline, no storm water flows would be discharged as surface flows to the State right-of-way. During construction,the proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with water quality, including the implementation of a SWPPP. 10. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, including RWQCB dewatering/de minimus discharge requirements if groundwater is encountered. 11. The comments regarding the maintenance of the proposed water treatment facilities are noted. The proposed Project includes water treatment facilities and the City will condition the project to require regular maintenance of these components. 12. The need for an encroachment permit was identified in the IS/MND. The specific details identified by the commenter are acknowledged. WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 2.7�' Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) I AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS L I August 15, 2016 J Page 3 of 3 P L A N N I N G 13. The IS/MND disclosed that a traffic management plan would be required for construction within West Coast Highway. All haul vehicles would be required to comply with applicable California Vehicle Code Section 23114,which requires all haul loads to be covered. 14. The administrative process regarding the review of all construction plans, hydrology, and hydraulic calculations are acknowledged. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 15. See response#9, above. 16. The need for a letter from the City concurring/approving the Project is acknowledged. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis provided in the IS/MND. 17. The proposed improvements within West Coast Highway would be required to be consistent with all applicable Caltrans standards. 18. The proposed monument sign would be utilized only for on-site business advertisement associated with the proposed car dealership. The responses provided above to the Caltrans comment received by the City of Newport Beach indicate that the impacts associated with the AutoNation of Newport Beach project were adequately analyzed in the IS/MND and no revisions or additional analysis is required. Sincerely, qmbn /' Shawn Nevill, Senior Project Manager T&B PLANNING WWW.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 SPATE•OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY eiii No. 4cOMrra` 9Wibl eived DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (P -095) DISTRICT 12 a 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE,SUITE 100 IRVINE,CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949)724-2086 FAX (949)724-2592 Serious drought. TTY 711 Help save water.! www.dot.ca.eov August 12, 2016 File: IGR/CEQA Mr. James Campbell SCH#: 2016071023 City of Newport Beach 12-ORA-2016-00065 Community Development Dept. SR-1 PM18.531-18.622 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Campbell: The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership project(SCH#2016071023). The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and efficient development. The proposed project consists of construction and operation of a 37,347 square feet automobile sales and service facility including a showroom, outdoor vehicle display areas, offices, service facility, vehicle inventory storage and employee parking on the roof of the building. A tentative parcel map is proposed to consolidate I 1 existing lots creating one 1.64 acre lot. Existing commercial uses and buildings will be removed. The project also includes a 12 foot dedication along the Coast Highway frontage and will include the widening of Coast Highway creating a new 3rd northbound traffic lane fronting the project site and the two abutting properties to the east and west. Caltrans is a Responsible Agency on this project, and has the following comments: Traffic Operations: 1. The design of the driveways should be based on Section 205 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). Caltrans HDM Chapter 200 Geometric Design can be found here: http://www.dot.ca.eov/ha/onnd/hdm/ndf/en lig sh/chpO200.pdf. Also refer to 2015 Standard Plan A87A. http://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/esc/oe/construction standards.html 2. The wheelchair ramps should be provided across curbs that are constructed and/or replaced at pedestrian crosswalks. All design and construction must be in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements. Please see Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-05 Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects http://www.dot.ca. og v/hg/opnd/dib/dib82-05.pdf "Provide a safe,sustainable.integrated and efficient transportation system 2�2 to enhance California's economy and livability" Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Mr. Campbell, City of Newport Beach August 12, 2016 Page 2 3. All intersection Capacity Analysis for the intersection within State Right-of-Way (R/W) should conducted by the Highway Capacity Manual Methodology (HCM) 2010 methodology. Caltrans' requests all applicants to use the method outlined in the latest version of the HCM when analyzing traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities. Caltrans prefers the use of HCM because it is an operational analysis as opposed to the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)method, which is a planning analysis. In the case of projects that have direct impacts on State Facilities, Caltrans recommends an encroachment permit, Traffic Operations may find the Traffic Impact Study based on ICU methodology inadequate resulting in the possible delay or denial of a permit by Caltrans. All input sheets, assumptions and volumes on State Facilities including ramps and intersection analysis should be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. The MND should include appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts. The traffic impact on the state transportation system should be evaluated based on Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which is available at: httt ://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/iar ceaa files/tisguide.pdf 4. All Geometric Designs are to be submitted for further review and approval. 5. Sight distance, per Table 405.1 B of HDM,will need to be designed for stopping sight distance and comer sight distance. Stopping sight distance is 500 ft. Corner sight distance is 605 ft. Refer to section 405.1 for details. Caltrans HDM Chapter 400 can be found here: bU://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/onnd/hdm/pdf/en lig sh/chp0400.t)df 6. The Traffic Impact Study(TIS) should include a queue analysis of the on/off-ramps for Caltrans facilities at Coast Highway at Newport Blvd. using actual signal timing, not optimal (default) signal timing. For queue analysis on Caltrans off-ramps and intersections, refer to the HCM 2010 methodology, and utilize Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010. For queue/storage length analysis on Caltrans on-ramps, refer to the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual (RMDM)methodology. Please update the TIS with this information, and resubmit to Caltrans for review. 7. Provide an outline for Lane Transition from 3 lanes to 2 lanes. 8. Provide an explanation on how to incorporate the Class II bike lane as part of this project. Storm Water/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 9. Discharges of storm water and non storm water discharging towards the State R/W must comply with the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Storm Water Permit as well as the NPDES Construction General Permit(CGP) for construction site discharges. Any discharges or construction that impact State R/W must obtain an "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system 16� to enhance California's economy and livability" Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Mr. Campbell, City of Newport Beach August 12, 2016 Page 3 encroachment permit from Caltrans including providing a SWPPP for approval for work within State R/W as well as a WQMP for reference. 10. The project proposes the construction of a retaining wall at the back of the slope adjacent to the property. If subsurface groundwater is encountered and must be discharged towards the State R/W, these discharges must comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) dewatering/deminimus discharge requirements. 11. The project proposes a treatment Best Management Practice (per the MND and WQMP) within private property that eventually connects to the State's drainage system on Coast Highway. To ensure that the treatment BMP (Modular Wetland) functions as designed by the manufacturer, proper maintenance by the property owner must be carried out so that the discharges sent towards the state drainage system is not in violation of a local water quality requirements regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). Encroachment Permit: 12. Any work performed within Caltrans right-of-way (R/W) will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W prior to construction. For specific details Encroachment Permits procedure,please refer to the Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition is available on the web site: httv://www.dot.ca.eov/trafficops/en/. 13. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for construction vehicles should be submitted to Caltrans as part of the Encroachment Permit process in order to minimize the impacts to State Highway facilities, and in order to provide notification of potential bike/pedestrian detour routes to interested parties. Any hauling of materials should not occur during A.M. and P.M. peak periods of travel on State facilities during demolition and/or construction of the proposed project. All vehicle loads should be covered so that materials do not blow over or onto the Caltrans' R/W. Hydraulics: 14. Final construction plans, hydrology and hydraulic calculations need to be reviewed and approved by hydraulics branch during Encroachment Permit Process. 15. Run-off from the proposed property must be intercepted before it reaches the State R/W. 16. Caltrans will need a letter from City of Newport Beach concurring, approval of this proposal prior to Caltrans final approval. 17. Use Caltrans Standards for any construction within Caltrans R/W. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system 163 to enhance California's economy and livability" Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Mr. Campbell, City of Newport Beach August 12, 2016 Page 4 Outdoor Advertising(ODA): 18. The proposed monument sign appears to be intended for on-premise advertising, so long as these displays only operate as an on-premise display, as defined in Business and Professions Code 5272(a)(4) of the Outdoor Advertising Act, ODA will not require an ODA permit and will consider them to be legally conforming. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Leila Carver at (949) 756-7827. Sincerely, f�l� MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional-Community-Transit Planning District 12 c: OPR State Clearinghouse Socheata Chhouk, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Newport Beach Public Works "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient nansportatton system to enhance California's economy and livability" J1 204 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Subject: FW: Proposed Porsche Dealership PCH Attachments: Neighborhood Response to Proposed Autonation Project.docx From:jerry palanjian<ieMTalanjianggmail.com> Date: August 16, 2016 at 12:03:27 PM PDT To: <kkramer(a,newportbeachca,Roy>, <bdunlap(a),newportbeachca.gov>, <pkoctting_na,newportbeachca.gov>, <bhillgrennd,newportbeachca.gov>, <rlawler(a,newportbeachca.gov>, <eweigand(a),newportbeachca.gov>, <pzak(a(7newportbeachca.gov>, <jbiddleC&,,ncwportbeacca.gov>, <dcampap gnolo( newportbeachca.gov> Cc: <garyphil1Asbcg1obal.net>, Gretchen Schreiber<mtss13(&ao1.com>, <jessicaprankin(a,gmail.com> Subject: Re: Proposed Porsche Dealership PCH Commissioners, Please review our thoughts on the proposed Porsche Dealership on PCH. As we state in our letter,we are supportive of the project but have a few concerns that need to be addressed. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration . Respectfully, Jerry Palanjian 603 Kings Road (949)633-8888 Gary&Sandy Hill 501 Kings Road (949)795-3486 Gretchen Schreiber 503 Kings Road Roger&Betty Otte 521 Kings Road Howard &Lana Larsen 407 Kings Place And Many Other Concerned Residents of Kings Road and Cliffhaven 1 Z�J� Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Neighborhood Response to Proposed Autonation Porsche Project Dear Newport Beach Planning Commissioners, While we support the proposed Porsche of Newport Beach PCH project we also have four significant concerns. We believe these concerns can be easily addressed and the project can be completed and exist with the support of the community. 1. Noise a. During construction phase: since this will be a major project with significant noise levels we wish limited hours of construction. b. After completion of project: we are concerned with the hours of operation once the project is completed. L Noise from auto-bays. ii. Noise from large auto-lifts moving vehicles between floors. iii. Or any other noise from the operation of the dealership. Suggested Solutions • Consider limited hours during construction to lessen impact on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Alter hours allowed in Municipal Code 10.28.040 from Weekdays 7:OOam-6:30pm to 8:OOam-5:30pm and Saturday 8:OOam-6:OOpm to 9:OOam-5:OOpm. • Consider a noise abatement program (10.26.090) for hours of business operations (especially the use of auto-lifts/mechanical work in auto-bays). • As other neighbors have suggested, cover the third floor. 2. Property Foundation a. Structural soundness of the hillside and retaining wall upon which residents live. i. Erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and floods are major concerns to Cliff Haven residents and any alteration of current structural foundation may damage an already concerning situation. Suggested Solutions: • Hire a third party to ensure the soundness of the hillside during and upon completion of the construction process. 3. Power Lines a. Powerlines may be a danger during construction and ultimately to employees/customers after completion. If powerlines are not put 100 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) underground during this construction project it will be much more difficult to do so in the future. Suggested Solutions • Move powerlines underground before or during construction. 4. Obstructed Views a. A roughly 47 foot foot high structure with cars parked on the top floor and large auto-lift towers protruding in two locations may adversely affect Cliff Haven residents'views. This structure appears to be much higher than others along PCH. Suggested Solutions: • Ensure that project adheres to city height regulations. • Ensure that the structure is aesthetically appealing from all sides of the project, including the roof. • Ensure that views of the residents above project are not obstructed. • Show residents a physical survey of the proposed plan to demonstrate exactly where the top of the building (at the highest point) will be. As planning commissioners of our great city,we ask that you seriously consider our suggested solutions. Thank you for your careful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Jerry Palanjian 603 Kings Road Gary Hill 503 Kings Road Gretchen Schreiber 607 Kings Road Howard&Lana Larsen 407 Kings Place Roger&Betty Otte 521 Kings Road And Many Other Concerned Kings Road and Cliffhaven Residents 16� Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Page 1 of 2 August 9, 2016 ��6 LyOdNt3N yo �O -f'e 1N3MOIRA90 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive 910? 9 I 9(ld Newport Beach, CA 92660 ,wNnwwoo Attention: James Campbell, Principal Planner Subject: AutoNation Porsche Project General Plan, Newport Beach File No: PA2015-095 Reference is made to your notice of Public Hearing on August 18, 2016,a copy of which is attached.We note that the city has prepared a Negative Declaration stating that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment and requests comments. We, the undersigned,who live adjacent or in close vicinity to the proposed project, find it unacceptable as presented. It is to be way overbuilt for the size of the property.The existing zoning laws and requirements therein are presently fair to both the residences and to the business properties without any special user permits. As you are aware,this section of Pacific Coast Highway differs in that it has near residences on both sides. We are most concerned with the following: 1. Massive buildings 2. Height of buildings and elevator tower 3. Parking on roof a. Noise from car engines, horns, shutting doors b. Car lights 4. Anything else on roof that creates problems for neighbors If the project is approved,a roof(no screen) covering the entire structure should be mandatory and without parking thereon. We believe that unless this property is properly developed, it will reduce the value of homes in the area. Your careful consideration of our concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 108 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Page 2 of 2 I Homeowners Addresses�J �C mal u,unc�S I�� a < yZ� /G � til qi o n6(U _6-02- 16 4�s R � NA 2�9 Tom & Nancy Szulga 2612 Circle Drive, Newport Beach—Bayshores Resident September 26, 2016 RE: AutoNation Porsche Dealership &Service Center proposal Dear Planning Commission and City Council, Tom, Nancy, and Rebecca Szulga are against the proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership&Service Center development for the following reasons; • This proposed project does not fit the theme, look, or quality of residential life for the Mariners Mile or City of Newport Beach. AutoNation is proposing a 500-foot-long, 50-foot-tall building, in-between two of Newport Beach's oldest family neighborhoods, Newport Heights& Bayshores. AutoNation,the Planning Commission, and the City Council are turning the Mariners Mile into "The Harbor Blvd of Cars"or the Cerritos Auto Center. This type of development is better suited along the 55, 73, or 405 Freeway, not through the center of Newport Beach where 1000's of families live. • AutoNation has proved time after time that they are not a good neighbor at their current location near the corner of PCH and Bayside Drive. With AutoNation's countless violations from the City of Newport Beach for unloading vehicles in the middle of Bayside Drive& PCH, noise & lighting complaints from neighbors, and the storing of 158 cars at the Dunes Resort (see attached photos taken 9/26/16)without a permit from the City,we cannot take their word that they will be a good neighbor this time at this location. AutoNation's past actions speak louder than their current words. • We would like a noise study to see how loud and how far the tailpipe noise from a 2016 Porsche 911, elevated 50 feet above the street level of PCH, equipped with the"sports exhaust system option",travels into the Bayshores, and the Newport Heights community. If this proposal is passed and built,we will have to live with this noise coming from the moving of parked cars on the 3rd level, 50 feet above PCH. Porsches website brags about the loud noise of its cars. Under the description of the sports exhaust system option for the 2017 model 911: "for impressive resonance and an intense sports car sound—typical of the 911, and for goose bumps at the push of a button." The families of Bayshores, and Newport Heights do not need or want these Porsche "goose bumps". • The true height of this project is not 35 feet, but actually 50 feet. While it is within the 35 feet height limit when measured along the natural slope of the hill,the real height when it's measured from the street level of PCH is almost 50 feet. AutoNation and its representatives have repeatedly stated that this is how to measure structures in Newport Beach, but residential projects mainly use this measurement technique to add height for a better view, not to sneak in a 3`d level for storing cars 50 feet above the surrounding 260 homes in Bayshores and raising those cars closer to the 1000's of homes in Newport Heights. 17L) • This 500-foot-long, 50-foot-tall, shiny silver building, will be visible from most of the Bayshores streets, and from many of the two-story homes located in Bayshores, Day and Night. • AutoNation and its representatives have repeatedly stated that this project will not affect the residential real estate values in Bayshores or Newport Heights. I have to strongly disagree. Having been license by the California Bureau of Real Estate since 1996, 1 have never had a potential home buyer say"can you find me a place near a car dealership?" If fact, when we have shown property near Sterling BMW, up on Santa Ana Ave in Newport Heights,the buyers have told us, "nice home, nice ocean view, location above car dealership with lights and noise— we'II pass". It is our belief, and most of Bayshores will agree with us, that this project should not be built in its current form at this location. If this was a bar, sober living or drug treatment facility with the operator having AutoNation's history of violations,the decision from the City would be an easy no. But with the large amount of potential sales tax revenue from the sale of$100,000 to$200,000 sports cars, it looks like it could be a yes from the City. If approved, your actions will be remembered for years as the Planning Commission and City Council members that destroyed two of Newport Beach's oldest family neighborhoods. With AutoNation's history of being a bad neighbor to the residents and City of Newport Beach,you must not reward them with the go-ahead for this project. Thank you, Tom, Nancy, and Rebecca Szulga 2�2 r '♦ ' f 06 �. . ' ,n qr �I a �f s- 4� + i i bk+ 1 ft t1 M C •i 1.t 4 y i h t y t r �a e �rk { �� y ,« From: Lisa Stanton To: Campbell,James; Kramer, Korv; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillaren, Bradley; Lawler,Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak.Peter; Biddle.Jennifer;Campaanolo. Daniel Cc: David Stanton Subject: Objection to AutoNation pending application, Mariners"Mile Date: Friday,September 23,2016 1:53:37 PM To: Jim Campbell, Principal Planner, City of Newport Beach Members, Planning Commission, Newport Beach My husband David and I oppose AutoNation's application now before the Newport Beach Planning Commission. We are Bayshores residents, but our concern is broader than the foreseeable effects such development will generate for Bayshores and the immediatley surrounding residential communities. Notwithstanding that the proposed submitted plan may conform to standard building guidelines for the city , this location is not appropriate for a structure of this mass, the length of 2 football fields, and consisting of usage that emits toxicity, creates an unsafe environment, and increases noise and traffic levels. This particular location is impacted by residential neighborhoods on either side, unlike other stretches of Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity. While there are other automotive businesses, none are of this height and scale. At the community meeting, we heard that AutoNation was unable to find another location, and is "hamstringed" by Porsche's architectural design requirements. It is not our community's problem that the applicant has not secured an alternate location, nor are we subject to the dictates of a German auto manufacturer. It is of important note that AutoNation is the subject of a history of violations, (including current ones), of their existing Conditional Use Permit at their current nearby location, thereby demonstrating that they are a proven untrustworthy entity. Due to the space constraints in the currently proposed plan - (it is a "tight squeeze" into that lot, such that they are proposing extensive retaining walls, hydraulic car elevators, roof-top parking, a fully enclosed service department that will somehow need venting of toxic waste, car transport drop off ingress and egress conditions that will not be realistically sufficient) - we can safely assume violations will continue. We have no reason to , and would be foolish to trust AutoNation to act differently than they already have repeatedly in our community. If this project is allowed to go forward, this structure will negatively impact the character of our community. The Mariners' Mile concept plan, while not finalized, is in development to create a comprehensive design concept for an attractive, pedestrian-friendly mix of retail, food, and other like amenities that members of the community and others would actually use and enjoy. A massive Porsche dealership does not in any way fit that concept. While I understand there is no moratorium in place while the Mariners' Mile concept plan is in development, shouldn't we be mindful during this process and consider how we view plans that are submitted in terms of these long-range goals? We are 1715 reminded by the applicant that there are several auto dealers currently on Pacific Coast Highway. None are of this mass and scale as the proposed project, (nor do they have residents on both sides), but I further submit that perhaps in a changing environment , this area of Pacific Coast Highway may not in the long term be the location of car dealerships as it evolves. It is foreseeable that a phasing out of this type of business in this location will over time occur. If this dealership is built, we will be stuck with it for many many years. Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration of our serious concerns, and it is our hope that you will deny this application. Lisa & David Stanton 2692 Circle Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lisa Stanton 949.650.7447 (home) 949.375.0091 (cell) 270 From: Lisa Stanton 7o: Campbell,James Cc: Patrick; Hank Pellegrini Subject: Bayshores Informational Presentation by James Campbell, Principal Planner, City of Newport Beach Date: Saturday, September 17,2016 11:12:45 PM Dear Jim I concur with Patrick Gormley and Hank Pelligrini , and want to also convey my thanks to you for taking time from your weekend to meet with our community. For many of us who do not deal with these types of matters on a regular basis, there is a lot to learn about the mechanics of this process. Your explanations and descriptions provided us with much insight as we individually, and as a community, determine how we will approach this proposed project. I look forward to Auto Nation's presentation next week, and will reserve my comments (under separate cover) to be forwarded to planning commission members until after that meeting. Many thanks again, Lisa Stanton Bayshores resident Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Patrick <jem1981(a)roadrunner.com> Date: September 17, 2016 at 3:44:41 PM PDT To: Campbell James <jcampbell(alnewportbeachca.gov> Cc: kbrandt0)newportbeachca.gov, Pelligrini Hank <han p(dme.com>, Duffy Duffield <dduffield(anewportbeachca.aov> Subject: Bayshores Informational Presentation by James Campbell, Principal Planner, City of Newport Beach Good Afternoon Jim, The homeowners of Bayshores, Hank and I in particular, want to express our appreciation to you for the invaluable assistance, knowledge, and overall expertise you are providing the Community of Bayshores as we learn about the development planning process and decision making within the City of Newport. The nearly two hours you spent with Bayshores residents on Saturday afternoon provided a clearer understanding of how the plans to build a Porsche Dealership and Service Center/Garage/Parking Structure along 177 West Coast Highway on Mariners Mile across from Bayshores and below Newport Heights began, the point the project is currently at within the process, and what the steps and events will take place in the future. During the dialogue and exchange of thoughts, you were professional in your explanations and responses and maintained your composure at all times. We are grateful to you for taking the time on your day off to join us. Your presentation was very informative and exceeded our expectations. Thanks, Patrick Gormley, Hank Pelligrini and the Bayshores Community Begin forwarded message: From: "Campbell, James" <JCampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: Bayshores Annual Meeting Date: September 9, 2016 at 9:07:25 AM PDT To: 'Henry Pellegrini' <hankp(ci)me.com> Cc: "'jem1981(a)roadrunner.com"' <jem 1981(@roadrunner.com> Henry, Just following up. What time do you want me there? I am happy to talk process and schedule, but I won't be debating the project or discussing what changes they are planning other than to say, they are looking at the exterior architecture and the roof cover. The applicant's presentation they are attempting to schedule with your group will do that. Just let me know when. Thanks. Jim Campbell Principal Planner 949-644-3210 -----Original Message----- From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:39 AM To: 'Henry Pellegrini' Subject: RE: Bayshores Annual Meeting I can be there. Just let me know what time. 172 Jim Campbell Principal Planner 949-644-3210 -----Original Message----- From: Henry Pellegrini [mailto:hankp(a)me.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 4:49 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Re: Bayshores Annual Meeting Yep it's a Saturday! Could anyone come in your place if you are u available? Thanks again. Hank Hank Pellegrini (918) 691-4378 mobile Han (a�me.com Please excuse typos...Sent from my iPhone!! On Sep 1, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Campbell, James <JCampbell(@newportbeachca.gov> wrote: A Saturday? I think I will be out of town that day. I will have to get back to you. Jim Campbell On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Henry Pellegrini <han (a)me.com> wrote: ! Sorry, sept 17th Hank Pellegrini (918) 691-4378 mobile HankpO)me.com Please excuse typos...Sent from my iPhone!! On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Campbell, James <JCampbell(c�newportbeachca.gov > wrote: Sounds good, but what is the date of the meeting? 2�9 Jim Campbell Principal Planner 949-644-3210 -----Original Message----- From: Hank Pellegrini [mailto:hankp(@me.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:29 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: Bayshores Annual Meeting Jim, with the AutoNation Porsche project on the horizon for Planning Commission voting, we would like to invite you to our Bayshores Annual Meeting to give a brief overview of how the planning process works and what our rights as homeowners and neighborhoods are. Our meeting is held from 9am- ipm so we could set aside a specific time that would work for you say 15-30 min maximum. Goal is not to debate anything, just to get a better understanding of the process... Appreciate you and your consideration. Best, Hank Bayshores Resident Hank Pellegrini Pellegrini Properties, LLC One Property Management, LLC hankp(a)me.com (918) 691-4378 mobile (918) 574-8782 fax 201 S Denver Ave, Box 1 Tulsa OK 74103 12O From: Biddle.Jennifer To: Campbell,James Subject: FW: Mariner"s Mile Date: Monday,September 19,2016 8:03:51 AM FYI... JM, at dd Administrative Specialist Community Development Department 949-644-3232 From: Sharon Ray [mailto:sharonray9@roadrunner.com] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 5:24 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley, Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Biddle, Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: Mariner's Mile It is very disheartening to hear about the proposed Porsche dealership. It is a project that does not seem consistent in any way with fostering a well planned coastal community. You represent the residents and we are at a critical juncture where your guidance and leadership in crucial. Developers are and will continue to deluge you with projects and reviewing those projects in the context of preserving Newport Beach pivots with you. So how does this project make sense? PCH is already a difficult drive,fostering the massive increase in the movement of cars on this fragile patch of road is painful. Dealers move cars. Big trucks come in loaded with cars. Special sales days to attract customers are ongoing. Everyone with a license wants to test drive a Porsche, see how well it performs and tear up the road. None of this helps residents. The noise factor is crazy. They work on cars, with big loud machines. Revving a Porsche is on the bucket list of many people who will traipse down here for the fun of it. It is a big noisy, industrial mess. The city gets revenue but our house values plummet. Visually it is a horror. Forget any sort of beachside ambience. Throwing an anchor on the monument sign won't cut it. It's two football fields of shiny, industrial panorama. It will be newer than Harbor Blvd in Costa Mesa but not different, not anything that feels like the Newport Beach we love. The chipping away of the height restrictions is wrong. It is 35 feet from the street, not 35 feet from the highest point that an engineer can create. Notch into the hillside, really?And one could well argue that our "hill"feels a lot like a coastal bluff. But with a proliferation of car dealership extravaganzas, it will be a hard core industrial zone regardless of its formal designation. Once approved we can't back off this course. Decades from now people will be asking "what were these people thinking". Mariner's Mile needs help but can't we upgrade without losing the 282 character of our community? Yes, we can and we believe you know that. So please don't rush this through, get a full EIR, develop this in overall context of a plan for Mariner's Mile. Take time, take care. We need your help. Sharon Ray 209 Santa Ana Ave Newport Beach, CA Sha ronray9Proad run ner.com (714) 469-7750 122 Carole McClusky Pewthers 2501 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (949) 650-2929 PROPOSED AUTONATION DEALERSHIP ON MARINER'S MILE The project from 372 to 600 West Coast Highway for a Porsche dealership and service center was to be voted on by the Planning Commission 8/18/2016. The proposed project was not brought to the attention of the Bayshores residents until the morning of 8/18. The dealership group planning the project began reaching out to King's Road residents in June of 2015. At the meeting, they admitted they did not and had no intention of reaching out to Bayshores. I find this to be a significant attempt to get a project approved that the Autonation community is sure Bayshores would reject. The project should not be approved for a number of reasons, but there are two the planning commission should consider before all others. 1. The city is asking for input and conducting sessions so that a master plan will be put in place for the "Mariners Mile". A project of this size and magnitude should certainly be put off until the master plan is in place. 2. The dealership currently allows car carriers to park on PCH and Bayside Drive. This is counter to their agreement with the city. They also have more than twice the number of cars allowed in an expired rental facility in Newport Dunes. (see letter and pictures from Todd Otte) It is unconscionable to allow a company who blatantly does not keep their word to do business in Newport Beach. The residents surrounding this project can be sure they will not keep their word. In addition to the above reason, I would propose that the following be considered when looking at this project. The location of this project is in the center of the only portion of the Miracle Mile that has residential communities surrounding it. All the other locations of the Miracle Mile are commercial on all sides of Pacific Coast Highway. I believe the following reasons should be considered in denying the property at this location. 3. Hours of operation: 7 days a week from 7 in the morning until 9 at night. The proposing group indicated at the meeting that noise and lighting would not affect any neighbors. There is no way they can determine the behavior, horn honking, door slamming, that will occur when Porsche owners drop their cars off for service at 7AM (or 12S before) and throughout the morning. It was brought up at the meeting that the commission should consider the noise and traffic generated by the Fletcher Jones service department. When it was brought up that it was doubtful the dealership would close at 9 if a deal was in place, the answer was "most deals are done in an hour". I find that to be a hypothetical and potentially misleading answer. Employees will be arriving and leaving far beyond the hours published subjecting residents to noise, light and exhaust far beyond what is considered "quiet enjoyment". The residents of Bayshores will be looking up at the proposed lighting even if it is shielded. The lighting from McDonald's is visible and disturbing much less adding more. To have residential communities affected by 14 hour a day 7 days a week commercial venture is not only detrimental to the health and well being of the residents, it is a constant disturbance that should not have to be tolerated. 4. Building details: The building is to be built to "Porsche specs". That is, there is no deviation from the stainless steel fagade. If in fact, the master plan specifies nautical themes (as our guidelines do now) the project would not fit and they indicated they would not be willing to change even though some Porsche dealerships in other communities "fit" the surrounding areas. 5. Noise: There is no way they can prevent noise coming from metal fascia. Wind, hail, rocks, rain will pelt on that material and be a huge distraction. This does not also account for horn honking, door slamming, engine revving, tire squealing and other noises that are not particular to Porsche drivers but certainly are generally a part of the culture and would definitely be a part of the service delivery experience. The project group can do nothing to control the behavior of their customers. 6. Reflection: The stainless steel portion of the building will create a huge reflection problem from the sun. When this was mentioned, the architect indicated "it had not been studied". I would like to point out the terrible distraction the solar panels on Bayside Drive are to all the neighbors. A reflection of that magnitude will not only be a distraction, it will be a disaster for the Bayshores neighbors. 7. Service: At the meeting at the Balboa Bay Club, it became clear that all service will be channeled through this facility. The service that is "heavy" will be driven to another facility. No one has mentioned how many "porters" this will involve and on a busy day, how much service traffic will be backed up onto PCH. It is certain it will happen since they cannot predict how many "porters' they will need on any given day. 8. Elevation: The height of the buildings and, in particular, the elevators seems to be measured by sea level at some points and by actual level at others. The methods seem deceptive and difficult for the public to practically understand. Story poles should be required. The elevator is designed to be 50 feet high. 124 9. The Mitigated Negative Delaration states:The proposed project would result in redevelopment of the Project site by the construction and operation of a building featuring a contemporary architectural design that is consistent with the architectural character of nearby commercial development along the Mariner's Mile Corridor. (Page 19) This project is massive compared to any other building on Mariner's mile 10.Traffic: The study indicated an increase of 672 daily trips on Pacific Coast Highway. The traffic on the highway now is noisy and congested. Adding 672 estimated trips seems ludicrous especially to those of us who have to listen to it all day long. In addition, a proposal is being made to widen the highway to 6 lanes. Bayshores has been through 2 years of construction on PCH. It is beyond reason to ask them to do it again. If you look carefully at the driveway coming in on the left of the property, it looks like there will be a definite cause for problems getting into the service area if the lanes coming from the opposite direction are full 11.Water: The study indicates on page 99 that the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. Although the Project would increase water demand as compared to existing conditions there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources!!!!!!! 125 From: Joanne Perkins To: Campbell.lames Subject: Porsche dealership Date: Tuesday,September 20,2016 3:46:29 PM James, First I would like to thank you for taking your Saturday time to inform those of us in Bayshores some details of this project. I think one of the biggest concerns is noise (it's challenging to find a noisier car). Is it reasonable to think that test driving customers won't be gunning the cars down Coast Highway? Is it reasonable to think we won't hear morning customers bringing their noisy cars in for service? Is it reasonable to think that car deliveries will not cause some blockage on Coast Highway (picture Bayside Drive at least once a week with huge trucks waiting to deliver cars into Autonation). Currently the horsepower loving Porsche test drivers have wider, less congested streets in which to test the high performance potential. I predict the preferred test route will be to make a circle through the most congested part of Coast Highway and up through the Heights (although this route is not to be allowed, just wait and see). This seems like a disaster waiting to happen. The assurances being made by the dealership do not seem feasible or possible to enforce. The city should carefully review the noise and safety issues of this project. JoAnne Perkins 120 From: Peaav Palmer To: Kramer, Korv; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Biddle Jennifer;Campbell.lamas Subject: Mariners"Mile-AutoNation Porsche Project Date: Wednesday,August 24,2016 3:31:58 PM Attachments: MM_Autonaton.potx Dear Chair and Commissioners, I would like to thank you for your time and also for your considerations in regard to the proposed Porsche Auto-Nation Dealership meeting that was conducted with the residents of Newport Beach on August 18, 2016. On July 25th, many of these same residents attended the Mariners' Mile Workshop that was held at the Newport Sea Base. The City of Newport, as well as, the consultant Placeworks held the workshop for the community. The concerns expressed at this meeting were congruent and were on point that were recently expressed by the residents with regard to the proposed Porsche Auto-Nation project. They are as follows: 1. Project Heights not Exceeding 35 feet (example: Proposed Elevator Towers) 2. PCH - Increased Six Lane Highway (bottle necking at the Arches Bridge) 3. Impact of Traffic 4. Noise Pollution 5. Light Pollution 6. Property Values 7. Obstruction of Views 8. Project Commencement Date and Project Completion Date As you listened to the residents, it was clear that we want to have harmonious building colors and materials consistent with existing surrounding facilities and a "nautical theme" to contribute to the overall visual continuity and coherence of the Master Vision Plan and Mariners' Mile corridor. This is apparent with the Orange Coast School of Sailing and Seamanship, The David A. Grant Collegiate Center and the Chapman University Rowing Center. These are beautiful and timeless maritime structures that champion the elegance of Newport Beach. At this time Orange Coast College is underway with its Maritime Training Center, this project is both thoughtful and smart and is consistent with the City of Newport Beach's Mariner's Mile Design Framework. 187 For your review, I am attaching the existing Porsche Dealer Structure in Carlsbad, CA and I am also connecting this image with the image of the new OC Maritime Training Center. These designs contribute to the continuity that we the citizens envision for Mariners' Mile. (I think we can all agree, this project sets a negative precedence by way of constructing an aircraft carrier type structure next to a Tuscan Villa, This not the vision that the residents of Newport Beach will embrace.) The negative consequences are the potential annoyances that may arise from this retail site for example noise, congestion, light and visual pollution. (Please note, that the Ferrari, MClaren, Porsche and Maserati Dealership's utilize the 1.5 mile of Mariners'Mile for customer 'Test"runs and this impacts most of all the residents of Bayshores, Kings Road and Cliff Drive.) Now, combine these negative impacts and the proximity of the proposed Porsche Dealership project, studies have shown that this will have a significant effect on residential property values.* In closing, the residents would like to see a Maritime theme structure and the elevators, service center and roof top decks incorporated at the current Porsche Dealership location. Sincerely, Peggy V. Palmer 1701 Kings Road Newport Beach, Ca 92663 * REFERENCE: THE EFFECT OF PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL PRICES—John Williams Matthews, Georgia Institute of Technology 288 Mariners' Mile Vision Harmonious "Nautical Theme" ,^ws l Porsche Dealership in Carlsbad .Ae ORANGE 1 COLLEGE MARITIME TRAINING CENTER NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA The New Maritime Training Center From: Otte, Todd To: Campbell,James; Dunlap Bill Kramer, Kory; Koettina, Peter; Hillaren. Bradley; Lawler,Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak.Peter; Biddle.Jennifer;Campaonolo.Daniel Cc: Dixon. Diane; Petros,Tony; Duffield. Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Selich, Edward; Peotter,Scott; Curry, Keith Subject: Treatment of our city by Auto Nations Date: Monday,September 19,2016 9:41:06 AM Good Morning James and the Planning Commission, Again, I have to reach out to you on the behavior of Auto Nations and our community. Along with the other emails and photos I am submitting to you the clear violation of Limited Use Permit number XP2015-006 that was obtained for temporary storage of Maserati storage at the Newport Dunes. This permit was issued for no more then 40 vehicles and was to end on Dec 30 2015. On Sunday Sept 18, 2016 a car count of 158 new Audi's (on this expired permit) were on the property, as well as a cargo trailer and ConEx container with a significant number of temporary road barriers. Not only is almost 4x the permitted use (by Maserati with none on site), but as my previous email indicated, Audi is doing light maintenance and painting of vehicles in this parking lot. There is cleaning and lubricating chemicals in open 5 gallon containers and Auto Nations has completely destroyed all vegetation and use of the green belt area around, what they consider "their lot". Auto Nations is operating out of a ConEx container and have set up shop with signs indicating their sole right to these parking spaces for parking and maintenance. This is clearly not part of the agreement and they choose to again ignore the rights of the residents and to violate your approved permission, conditions and uses. In your report you say this project has negligible or no permanent impact on the land usage, but I will ague that point. Under CEQA and OSHA the use of open unknown cleaning chemical and paints does provide significant risk. There is no containment barriers or ventilation and all spilled or dumping, drains directly into our back bay and ground water, not to mention the fumes and residue that is left behind for the park visitors to be exposed too. Spot zoning this project will FOREVER negatively change the Mariners Mile Corridor and create safety hazards and accidents. It also ignores the impact of a new master plan, as we enter a new season of development and this extremely influential and valuable asset of Newport Beach, Mariners Mile. Plain and simple, the "cart is before the horse" with this application. I urge to you again look at the photos of how Auto Nations currently blocked PCH on a friday at 5:30pm to load car carriers (1/2 south bound lane and the bike lane completely). If they are willing to do it in front of us now, they will do it on Mariners Mile. I know they say there is plenty of space to load "on site" of this new proposed property, but they currently have that same access on the current property but choose to violate public safety for convenience. Lets just think logically. With this project, we now have a widened PHC to three lanes (northbound) on a semi blind path of travel, in a 55 mph zone. Even if the car carriers choose to pull into the proposed lot (which they wont) they will need to block all three lanes of travel to make that turn in and then again, when they leave. If they head southbound, exiting, then all six lanes (plus bike and pedestrian travel) will be blocked, how may times a week will this happen? For this option to even to be feasible Auto Nations will have to keep the lot clear for these semi rigs (which we know they will not do based on current operations). This will leave the semi trucks in the median between the north and south bound travel or on the side of the road northbound like they do for the Maserati dealership a couple times a 1J°D week. Next think about the supply trucks that will be visiting this enormous facility for the parts department and servicing equipment. They will also have to physically block PCH to enter and exit the property; how may times will this be happening in a week, taking traffic from 50 mph+ to zero instantly on a completely blind corner (if traffic builds up which it will)? Next the argument will be they perform these transfers at night or early morning. Imagine what is going to happen at night or early morning with impaired drivers at 60MPH+. I am not claiming to be an expert but there are already too many injuries and fatalities in this small section of the corridor and voting to approve this project will increase that number, no question in my mind. Even today, if the city does not act quickly and responsibly on Auto Nations and its current practice at the Audi, Porsche and Bentley dealership, I would argue the city could be held liable. This is a known problem and the city is allowing it to happen. Bottom line the city knows and is exposing itself here and on the future proposed development. Each of you are voting to expand the operations of an organization that clearly does not care about our communities environment(visual and environmental) or the safety of its residents. They disregard our city standard, violate your approvals and conditions and make a mockery of the process you are elected/appointed into. What makes you think they will not continue to do so with this new project? They are profit driven, not a bad thing, but should not be allowed to pursue profits at the expense of our community safety, equality of treatment, and land values. It is your responsibility to look at how this city is going to enter the future. These decisions can not be about tax revenue this is our children's future! This project is not fair, safe, scaled correctly nor is it healthy for the nearby communities or the city. Thank you for your time and if more documentation is necessary then please let me know I am happy to provide it Todd Otte office 949-769-8496 cell 714-915-5656 191 r � 3 f AOL AOL _� �s .ftip e � i s w t f . t Lir 0941L. .� - � A• � 1 y ji s 14 M - I . AP OL i 4 _ P 4 Y • _ ry 41W Ap. . ! JL lb i t y �w t r All _ Nil= ==-ft- Nowsmum r y r ! 1 � x l ti r — P t • s s g a + b * � tow40 Ppp�* k,,xr r: 40 maw Te r . 10 IF elk kV 41 A � b Ir t 4 A 'L44[ , AJL- r P' w F 4 � y 4 Y JI u I n 1 r . i A ^ � s A I A S al. r T Z - /'� ! - I, `' - .-' • -•.. _ `►. � r f f. rb� • � a ' ' .I/! ., f�}-. • ^1' 7 - � ! ip "RL '_ . JJ jdp I r - r'{ 1.-a ' •i it r - - •4rt r w T E �4 • i.y - • , _ 1� � R. Vy •i .r , er S _ *fit*a ,�'I• VIP*- s _ - 3 r i I `ate' fo •- � - . litillillill 44111 W7- It kL 410 R I � ., _ F - • r r- e. .v - 7 i _ • ' r � • � " F I _ _ - • -' 1. • F _ - r - ` «' _ _ r l • _ _ ,` - - _ -• - - • " - .. 2 2 ly a r .411 Af , / M r - , _ - - 1 = r 7. _ _ a+. Y ♦ � � -_ ��. . . r "r - .. •i y - Y v- z--`' - , ,'" --+ l � i, _ - - r' - ', -R ; c - - o - - E. V s _ e s r _ .a r. .. - • e - I . _ r III• - A. -! - - -.t - - _ - " - '" �l ' ` `93r ,-'- Awe .. - - ' •. . �a - - - -, +• .. � , JW Ar . .. - ' , ' . ..• , " Le q . - _ - - r - - _ i". r• 'y 'r� - mss. a ,. � . .y r •� _ - -/ " .�•_ �. - .a - - - `f' Lu - y - _- .. w _ ti . -► - _. - .���'+.,!"-+'l• ,••c - ;tea _- - � =ts - e - a /i • 3 Y • jl ter - r - IY' _ _ ' , 'e + w ♦. t - ' R - '1A i' i I. - 'e . - i i r . -s . • ♦ - • P- - r [ - -; " 4 _ _ . • M R m,` �: r' + 1 `. r • .-t - •R..f'- '.r / ` �-. '` ,. < ' _ A� r - - _ do 4i♦ _' .M . - a , _ _ � •- i :T-5� q. _ - •. .. - .- a - I r- r L r r �f l+ rt � - � T 1 y .f f r e/ ,I A -70 ir AEON NIL or _ T •.b y s - I _ zs L - � ,.: '- ` �-rA' , t " � r.- . ���.Tr• ,.�-' .. r . . : s - 3 �•:.Y - 1'.?',t.. vs , ..- , _pr Y - -_ - _ rt � - ' _ _ �•- , .�. �- .+ F - �f Y -v.y '1 '�r �-.Ir •s --yF'_ � .,.-.. .r J �# s{ I' ` .. --w - �_.f. .,r'r' 't,r.,.,. r _• .Rr } �`�� b f s'° �.L ~ !! - ^' e - - �I /j '� .<r� ��' - '! ..,. _ mak.�, _ 4 �„/kms -,. - ty `, �' 3i_ -�4'• -+ �- � 'ar :!! 4f � �51 _ ` Ae y - >, . •, cif _ m 1. _ . ♦ �- - r _ - J L x^.L y jr - _ - tib. •_r r wti _s f - r - . �I- r/. �C �jra„?� .� _- I - ��� .+71 r.y _ - _ ! a'>r _` -' _ ^ - _ �' - - r rr � T Lam`.J` ,y,'f 4 S _ Y6Gt .-_ L f r i s , ♦ _ _ r 29 - -z - - {jam - - - s - _r�� _ �. - •� • i.w1L ..�LS1 dlew"00 4l' 4 ,'IaDIIII, r` 'L_ Y o eaP'?►r�'�..w .�3}CyF..a+ pvlaa� _ ._.y" _ _ + - f } _ _ _ _ ' _ - _ ,_ - � - .- �� _ - - - y - . , '.t• . ti -� �� a-per •L _ _. "�... r j ��- it 1���. � �I�,•`, - r _ r - ~- ._ _ ` - _ w. - � - - _ _ ` _ - - a - or - ' h ` - - ., -� }f•y�-•M" r - :. � _ _ _c� _-�._r •w- _. . Y� y w � I. f4W.- -.1, w ft`s .4 �Y, < . _ _` _ - : _ _ _ _ _ _ .. -- - '- - _ •. - .. 49 __ - - .r 1 ` w •^� r r _ �. �+ .� _ -�- 1r_ � 's — +� X T ..� -*� _ - = Js � - ` . •• �_ J � - t- _ =� - .. - d _ _ - - r- . s _ ' '�F � - �- : . y'€ as � -. -. y _ - w. . •r' s. _ -•rs �_. _ _ # ` 3 a�j �� ;v °fl.-"Mr, `� � •f��� - - � . s _ - r . _ __ _ �• v ._ __ _ ` _ -` -_ .� - rr _ r •� - - i - �'-� �._ - _ t Y d � � � .. � ' :.ry � � •1 + ice - - F ~' - Ly � -- v - ` `•T r � x_ •. _ s _ . - �<= _�., -. T T .` - -^C_ ,1y °. .r•' �_ ° .Z :; �-s •' tr - _-.} rl� � Jfi-f -`K yam. �(�ar� � f _ _ _ - s - _ _ s - c � ` - __ �.` - _ - _ _ ' _ _ A +° _fir sr ` - _ - s y. ,,, a - 'rY y fIr-„'. .yy y_'. 1 .. "-wt - n � � '�R �'4 � rt,j �.�,. `d �r jl✓�� r - - - - - o - - . �• f - _ ' - _ _ - - '_ ` r�yr- _ - F - w _ - . - +.� ,• -, - -� °tilt - - .. - � f - �.'�[" "KAP- , - - a . e - t .} _ - -'" _ - - - - • z. ���' r"',y-g+ i� -+ - ` �.+ _ - 'Pr - Misr T - _ V r' -� `. "� .w - = - - - '. - w � s Y !� :_.-s - r!f .r� L • - - �S - 16 t --- _ - . ` +...i - .. r►. 6. r _ - _ 't a sy _ - i°� _,ssa '�.-• - y- �W: :� • -. e- y _ �. w7C' � R w , - :'... ,� �r -�•F - �� + -.'_ `�+'. _ _ . t `�- - ,.-_ _. - - .. _ yF r- <+'y VObs J-� F' f "., _ s ;T - - _ - ° •- _ `� . .. - ,e,..- _ r 4r `�.•' _ .� s - - w _ - - r a _F}' aF- - .Y..l-1-_ T t.". - .. - r, . , •,.7, -� ,.,► "4 J 91 - _ _ / _ - -•fir - Yom_ _ L _�4�••_ '� . .r "� - '.IF r " - -.. _ _ - t _ a• - •k- T,. r - -„ - _ - _' t. �� y{;-.' 1 f ,,,� j- - 'l•l - _ . _. f. X.�•� - _ ti- '_ �t�E TL r JS .. ., - - .� i � � ,� s I• y � i_ - - ♦ .._ r ham_ r, e i _ � '- -f - '�- r _•R" � ,� s -1. - _ i` .-,._.i fir_ "_�, ""r1F' ir• I �., !E:4 i -- df�. -� _ +�L'E 4 y- Y t Y♦ - -'3 v °'s. _ -- - - __ - s - - _ _ P - a l4` �- >•t !+L_ 'rr _ "_ w ' �. �� ~•n 6 1a `Ic, _� _ a _ 1- _a - G = ~._ - `" � _ - ' Ar _. -T 1� •- ,"_ - - - t °- - + - - QL sL � 'S 'r - e 90.x. - r - _' _ - _� _ _ _ _ r =!!�Y ♦� _ - " - `f+�_ - s � •} �y'i"a � - _ - "- ti �` ,y - - _ • + 1 - �.��"' r '�'��• '..�,}/' f g��_ _- °a- ,F� ' ti�<4• iIL: - moi' ,'f. T- u .� r - - _ _ -.• s .. � '�'�^ -_4v - '4' r ,4'_ - - a y _ -.���s.`� _ _ - - - �_ ::` �FT ..- ��.r-�-^- - - ' - �.. - _ -•�,� l .r. ^ s�•• 1sL�`Cr 1 s tr�'I.' _ >• _ - ,�• w. _ �` _ - - - '!' r - n:ri - • 'r -r �1 � '1� 'a_�- �i - _ _ _ �. r .i R 3 �- _- _ - "" - - - - ..: - - SIF _ + , � r�" ? : ��- _ �:.+ _ _ = r _ _ s �{I .J.ate. .�_ u` _ yy ,w _� 4. e. � -� _ _ _ _ 4- ! -"ir-• ){ __ _ r•. v'�"�, -• _r_ � .�"� le' � _ ��- �,la•_ �.' ,4 it .� _ _ � +" a _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _-- r ' r, - + ..'/' w� -.. r T : 'a !_ !lT '�• �•� f"r� _ l .+r�' - �.e:. -`. -s -- _ ^ .- - a ��w ±#y`_s�__ `� ��_s`• 9ti. -t'. _ __ _ T 3 y _ • sv. riM_ ' 'E= _ �_" i 'tom Ti _ _ - _ _ _ - •. _ - -y. C JS j r. w•_'. ��:" �y3 .. r - -iir1ys - G' _ + `� � t - r - r �- ; T. - f.�- 11g _ -.y a. �' y; - - - `._ - - i ` _ - - t z - +!. r +�'-` _ - r.' •_' .,<Ir. �.` s '• _ _--t =11� - - -'.4 i r."�v - a _ � _ .r,-- - - _ 4 wY` �f* y+ _ -.� ira�"o- _ .rr � _..h.. � } i �;•- ��``~� y rte. - � `.r _ - _ _ 3- � AOO 1 �.�•�.� �•d� ' r 4 R �- ,� '. F ' ,.*' �' _ ' } ..;T- P si a. - -- _ t .. _ _ - i - _ _- ^s - z - yrs�c� - ' r' - � .. 'fir• 'R'` _ _ _ � r �-^ _ _ � . _ _ ` �a �_f J. Ai _}. .: .� I� F � } _ - r • , - y s f _ � i . ._ a - ; 4 r --, a °• L _ __ `-_'�'' r r Ap 40 OIL L.� i .� , f- 1 - - ` - y_. 1� - _ fin- r 't'� .4� ... - _ _ _ - _ •_ � � --_ -_ - _ - y. - - l'�f _ _ _- _ -_ ` - �pL''� - �rrf� 1-.`x. � � ._� _ _ 'V J•��;ss� y��i�i I�`a^•� : - � .� _S � y. � f. - ` - _,+ _ r_ r i ` "�'tr� � { }' � _ _ - - .�e � _ - a�� Q � L a ,r _ � �: _ __ a ~�J ,� '.rx` yL. '�' ✓ _ - . i - - '� . ;r - qty A.�. - _ � _ _ _ _ F _,� .1L� �� r - _ _ - _ -• _ _ _ _ -. - - _ - - + _ _ _ l--" t- _ _ _ s _ � . 1f" _- •' -`S - .r t� �•�� s- ..,�T � - � � _ r - - � r - , _ - - r , +` s - _ _ _ - a a . f• - - .- � - '-K �r�. r � J _ +� . -.- _ '� - - � . _ � F s •r. Y - J' ___� -- . `�. �s_� s - _ . _ '�; 't !v- t4k.. - _ _ r � _ � - _ Y' •�• •1fr. 'OM r �. ?�.wf.1Ph. a .r..t Y".. ._.r.a<•f. .� _ � t � IMJY Jf".. � �. - .-.- ._ - _ _ - - •' + s s_ - _ - + a .iw - _ :r _ 'r n a - a _ M... .._ .: _. r r r dim i • e 4b Ys E 'ter ,.;t ,�- "' • �' ok iW ' N r - r _ � I Iwo, y I 1 IL s - a .• • w 1`4= ■f h ate, s � w. • - Y . • ,. � ■ - ,� a ■' _ • i 1 ♦ . Mo, lotYr - i _ � _ w it _ • _ :M - ■ d Y x _ it t '� ■' so ew Y r a 1 - r � • Y i _...d • r >Y, r • ' • o- T • r • / - - u y • T Ip Aef ■ d I T !W S Y c i Y . \ hJ s } y a Y • ■ 11 • : i ♦ • op Ate d 1 �•' � S t T ' ■� I P d TTT 1 4 f ■ M r ` r ► r r, r ' r � 1 r r ., a „�, .e �, • Ir w, i s ■•' a a � u y Y ■ • . t Y I Y - ,r • 1 na w a J W ., f y Y I ■ d ' Y _ , 0 i a M ♦ �' ffi wil ■ - M 7 y 1 r li, ■ � aey ■ ri 49 to r i , y d r r ' 6 ilki40 s. op It F 49 91 , • � t � i N A.bob � r AI I ■ d ' IL ` k � r AP NOR ■ ♦ _ ■ ■ ■■ a f t 40 • � r r e On M 1 y a 1 f! ,4?' r—� • DIY ! `IL a Il y + 1 a �• Fit!fi sJl � = in • Ill • .� + 4 4A 1 40 dF f . AL m .� � r 1.• e � y i a � , dlL "a J ►, 4R IP rs '�• 1, iw ^ i soda ILIn i -4Wy a . a 1 wig `! 4M I >4.d> {! �' r • +- �.°� 1,1 y° � ill • i ; � "� '�� � � _ litr 7A awl 1 k R I'r— , — a ♦ r i ' T ffth&m 1.211 A 211A .. memo I ti 01 be I� ti x a z • - � r r • _ I as . a . - ' R • rY f ' - a � a _ - - a � a �� » _ � a L a - r x 1. - „ ♦ - • ', t a Vr . , ` - _ �` ' 1 ' _ •-"i �'. - - - ` - . .. r . a. i • �1 x . a a e - �I • • • n % a it . _. V _ * '�. • _ • �♦ � � A _. - - r '_ ! . a .� a . - •' f q - a ! V !tr � e • V c • y .. _ - _ - a i e e - _ R a = 4• • ; l e - � Vlt�W A. . -. w - .r r t � .+ - ' A - � - f .y _ s. ' - � 1. ffft . - ZIP* . 1 tow 1 IL ��W aim A ma dw OWN IF 1� a 4 - AN. E , 06 .rte s .+ ;rirr r + NCO nub AMA A 46 A& -- — - - � y z + Ta - - + 1 30 � 1 a . y wr IL �, _ _ ' � � � � �� �- � '�' 'T�� - _- � � - _r► - ��, it - - -� .. Y -� `;. + * `� - -y -t - ` _ iL ri - a a- _ .�. i!�. � ��+ ��` e_ �_��:. M wad' � ; � � yt• '� t _ r. w HS. M 1�' ....rte •, .l • �� � - -- -Y ."' _- � ✓-� ► .* 'Jq. .• " - �. O _ i.• ti•�.� - 4 E �.. �- .... tr `._ - . ..�. - :! �- `, _ ._.. -- � � -•a. � �i .�. T.mss :: �^`- ' _� ear -44 v_ e. i - - fir.-�"" '��' t - 't T 'd' - 'e _ 3ti R}-�� - y �` l _ }► _ _ ►._- .{• _ . {�_ - _ _ !# � � a _ as- s - / - r • w. 6 ^ l -.w +�1� . _ - _ v �. _ �i .Y� .ar err �. fie• � '°� +� .: �Ir ?' � -- - �. �.�i 'Rs �. '1 - Y ir Al - v- - - 4w 'W'410vi... _ _- t AdW ' - - . � __ � -_--+� ' - :s � _ = t • � _ _ _ _ ��- '� +yam w ,,A .. - _ •�•4 - �. 'f a' _ 3 _ _ -„1 .�- z s. -r ! '�.. _ t-. r4 _ - wr rt s s _ - ., _ _ � - Q - t {_ - - ate; - \ . a1.. w _ .1� • r t _+ . z L, �` - x. __ - _ - _ _ _ - _-Lr'A•.. • s�"+.. •C._� - , si, _ t67 .nom. - _ VIIAWNor - .s• -`�---.w-ter. ♦ ,�,-.'w` _ -�- <4 - _ _ L - '-ef1P `_ ♦ �. � � � �� - � y3 n.. - � moi, _ r �.,� 4.`����� _ - � - - �_ -•�,,'~`# 4Cff -4W • rbc- �"` � _ 1 _ - - _ • _ g -�`i- � a L F From: Otte, Todd To: Campbell,James; Dunlap Bill Kramer, Korv; Koettina, Peter; Hillaren. Bradley; Lawler,Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak,Peter; Biddle.Jennifer;Camoaanolo.Daniel Cc: Dixon. Diane; Petros,Tony; Duffield. Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Selich, Edward; Peotter,Scott; Curry, Keith Subject: RE: Clarity on HOA Bayshore residents meeting and AutoNations Date: Friday,September 23,2016 11:19:31 AM Importance: High Good Morning, I felt compelled, after thinking about the facts of the HOA presentation by Auto Nation, to write and make a couple points clear for the Planning Commission. Last Tues AutoNation brought in a team to present to approximately 150 residents of BayShore (including in this team was Steve Rosansky). It was exactly what I think we all anticipated, a display of"all"the concessions they have made (which amounted to very little) and to tell us what a great community partner they will be and how concerned they were about our questions (ie: please don't judge us for our past and current behavior, trust what we are saying). The first point I would like to make is there was not one"In Favor" comment made about the project by the attendees. Steve R. stood in front of these attendees (assuming I guess that no one from Kings rd.was in attendance) and stated he "personally had meet with all the residents of Kings rd. and they all were in favor of this project". I need to make sure the truth is spoken here, the facts are very different. Steve has spoken to the 8 homes directly above the project, but NOT ONE IS IN FAVOR of it.This was a flat out lie and in fact there is a rapidly growing number of residents in the general area that are opposed and becoming vocal about the project. Each of these, household were at the last Planning Commission session and spoke openly about this lack of support.These feeling have not changed and actually has intensified now that the facts are surfacing. At the end of the presentation,AutoNation walked away with 8+ pages of concerns about the project from the community. Most of which they could not or would not answer directly or successfully. The second very frustrating fact I walked away from the meeting with was that the city and the community is "going to have to trust AutoNation". David Serra, stood up in front and explained that we ( the community)would have to trust them (AutoNation). How do you stand in front of people and ask for their trust when they clearly and intentionally violate public safety and code. These violations are not isolate, they are repetitive and consistent with the way they interact in our community. The facts are, they are not good neighbors and do not care about the community. They have outgrown their currently location and have 3 brands on the property, why does the community need to make concessions to solve their problem. Searching for 7 years and "this is the only place that has come up" should not make it our problem nor should we sacrifice for their growth and profits. Any responsible organization would look for a new broker and not talk to the community like they are the victim of their growth and oversizing (they bought the location deal with it, no one forced them to do anything). EVERY OTHER auto retailer has found an alternative, why is AutoNation special. q q 1JJ The solution is very simple (in my mind anyway). AutoNation could take a parcel build a nice single story display and sales floor(like everyone else has done), continue to service all and store vehicles at their currently location or relocate it to a more suitable location (like everyone else has done), not shuttle cars between the two locations adding traffic to PCH and stop these ridiculous "solution". I would also suggest they stop mocking our city and our standards and putting sail shaped flags on the side of an enormous monolithic building and calling it nautical theming. Said best at the meeting "putting lipstick on a pig does not change the facts it is a pig". It is exhausting to hear what AutoNation will doing when the track record of what they are doing is not being examined or is responsible. They do not honor our community, they continually disregard our standards, codes and safety.They pay fines (when caught) and then start all over again. They ask for our trust as they violate us right to our face. This project is an insult, a waste and not efficient use of the cities limited resources. Let's focus on a new master plan, stop spot zoning and not allow this project to advance until we all have an clear understanding of what our city will look like for our children Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Todd Otte 5001 Newport Coast Dr. Irvine, Ca 92603 949-769-8496 PS the below condition on vehicle storage has not been corrected and as of 9-23-16 at 8am there is still 158 Audi's on property and I have not heard back on whythis is being allowed From: Otte,Todd Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:40 AM To: Campbell, James; bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov; kkramer@newportbeachca.gov; pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov; rlawler@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; pzak@newportbeachca.gov;jbiddle@newportbeachca.gov; dcampagnolo@newportheachca.gov Cc: ddixon@newportbeachca.gov;tpetros@newportbeachca.gov; dduffield@newportbeachca.gov; kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov; edselich@roadrunner.com; speotter@newportbeachca.gov; keithcurryl@yahoo.com Subject: Treatment of our city by Auto Nations 200 Good Morning James and the Planning Commission, Again, I have to reach out to you on the behavior of Auto Nations and our community. Along with the other emails and photos I am submitting to you the clear violation of Limited Use Permit number XP2015-006 that was obtained for temporary storage of Maserati storage at the Newport Dunes. This permit was issued for no more then 40 vehicles and was to end on Dec 30 2015. On Sunday Sept 18, 2016 a car count of 158 new Audi's (on this expired permit) were on the property, as well as a cargo trailer and ConEx container with a significant number of temporary road barriers. Not only is almost 4x the permitted use (by Maserati with none on site), but as my previous email indicated, Audi is doing light maintenance and painting of vehicles in this parking lot. There is cleaning and lubricating chemicals in open 5 gallon containers and Auto Nations has completely destroyed all vegetation and use of the green belt area around, what they consider "their lot". Auto Nations is operating out of a Con Ex container and have set up shop with signs indicating their sole right to these parking spaces for parking and maintenance. This is clearly not part of the agreement and they choose to again ignore the rights of the residents and to violate your approved permission, conditions and uses. In your report you say this project has negligible or no permanent impact on the land usage, but I will ague that point. Under CECA and OSHA the use of open unknown cleaning chemical and paints does provide significant risk. There is no containment barriers or ventilation and all spilled or dumping, drains directly into our back bay and ground water, not to mention the fumes and residue that is left behind for the park visitors to be exposed too. Spot zoning this project will FOREVER negatively change the Mariners Mile Corridor and create safety hazards and accidents. It also ignores the impact of a new master plan, as we enter a new season of development and this extremely influential and valuable asset of Newport Beach, Mariners Mile. Plain and simple, the "cart is before the horse" with this application. I urge to you again look at the photos of how Auto Nations currently blocked PCH on a friday at 5:30pm to load car carriers (1/2 south bound lane and the bike lane completely). If they are willing to do it in front of us now, they will do it on Mariners Mile. I know they say there is plenty of space to load "on site" of this new proposed property, but they currently have that same access on the current property but choose to violate public safety for convenience. 201 Lets just think logically. With this project, we now have a widened PHC to three lanes (northbound) on a semi blind path of travel, in a 55 mph zone. Even if the car carriers choose to pull into the proposed lot (which they wont) they will need to block all three lanes of travel to make that turn in and then again, when they leave. If they head southbound, exiting, then all six lanes (plus bike and pedestrian travel) will be blocked, how may times a week will this happen? For this option to even to be feasible Auto Nations will have to keep the lot clear for these semi rigs (which we know they will not do based on current operations). This will leave the semi trucks in the median between the north and south bound travel or on the side of the road northbound like they do for the Maserati dealership a couple times a week. Next think about the supply trucks that will be visiting this enormous facility for the parts department and servicing equipment. They will also have to physically block PCH to enter and exit the property; how may times will this be happening in a week, taking traffic from 50 mph+ to zero instantly on a completely blind corner (if traffic builds up which it will)? Next the argument will be they perform these transfers at night or early morning. Imagine what is going to happen at night or early morning with impaired drivers at 60MPH+. I am not claiming to be an expert but there are already too many injuries and fatalities in this small section of the corridor and voting to approve this project will increase that number, no question in my mind. Even today, if the city does not act quickly and responsibly on Auto Nations and its current practice at the Audi, Porsche and Bentley dealership, I would argue the city could be held liable. This is a known problem and the city is allowing it to happen. Bottom line the city knows and is exposing itself here and on the future proposed development. Each of you are voting to expand the operations of an organization that clearly does not care about our communities environment (visual and environmental) or the safety of its residents. They disregard our city standard, violate your approvals and conditions and make a mockery of the process you are elected/appointed into. What makes you think they will not continue to do so with this new project? They are profit driven, not a bad thing, but should not be allowed to pursue profits at the expense of our community safety, equality of treatment, and land values. It is your responsibility to look at how this city is going to enter the future. These decisions can not be about tax revenue this is our children's future! This project is not fair, safe, scaled correctly nor is it healthy for the nearby communities or the city. Thank you for your time and if more documentation is necessary then please let me 202 know I am happy to provide it Todd Otte office 949-769-8496 cell 714-915-5656 203 From: Otte, Todd To: Campbell,James Subject: FW: Porsche dealership Date: Tuesday,September 06,2016 7:32:27 AM Attachments: ATT00001 t# ATT00002.bd Importance: High James, I thought I might also attach photos of the dealerships actions within the Newport Dunes. Again, please forward to the rest of city council and code enforcement for their review. These large dealerships do not operate well in residential and small retail environments, If it extremely difficult to see the reasoning to allow Auto Nation to overwhelm PCH and the already impacted residential areas. Please let me know if you have any questions Todd -----Original Message----- From: Otte, Todd Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 4:27 PM To: Otte, Todd Subject: Porsche dealership 204 ♦ # -�' �/�n`f� s+� r'.. •i :��t W- W, ^J,.'► �+- r ,F/ �w Yom` - s d �' + a y� .v1'. ,' . r /Y 1 7 .!5/' ,'.'.� , Y• r_ •� F ,Yy1�' ,�}�d -, '.���� `� t� �� � , � f �f 'lIRT'If.►R _� _f� la"� ;y'r ,,... •fi S� - s J i ;�1��, �y � p j,-- / _ � A.� town ry • f • 't. Mjy' S. i +_ �! ✓. - �, 'f�l'+. - /h a �' f^ ''� 1 � - eI �►s/ JJJJ "10 f A -.,k or y' a 9fr to y► T� ` ,. e r yC Y � a yi ��, R • - � � � � /l r � k 04 P dff . I40 r Ap OA f • Jim - _ dit J s + f 1 1�1 - T• R +jl�l�''�' ' • , t Lk - ' ,. i F d T` - _ M Y ' 4 for Wfi er IN iqp ,M� 47, : ' �� � ♦gyp ,+ --r � ' °��°♦�°.r , ,..j �Y`'�j �/s' V ^ � � Com.,, . � � .� _. , v°. Q _ M 1 - „ - '+`� ♦ ., \ ter •'1� •. q.ra• _ 1. fy` . 4k •_ ..,.�- 10, t� • 6 From: Otte, Todd To: Campbell,James Subject: Re: Porsche Dealership on PCH Date: Monday,September 05,2016 10:03:43 AM James, I have been a little busy the last couple weeks but wanted to get back to you after the last city counsel meeting. I am confident you felt the tension of the residents regarding allowing Porsche to dictate what our city looks like. My hope is the counsel will not disregard the standards put in place to maintain the look and feel of Newport Beach. You might be interest to see at the attached photos. They represent how Auto Nation, no matter what they say, treats its neighbors. The photo shows multiple portable shade structures put in place as permanent coverage and workspace. I am sure the city is unaware of this practice, open pallet storage, double and triple parked cars, open bay doors, noise etc but staff needs to be made aware. These photos where taken at 9 am on Labor day so arguably one of the least busy day of the year. Also I am sure the city is not aware of the hundreds of cars parked over at the Dunes as overstock (also double and triple parked). assuming the fire department is also unaware of the blocked assess to the area. I continue with my argument that allowing big business to bully their way into our city and dictate the look and feel of Newport beach is wrong for the residents and wrong for the city. This project has direct negative impact on property values and visual ascetics. In addition, with rezoning the property there is no way of knowing who and what dealership will be there in the future. Please make sure that each of the city counsel members get a copy of these photos, as well as code enforcement for the current property. This is not a safe work environment, as well as being incredibly ugly to the neighborhood. I am confident Auto Nation doesn't care because they are renters and do not have a voice at the city level. If this is a problem then please let me know the correct peoples email and I will address it with them directly Thank you, Todd Otte Mariners Church Development and Operations Officer 5001 Newport Coast Dr. Irvine, Ca 92603 949-769-8496 20 j I .1• — a N or Mod AW r ; . - y. nw ' 4 No w Y = ,e _ 7 ZIP- IN A 1 � '� - _., + } � _ � ^; ' .:� 1 "tea •� ' 'T.- _ ' T i yy! , Ar - _ POP - E .i AAbl NOW i _ - as -- • 4 r .aa a � � RLwf - �� _ _ � �Fa� 1 _ r1 it , Or f , tv •' 1 _ 1 r f .. •yam�\• \ j ! rtr v n NmruKi eucx. eA • s _ 11ll _tea 1 S f I 1 1 a j ir at IF I 'F' x' �1• Fl/1� rf r - 1 y y- jam'' - r - r Iq j Allllhll� 14 ' + �+ 1i MAP 1 dd ow- At OF r " Y r a .. GL MOF d 0 e _ wp �r L ■A�, / yi ;�v 14 h Aw f. � •� t F i '� � � ,�• M y � t�� y� J �- d �' ��� � '� �, a F• I r� r � � ` = yr F � r ► �' « � � _ � � * � - _ _ s ' rry « * u r qlllll�— IF orA It 0 VAN op 46 4W e law w e � �� r , � 4 - � f IFS :I * I • �1 � it w ' . -, di , 1 ' 1r , j1 y + . Wo- AA 40 06 �i 4 .� ,� � • 4 , �� ~�ii �+ �� ~ R 4� r - � ,� r � { " �1 � .7r -..r r.� ��• '1ee�1 !�",y A_ r e., *�� 1�. � �' +F .!t - J -_ � � .� � ' r� �h+ a , -f '• " a y�i � I ti r -" '� •sem ,P .' r 9 _ .'-�-: � - - s � a %hot + _ z 111971 i mo IWK r s k _ d e - 4 1 , • f ; _ f • � i., T � f �IYF_, � 1� '� - r•' - I. - � t �L "� rr ', - - �"- `' + JFr f / �, - /, r _ T Alit Ilk j T j - ' r't►or 4 • r AAD- err - ,► � �' . .r _ - .�` d ,/jam/ �y, I j r � ./ /,i _ AO INN 41 3 10 pdp > - - OF a 9 , _ -. i I-Aw R t ke' —�` -•_ - i -4.rw �. -'1 'V.."'�w - , - _ "' -�\' � 1Rs s` •'-Y y�r. • 1�1 _ - • . - Abe. = - r r •� ' ,. i 4 �I !� s � - �4� 4 �.4„w� ^ -. - - Mw - _ ` t \ _ + . - '�~.4 . . .-! . .."• G �Y. t"- :. .~' r" _ ' _ G r r ' i - :f ..' }iR � • ` �. - `- ��� -i 11:� e - - - _ •i• • _ ! '' _ _ ��-t'ss _�Y17'_� - �.i<1.... -i'f`s, � _ 1� � �7� - 9 a .r "�� _ ��� r � _ � -i 1`+S _ _ � +gj, .,. }ti �, i+`� ti _ _ '' - - ! •. ate. }� 6 1 •` F - .� w -- _�' �'� _ ' - R' _ 'r+ •l r' as _ _ _a r� ,1_ a '�. a w'ti - as ._ r - _ i _ w s -}J� y' '� !! 4- �. �'• .. � Jri :•` � � ` \' � ; .� —R4 � it �. � 4. 4 . ' r' fy ~ - — - _ r _— � _ . a _ _ — + _ i .'- � ✓ � w y14 __ cif .s IIN - �. 1 w�-�'A� ; - ks�. y i ' - _ ..;Z ► �� . �,.FI�$�l!' -s ,+...s ! w . . 3_ ' s - • -� ' '- w-�, �"ltZ "- ~ ti _tom. ♦ .w '± !� K � - 4a0ki A& AM • Alts � 1 •� j ,' t R 40. l f y .y 5 At SF Y' — J t f L j 'i aX i F - .. _ref _ • {. r I r .r s �fil� 7 do - W do E / - #tea amw 41 :$55 of 41 O t / 1! It " 4060, i, OF -.. Nit .. dp ow wpf Sit It _ I ` do t i i / 1 1 40 wow M a L . � T— �` - .-:F Imit.•h VL --,. - t : a e y Will op as IL dw ow op • l r i • • o rt F f 4 ♦ 111 urb ' #� � )' " - r f<_ - i F r r f lI - - - ate dW AS low. !Y1 ..{ .. e ttl tea. m ++� k ►a �_ f 7► • ! �►�,1 1p 4 ' r ;'o �' _ �' M � � •-_ I�f 'L. I s f" r M r MN loft 04 9L 1 � t" - 44 T- wr s� w illj6 - sem' a r s ii 40 J J� 41MWR OL jj6 *q M L lei m r' r *. T i irL^ -doom- MWAM R is ■ r 1 l t ` ar , � ' x Y F RM 41M ago to 1 T � r tr W- is Oro i r f From: Otte, Todd To: Campbell,James Cc: Peoov Subject: Auto Nation and the Neighborhood Date: Friday,September 16,2016 6:45:20 PM James, Sorry to keep bothering you, but as I drove home at 530pm on a friday, I noticed that Auto Nation was loading its trade-in vehicles onto a car carrier. Does the auto retailer have special permission by the city to block the bike lane and half of the right hand southbound lane at peak traffic hours? This seems inconsistent with city and general safety, although it does explain why the dealership is willing to pay millions to widen PCH northbound in front of its proposed location (even if the plans have room to fit a carrier on the premisses). Auto Nations current location has plenty of room to handle car carrier if it didn't fill its back lots with temporary detailing, storage, work and shop tents. So does the corporation have city permission to block southbound PCH lanes? Also, I am interested to understand if the auto dealership has permission by city to block lanes and paint vehicles and repair vehicles in open parking lots. As shown in the photos, an employee of Auto Nations was performing maintenance and painting the bumper of a Mazda in the middle of the Newport Dunes parking lot (out of a ConEx shipping container). Is that OK by city, environmental impact or OHSA standards? Are ConEx containers and party tents, consistent with city design standards and permanent work environments? Please forward this document to all city counsel members, city heath and safety officials and law enforcement. I am very interested in hearing back on the cities official position on these items. Again, thank you for your attention to this matter and I do hope you are beginning to understand how Auto Nations treats it neighbors and our fine city. Thank you, Todd Otte 949-769-8496 214 r 1 1 r At low NEW Y 4 �► ago i o ASO, IF J 71 AMP i ■ ti r J 1 »s r ie j Aop� I i' OKI t � a JW i � kAm tidi06 +� - # r e#VIOA '� ,• t T I JJJ i • y � k Y 40 V^,4k, rim r of f w r' 4 r x K ,. - e. 'O i r A 44 r _ ! 1 I �ifp '' 'i: • `�. • a. t��� � � 1, �aIP ` ! MOMILM �L IN IA6 -d Aw- Y _ r � � • � � tc f � • t ' t a �7Rlr �L. i i (r i rti 1 P _ . A - r '�ii�r '. • s �`rye' . • r tow � e RP IN 14001 �► Joe* �_ # 1 I id .moi 4 �. .r �, 14 14 s ♦ F ti "�fL� � '�' i �� .� - �ter" • A, ��„ s� � a► � 4 .01 too • I A � GIi _Fir I P ip 49 4L 0 Imp Of NNN NIP Ink IN IN PF or Vol w. f + ,, dop It 41 Ob 01A 4t r IF WO lK lop 1% NN qF 41, tole NIP IN rr ANN rs - . i i i • No � N, or! r ! + qV- w� �.� • tiw � MINI rte' i �� 1 N. A' ' ` �"' ! / _ w / 14r .• •' • f %% _ + . ! , s t '4 �� •; � �'q i. g a + b * � tow40 Ppp�* k,,xr r: 40 maw Te r . 10 IF elk kV 41 A � b Ir t 4 A 'L44[ , AJL- r P' w F 4 � y 4 Y JI u I n 1 r . i A ^ � 40, -kev � !' u ft AP i qw Ab alp a I '► e to 7 Ra_ i 1 T )loop - ` ,o®rolo J�'- pip } f �• n f 1 I i A W M' Jdo 9& v ..........ON . 45 ri - - Tom-' ��•�� � . �. - - 1 •. � :tea�i � `'S_�- -� ` 1 . y .F '1 r 1 From: Al Marshall To: Kramer, Korv; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Biddle Jennifer;Campbell„lames Subject: Mariners Mile Date: Thursday,August 25,2016 6:30:33 PM I'm a real estate developer and licensed Architect so my vote probably does not count and my neighbors would probably string me up; that being said: I'm a 28 year resident of NB, I agree with most common sense comments (lighting, architectural design, and cohesiveness of Mariners Mile) of my neighbors. The things I do not worry about is the height,traffic, noise, property values (will only go up), and minimal loss of views. I love living here and want to see NB prosper. This section of NB should come into the 21St century as the City Hall complex has brought to NB. Use your bestjudgement as you are very reasonable and smart people and get the project moving. This kind of investment is not always available, including the courage to move it forward. Thank you, AL Al Marshall Pacific National Development 120 Tustin Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)645-1000 Office (949)500-1270 Cell 220 From: Karen Linden To: Camobell,James Subject: Auto Nation Date: Thursday,August 18,2016 4:09:55 PM Jim, Tom and I would like to voice our opposition to the construction of auto nation across the street from Bayshores residential. Our concerns are the lighting, noise and traffic and the sense that it is not the right mix for Mariners Mile redevelopment. We greatly appreciate you making us aware of the potential development and voicing our concerns on our behalf . Thank you Jim- Karen and Tom Linden 2601 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach 949-230-6913 Sent from my Phone 221 From: ahauser(droad run ner.mm To: Campbell,James Subject: Against Auto Nation-Porsche Development, Mariners Mile Date: Monday,September 26,2016 9:58:30 PM Jim Campbell My biggest concern are the car carriers loading and unloading on the Pacific Coast Highway. There is not enough space on the present plans to get car carriers on the present site, all loading and unloading will be done on PCH. At existing location, Bayside Drive and PCH are used by the car carriers. On Labor Day, while on my bike ride, I observed 2 carriers on Bayside Drive, on return bike ride there was another on PCH. I know they are not supposed to do that, and will be fined by code enforcement, however, they ignore the rules and use the streets in Newport Beach for their loading and unloading. If they have been bad neighbors for all these years, they will not change at a new location. The site will not allow car carriers as a practical matter. If Mariners Mile location is allowed for a Porsche dealership, I would like to be paid $100.00 for every car carrier infraction. I have 5 grandchildren and car carriers could fund their college education at a fine institution. Sincerely, George Hauser 2575 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA92663 PS: As of this typing there has been a car carrier, with engine running for over 2 hours on the the south side of PCH, across from Car Collectibles. 222 From: Patrick To: Kramer, Korv; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlao. Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Weigand, Erik; Lawler,Ray Cc: Dixon. Diane; Petros.Tony; Duffield. Duffy; Muldoon. Kevin; Selich. Edward; Peotter.Scott; Curry. Keith; Campbell,lames; Brandt. Kim; Kiff, Dave Subject: AutoNation Porsche proposal to build a dealership and service center/garage on 11 lots along West Coast Highway on Mariners Mile across from Bayshores and below Newport Heights Date: Sunday,September 25,2016 2:51:01 PM Attachments: Letter AutoNation to City Council and Ploanning Commission 2.pdf Dear Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager and Staff, On Wednesday Evening, September 21, 2016, the Community of Bayshores and homeowners living in the immediate vicinity showed up at the Balboa Bay Resort to learn about the AutoNation Porsche Development Proposal. The large and impressive turnout clearly demonstrates the great interest and concerns of the homeowners. Community concerns were that the AutoNation Prosche Development Project will (1) not enhance the surrounding community, (2) be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and (3) have an adverse impact. I request that the enclosed letter presenting Janice and my views be included in the packet of material for the October 6, 2106, Planning Commission Hearing re. The AutoNation Porsche Development Proposal. Concerned Homeowners, Patrick and Janice Gormley Community of Bayshores 22S 2441 Marino Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 Patrick and Janice Gormley Re:AutoNation Porsche proposal to build a dealership and service center/garage on 11 lots along West Coast Highway on Mariners Mile across from Bayshores and below Newport Heights September 25, 2016 Dear City Council and Planning Commission, The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council must hold the proposed use of this land situated between two residential neighborhoods, Newport Heights and Bayshores, to a much higher standard than any other development location along Mariners' Mile. The City's in- herent responsibility is to assure all proposed development projects will enhance the community and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods without adverse impacts. At the very least, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) must be required. In conducting this study,AutoNa- tion Porsche business plan data (actual historical sales combined with projected increase in sales) used to justify moving to this stand-alone facility must be the foundation and basis for the projected increases in traffic, noise, pollution, etc. Moving the Porsche auto dealership showroom and service/garage/parking has been justified because there are other Auto Dealerships in the vicinity.This is faulty and unacceptable. The new AutoNation will span 11 lots and 500+feet along Coast Highway, which is about three times big- ger than currently or previously has occupied the space. AutoNation proposed to break with tradi- tion by introducing service operations, which are not part of the existing companies, such as Fer- rari, Maserati, McLaren, and Phillips Auto Dealerships along Mariners Mile. According to AutoNation Officials, Porsche Headquarters in Germany dictated the complete de- sign and street appearance of the structure.AutoNation stated, at the September 21, 2016 meet- ing at Balboa Bay Club, that it had no choice and must comply with Porsche. Simply put, an In- ternational Company and a Nationwide Company are telling the City of Newport Beach and the residential communities of Newport Heights and Bayshores what to do.They disregard communi- ty design criteria and standards, such as the dictum that Mariners Mile buildings are to have a nautical appearance. The AutoNation Project proposes a massive commercial industrial development that is incompati- ble with the intent of the Mariners Mile Master Plan and undermines the reasons residents have chosen to live in the Bayshores and Newport Heights communities. Further, the proposed 500+ foot long structure spanning 11 lots along West Coast Highway is overwhelming and far too mas- sive for the physical dimensions and limitations of the site. If the height of the structure is mea- sured from the curb level along West Coast Highway to the highest point of the structure, the height exceeds 50 feet.To achieve a clearer community understanding of the length, hight and depth of the proposed buildings, I request the Planning Commission require AutoNation Porsche to online the structure with Story Poles. This proposed use of the land will have significant negative impacts (design, hours of operation, noise, traffic congestion, safety, light and reflection, elevation, water consumption)on the daily lives of the families living in the two adjacent residential neighborhoods of Newport Heights to the North atop the bluff and Bayshores South across West Coast Highway. There are few, if any, characteristics of the proposed use of the site that enhances the neighborhoods, the quality of life, and the property values of the residents living in these communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 September 22, 2016 Page 2 Previously, on August 18, 2016, during the Planning Commission Hearing, I expressed the follow- ing observations: • The City of Newport Beach is becoming too industrialized. This proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding communities and inconsistent with other buildings along this section of West Coast Highway. • The project includes a Porsche Service Center while most of the other Auto Dealerships along PCH are limited to showrooms with their Service Centers located near the John Wayne Airport. • The proposed building is too massive for the site and should be limited to a single story. • The City of Newport Beach is requiring AutoNation to widen PCH to three lanes on the North bound side. A third lane will increase the speed of vehicles along this corridor and present safe- ty issues.Also, the proposed construction project is occurring shortly after the completion of the lengthy storm drain project, which has caused considerable vibrations felt by those living near- by, as well as congestion, noise and filth. When will the City say an enough is enough for these neighborhoods? • Should there by construction in this vicinity, the city should require that the power lines behind the proposed buildings be underground. When the Mariners' Point Building at the corner of Dover and PCH was under construction, the power lines were put underground. The Newport Beach City Council must not allow the AutoNation Porsche proposed development or any development of this size to be built along Mariners' Mile until the Mariners' Mile Revitaliza- tion Master Plan is finalized, and finalization should not occur until after the Planning Commission Public Workshops involving all stakeholders have been held. Moreover,the finalized plan should include criteria and design standards. Further, the Initial Mitigated Negative Declaration Study dated July 8, 2016,falls short of fulfilling the city's lead agency responsibility to assure no harm as required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Accordingly,the more complete and thorough Environmental Impact Report(EIR) must be required. It is important to understand that community involvement regarding this development project in unusually high and clearly demonstrates the great interest and concerns of homeowners living in the immediate vicinity. We trust that the city's planning process will work to the benefit of all. In view of the above, the City Council should decide this project. Only the City Council elected by and accountable to the Citizens of Newport Beach should make the final decision. The Planning Commission's role should be limited to a review and a recommendation. Concerned Resident, Patrick Gormley Past President Bayshores Community Association 22.E From: Luke Dru To: Campbell,James Cc: Kramer. Korv; Dunlap. Bill; Koetting.Peter; Hillpren.Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand.Erik;Zak,Peter; Biddle, Jennifer; Campagnolo. Daniel Subject: Auto Nation Porsche Date: Friday,September 23,2016 11:09:31 AM Dear Planning Commission I would like to register my objections to the Auto Nation move to the Mariners Mile. As an introduction, I have been involved with the Automotive industry for over 25 years. I was an owner of a Dodge—Chevrolet dealership for three years. Since 1994 1 have been involved in the vehicle dealership Dealer Management Systems (DMS) providing computer systems and software for running a dealership. This includes software for dealership Accounting, Parts department, Service department, and sales and finance department. We have installed systems in over 150 dealerships in the southwest U.S. We also did the personnel training in all departments in these dealerships which included spending one to two weeks on site at the dealership. To say the lease, I am very knowledgeable in the workings of a vehicle dealership. The reason I am opposed to the this dealership at this location on PCH is based on many, many reasons. Among those are air pollution, noise pollution, and increased traffic on PCH and surrounding neighborhoods. Noise pollution Increased vehicle engine and tire noise due to: 1. Loud engine/exhaust noise due to Demo ride for customers 2. Loud engine/exhaust noise due to Test drives for testing customer vehicles after repair 3. Loud engine/exhaust noise due to customers entering and leaving the service department* 4. Loud engine/exhaust noise due to starting vehicles to move to and from the roof 5. Increased noise from vehicle haulers coming to and leaving the dealership to deliver vehicles (often late night/early morning hours 6. Increased noise from garbage trucks picking up trash from the dealership Including raising and lowering trash bins (?after hours?) 7. Increased noise from trucks delivering bulk fluids, and retrieving bulk waste fluids(also often after hours) 8. Increased noise from tow trucks towing vehicles with major mechanical work to the other AutoNation facility for repair Air Pollution Increased Vehicle exhaust fumes due to: 1. Increase traffic due to Demo ride for customers 2. Increase traffic due to customers entering and leaving the service 220 department 3. Increased traffic due to starting vehicles to move to and from the roof 4. Vehicles running in the service department while doing repairs** 5. From vehicle haulers coming to and leaving the dealership to deliver vehicles (often late night/early morning hours) 6. From garbage trucks picking up trash from the dealership Including raising and lowering trash bins (?after hours?) 7. From trucks delivering bulk fluids, and retrieving bulk waste fluids 8. Increased noise from tow trucks towing vehicles with major mechanical work to the other AutoNation facility for repair ** it was stated by the representative from AutoNation that in order to reduce noise,the garage doors would be closed after the cars were pulled into the service area. This means the exhaust fumes from the service bays will need to be vented out, as the fumes drift up the hill to our homes with the McDonald;s cooking fumes Increase Traffic on PCH and on local streets (Dover, Cliff, Kings, Tustin) due to: 1. Customers entering and leaving the service department* 2. Demo ride for customers 3. Vehicle test drives after service repairs are completed (required by Manufacturer) 4. Vehicle haulers coming to and leaving the dealership to deliver vehicles (often late night/early morning hours) 5. More garbage trucks picking up trash from the dealership Including raising and lowering trash bins (?after hours?) 6. More trucks delivering bulk fluids, and retrieving bulk waste fluids (also often after hours) 7. Tow trucks towing vehicles with major mechanical work to the other AutoNation facility for repair • Note1: I did not include customer vehicles coming and leaving the dealership, because the existing business have customers The only existing dealership with a full Service department in the Mariners Mile is the BMW dealership near Newport Blvd. This dealership does not back right up to the homes on the bluff, and there is a street that runs behind the dealership for access to the service department. Respecfull submitted Luke W. Dru Kings Road 949.646.7612 227 From: Terry Buckley To: Kramer, Korv; Koettinp, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillpren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski. Brenda; Campbell.James Subject: Proposed Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach(PA2015-095) Date: Friday,September 02,2016 3:20:22 PM As Newport Beach residents in the community of Bayshores, my wife and I are very concerned about the impact of the proposed development, being considered in our city, by Autonation Porsche of Newport Beach. Our chief concerns are noise, light, height, glare, increase of traffic and dangerous left hand turns, potential health hazards from the considerable use of known carcinogens, the precedent of approving such a large development in close proximity to two residential communities and the potential conflict with the new Mariners' Mile Revitalization Master Plan. I am sure that all of these concerns will continue to be carefully studied and discussed before any decisions are made and we would be most interested in the depth of these discussions and the time allocated to them by your group. We will attend any further Planning Commission meetings that will address this subject and will be happy to provide any input requested by you. Thank you for your consideration. cc: Marco Popovich. Peggy Palmer, Kathy Infantino, Ann Jones 222 From: Brandt. Kim To: "Claudette Buckley" Cc: Campbell.James Subject: RE: Autonation Porsche Date: Wednesday,August 31,2016 10:49:36 AM Thank you Claudette for your email; I will forward it on to Project Planner Jim Campbell for inclusion in the public record for Planning Commission consideration. Kivu From: Claudette Buckley [mailto:claudyb@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:45 AM To: Brandt, Kim Subject: Fwd: Autonation Porsche From: Claudette Buckley <claudyyyb(a�bc,global.net> Date: August 31, 2016 at 9:29:26 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: Autonation Porsche To: Kim Brandt, Community Development Director From: Claudette Buckley, Bayshore Resident This email is to state my objection to the proposed Autonation Porsche Dealership on PCH. We do not want anymore extreme growth on PCH to further disrupt our everyday life with more noise, traffic, pollution, congestion, etc., plus night lighting, noise from paging systems and all the various annoyances from car dealerships. There are 248 homes in Bayshores alone that will be affected by the building of this huge dealership. Let's not forget the destruction of the nautical theme that has been one of the lovely draws to our area for vacationers. Thank you for addressing this proposal. Claudette Sent from my iPad 229 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Subject: FW:Auto Nation From: Karen Linden [mai Ito:karenlindenQsbcolobal.net] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:10 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Auto Nation Jim, Tom and I would like to voice our opposition to the construction of auto nation across the street from Bayshores residential. Our concerns are the lighting, noise and traffic and the sense that it is not the right mix for Mariners Mile redevelopment. We greatly appreciate you making us aware of the potential development and voicing our concerns on our behalf. Thank you Jim- Karen and Tom Linden 2601 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach 949-230-6913 Sent from my iPhonc t 230 Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Subject: FW: Bayshores Residents Opposed Car Dealership on PCH From: JULIE WILSON<wilsonbay(a,me.com> Date: August 18, 2016 at 10:14:56 AM PDT To: <klcramer(a)newportbeachca.gov>, <bdunlap(&newportbeachca.gov>, <pkoetting_(a newportbeachca.gov>, <bhillgrenknewportbeachca.gov>, <rlawlerknewportbeachca.gov>, <eweigandknewportbeachca.gov>, <pzak(a,)newportbeachca.gov>, <jbiddle(a,newportbeacca.gov>, <dcampagnolo(i�newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Bayshores Residents Opposed Car Dealership on PCH Dear Members of our NB Planning Commission, As member of the Bayshore Community Association board of directors, we strongly oppose the proposed car dealership directly across from our community. This use will bring increased noise, light, and traffic to an already extremely busy area of the coast. Newport currently has too many luxury car dealerships and quite frankly, we'd like those to move once leases expire. Please do not support this development in this location. In looking to the future for re-development of Mariners' Mile, this is NOT the type of use Bayshores as a community can support. Julie Wilson wilsonbaykmac.com r 231 V� QP �P Attachment PC 9 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 233 V� QP �P 231f Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration [AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach CEQA Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Community Development Dept. Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project Applicant: AutoNation 200 Southwest Int Avenue #1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 CEQA Consultant: T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 September 26, 2016 235 23C ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Facie F.0 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration.......................................................................................................F-I F.I Introduction.......................................................................................................................................F-I F.2 Corrections and Additions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.....................................F-I F.3 No Recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Required.....................................F-I 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Document............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 CEQA Requirements for Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs).................................. 1-1 1.3 Format and Content of this Mitigated Negative Declaration............................................... 1-2 1.4 Preparation and Processing of this Mitigated Negative Declaration................................... 1-2 2.0 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location of the Project Site.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 CEQA Requirements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions.......................2-1 2.3 Existing Site and Area Characteristics........................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Existing Site Conditions..................................................................................................2-1 2.3.2 Site Access..........................................................................................................................2-5 2.3.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development.................................................................2-5 2.4 City Planning Context.................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan..........................................................................2-5 2.4.2 City of Newport Beach Zoning Designations............................................................2-8 2.4.3 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan........................................................2-8 3.0 Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Project Overview............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Building Details..................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Building Mass and Architectural Features...................................................................3-3 3.1.3 Access/Parking...................................................................................................................3-3 3.1.4 Exterior Features/Landscaping......................................................................................3-7 3.1.5 Lighting Plan.......................................................................................................................3-7 3.1.6 West Coast Highway Widening....................................................................................3-9 3.2 Project Technical Characteristics................................................................................................ 3-9 3.2.1 Demolition.........................................................................................................................3-9 3.2.2 Conceptual Grading Plan................................................................................................3-9 3.2.3 Anticipated Construction Schedule............................................................................3-12 3.2.4 Construction Staging......................................................................................................3-12 3.2.5 Hours of Construction..................................................................................................3-12 3.2.6 Construction Equipment...............................................................................................3-12 3.2.7 Construction Employees and Construction Employee Parking..........................3-13 3.2.8 Demolition Hauling Routes and Construction Materials Delivery Routes.......3-13 3.2.9 Off-Site Improvements..................................................................................................3-14 3.2.10 Temporary Roadway Lane Closures..........................................................................3-14 3.2.1 1 Fire Hydrant Plan (Fire Protection)............................................................................3-15 3.3 Project Operational Characteristics.........................................................................................3-15 3.4 Proposed Discretionary Approvals...........................................................................................3-15 3.4.1 Site Development Review No. SD2015-002............................................................3-15 3.4.2 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-025................................................................3-I6 3.4.3 Newport Parcel Map No. NP2015-010....................................................................3-16 3.4.4 Approvals Required from Other Agencies...............................................................3-16 3.5 Existing Environmental Characteristics....................................................................................3-17 AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page ii 237 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Paqe 3.5.1 Air Quality........................................................................................................................3-17 3.5.2 Topography, Geology and Soils...................................................................................3-17 3.5.3 Hydrology.........................................................................................................................3-18 3.5.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................3-18 3.5.5 Historical, Archaeological,and Paleontological Resources..................................3-18 3.5.6 Rare and Unique Resources.........................................................................................3-18 4.0 Project Information........................................................................................................................................ 4-1 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis........................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency)....................................................... 5-1 5.3 City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Summary................................................. 5-2 5.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts........................................................................................5-1 1 5.4.1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................5-11 5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..........................................................................5-22 5.4.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................................5-24 5.4.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................5-34 5.4.5 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................5-36 5.4.6 Geology and Soils...........................................................................................................5-41 5.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................................5-46 5.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................5-50 5.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................5-54 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................5-60 5.4.1 1 Mineral Resources..........................................................................................................5-66 5.4.12 Noise.................................................................................................................................5-66 5.4.13 Population and Housing................................................................................................5-79 5.4.14 Public Services.................................................................................................................5-80 5.4.15 Recreation........................................................................................................................5-81 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic...................................................................................................5-82 5.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................5-97 5.4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance...........................................................................5-102 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program........................................................................................ 6-1 7.0 References........................................................................................................................................................ 7-1 8.0 Persons Contributing to IS/MND Preparation........................................................................................8-1 AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page iii 238 No 07 Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF TECHNICALAPPENDICES The reports identified below are included within the Technical Appendices to this MND,and are herein incorporated by reference p u rsuant to C EQA Gu idelin es§15150.Th ese reports are attached to th is MND (bound separately) and also are available for review at the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive,Newport Beach,CA 92660,during regular business hours. A. Conceptual Design Documents BI. Air Quality Impact Analysis B2. Greenhouse Gas Analysis C. Geotechnical Investigation D. Phase I and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment E. Water Quality Management Plan F. Noise Study G. Traffic Impact Analysis AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page iv 239 No 01-1 Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number/Title Page Figure2-1 Regional Map.............................................................................................................................................2-2 Figure2-2 Vicinity Map...............................................................................................................................................2-3 Figure2-3 Aerial Photograph....................................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-4 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-5 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations...............................................................................2-7 Figure 2-6 Existing Zoning Designations...............................................................................................................2-9 Figure3-1 Proposed Site Plan...................................................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 South Building Elevation........................................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-3 East and West Building Elevations.....................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-4 Representative Architectural Renderings.......................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-5 Landscape Planting Plan.........................................................................................................................3-8 Figure 3-6 General Area to be Disturbed by Proposed WestCoast Highway Widening...............3-10 Figure 3-7 Conceptual Grading Plan....................................................................................................................3-1 1 Figure5-1 Site Photo Key Map..............................................................................................................................5-12 Figures-2 Site Photographs 1-3............................................................................................................................5-13 Figure5-3 Site Photographs 4-6............................................................................................................................5-14 Figure5-4 Site Photographs 7-10..........................................................................................................................5-15 Figure 5-5 Site Photographs I I-12 (Off-Site Impact Areas)........................................................................5-16 AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page v 240 No 00 Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF TABLES Table Number/Title Page Table 3-1 Construction Duration........................................................................................................................3-12 Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Usage........................................................................................................3-13 Table 5-1 SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status...............................................................5-26 Table 5-2 SCAQMD Maximum Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds...................................................5-28 Table 5-3 Emissions Summary of Construction (Without Mitigation)...................................................5-29 Table 5-4 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions (Summer Scenario)..............................................5-30 Table 5-5 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions (Winter Scenario)................................................5-30 Table 5-6 Localized Significance Summary Construction - Site Preparation........................................5-32 Table 5-7 Localized Significance Summary Construction - Onsite Grading.........................................5-32 Table 5-8 Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual)..................................................................5-49 Table 5-9 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements...........................................................................5-68 Table 5-10 Municipal Code Operational Noise Standards............................................................................5-70 Table 5-11 Project Operational Noise Levels...................................................................................................5-71 Table 5-12 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels....................................................................................5-72 Table 5-13 Significance Criteria Summary...........................................................................................................5-73 Table 5-14 Daytime Operational Noise Level Contributions......................................................................5-73 Table 5-15 Existing Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts..........................................................5-75 Table 5-16 TPO Year 2019 Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts..........................................5-76 Table 5-17 Cumulative Year 2019 Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts.............................5-77 Table 5-18 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary...............................................5-78 Table 5-19 Project Trip Generation......................................................................................................................5-87 Table 5-20 Existing(Year 2016) + Project Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service...5- 88 Table 5-21 TPO One-Percent Threshold Analysis..........................................................................................5-90 Table 5-22 TPO Year 2019 Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service..........................5-91 Table 5-23 Year 2019 + Project Intersection Capacity Utilization and Levels of Service.................5-92 AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page vi 241 242 SECTION F. FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 243 244 No ■F] Mitigated Negative Declaration F. FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FA INTRODUCTION This Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 1500 et seq.). It acknowledges comments received by the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) on the Draft MND that was circulated for public review. The content contained herein represents the Lead Agency's independent judgment. F.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Substantive changes have been made to the text,tables, and/or exhibits of the MND in response to written comments received by the City of Newport Beach on the Draft MND as well as those made at the Newport Beach Planning Commission hearing on September 1,2016. Based on comments received by the City of Newport Beach related to the potential for nuisance noise emanating from the rooftop parking areas that may affect nearby residents, the Project Description has been amended to including the following new or modified components: • The roof of the proposed building would consist of a solid covering, which would provide uninterrupted coverage of the entirety of the rooftop parking area and drive aisle. • The building height for the structure would provide for a maximum height of 38 feet above the amsl base elevation in order to accommodate the additional roof surface. The base elevation is established per 20.30.050.B.3 for lots with a slope of more than five per cent and the base elevation varies over the project site. The maximum building height will not exceed 38' above the base elevation established at any point of the site. As the building height would exceed the existing City of Newport Beach Zoning Code designation for the Project site,the project would require the approval of a variance by the Planning Commission which would allow a structure with a maximum height of up to 38 feet above the Project site's amsl base elevation. The approval of the variance from the Zoning Code would be in addition to the other discretionary approvals that were identified in the Draft MND. No corrections or additions made to the Draft MND are considered substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section(§) 15073.5 F.3 NO RECIRCULATION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUIRED CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 describes the conditions under which a Draft MND that was circulated for public review is required to be recirculated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 states that new information added to a Draft MND is not considered a "substantial revision" requiring recirculation unless a new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or the lead agency determines that proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page F-1 24.E No ■F] Mitigated Negative Declaration and new measures or revisions must be required. Examples of "minor" revisions that do not require recirculation include: a. Replacement of mitigation measures with equal or more effective measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15074.1; b. New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects; c. Measures or conditions of project approval that are added after public review which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects, and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and d. New information that merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Negative Declaration. The revisions to the project description identified above were added in response to written and verbal comments that are not intended to reduce a significant physical environmental impact that was identified in the Draft MND. The proposed covered rooftop and associated increase in the height of the structure by up to 3 feet above the maximum building height allowed under the Zoning Code would result in a building that (although slightly taller) would be substantially similar in size and scale to the building that was evaluated in the Draft MND. Accordingly, the City of Newport Beach has determined that this revision would not constitute a"substantial revision"as it would result in new avoidable significant environmental effects the changes are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. Since the Draft MND was circulated for public review, there were no changes to the Project that would result in a new,avoidable significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of any significant effect previously disclosed in the Draft MND. Furthermore, as described above, there were no public comments or"substantial revisions"to the Draft MND that would warrant recirculation of the document. Additionally, the Draft MND was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the Draft MND were supported by evidence provided within the Draft MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the Draft MND did not include any substantive evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant impact on the environment or identify any alternatives to the mitigation measures or the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft MND that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing,recirculation of the Draft MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in §15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page F-2 240 ME M❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction 1 .0 Introduction This Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)evaluatesthe AutoNation PorscheofNewportBeach Project (hereafter, "the Project"). The Project is proposed by AutoNation (hereafter,"the Project Applicant) on a 1.79-acre property (hereafter"the Project Site") located north of West Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Tustin Avenue in the City of Newport Beach,Orange County,California. The Project Applicant proposes to construct and operate a n ew 37,347 square foot(s.f.)automobile dealership building with associated parking, exterior lighting, signage, and landscaping improvements on the Project Site. Under existing conditions,the property is developed with commercial retail land uses,which would be demolished and removed to accommodate the proposed Project. 1.1 Purpose of this Document The Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The content of this MND complies with all criteria, standards,and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,Section 15000 et seq.). CEQA is a statewide environmental statute contained in Public Resources Code §§21000-21 177 that applies to most public agency decisions to carry out,authorize,or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. CEQA requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment,the agency must inform itself about the project's potential environmental impacts,give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues,and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment. As defined by CEQA Guidelines§15367,the City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project. "Lead Agency"refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving project. Approvals required of the City of Newport Beach to implement the proposed Project include, but are not limited to, a Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and discretionary approval of the increased building height within the Commercial General (CG 0.3 FAR) zoning district. These actions and other approval actions required of the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and/or other governmental agencies to fully implement the proposed Project are described in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description. If this MND is approved by the City of Newport Beach,Responsible and Trustee agencies with approval authorities over the Project can use this MND as the CEQA compliance document as part of their decision-making processes. 1.2 CEQA Requirements for Mitigated Negative Declarafions (NINDsj< A MND is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons why a proposed project which is not exempt from the requirements of C EQA,will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (CEQA Guidelines §15371). The CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of a MND if the Initial Study prepared for a project identifies potentially significant effects,but: 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed MND and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2) there is no substantial evidence,in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment(CEQA Guidelines§15070[b]). AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page 1-1 247 ME M❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction 1.3 Format and Content of this Mitigated Negative Dedaration The following items comprise the MND in its entirety: I) This document, including all Sections. Section 5.0 contains the completed Environmental Checklistlinitial Study and its associated analyses,which documents the evidence relied upon to supportthe findings and conclusions of the Initial Study. 2) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP),which lists the mitigation measures that the City of Newport Beach has identified and imposed on the proposed Projectto ensure that the Project's environmental effects are reduced to less-than-significant levels. The basis for the MMRP is found in the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study. The MMRP also indicates the required timing for the implementation of each mitigation measure, identifies the parties responsible for implementing and/or monitoring the mitigation measures, and identifies the level of significance following the incorporation of mitigation. 3) Seven technical reports that evaluate the effects of the proposed Project,which are attached as Technical Appendices Bth rough G. These technical reports also are on file and available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division (100 Civic Center Drive; Newport Beach, California 92660) and are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§15150. BI. Air Quality Impact Analysis,prepared by Urban Crossroads,and dated June 14, 2016. B2. GreenhouseGas(GHG)Analysis,prepared by Urban Crossroads,anddatedJune 14,2016. C. Geotechnical Investigation Report, AutoNation — Newport Porsche,600 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services,Inc.,and dated April 20,2015. D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1.8-acres of Land Currently Developed with Retail Shops,320 to 600 West Coast Highway,Newport Beach, California, prepared byJ HA Environmental,and dated March 30,201 Sand Reportof Findings for Focused Phase 11 Investigation for a Possible Underground Storage Tank at 320 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, prepared by JHA Environmental,and dated June 18,2015. E. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), AutoNation, Porsche of Newport Beach, 550 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, prepared by Stantec,and dated June 1,2016. F. Noise Impact Analysis,prepared by Urban Crossroads,dated July 7,2016. G. Traffic Impact Analysis, AutoNation Porsche Dealership, prepared by Kunznzan Associates,Inc.,dated June 3, 2016. 1.4 Preparation and Processing of this Mitigated Negative Declaration The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division directed and supervised the preparation of this MND. Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm T&B AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page 1-2 242 No E❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction Planning, Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this MND reflect the sole independent judgment of the City of Newport Beach. This MND and a Notice of Intent(NOI)to adoptthe MND will be distributed to the following entities for a 30-day public review period: I) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of Newport Beach; 2) direct mailing to the owners of property contiguous to the Project Site and property owners within a 300-foot radius as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; 3) responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); 4) the County of Orange Clerk; and 5) the California Office of Planning and Research,State Clearinghouse,for review by State agencies. The NOI identifiesthe location(s)where the MND and its associated MMRPand Technical Appendices areavailable for public review. In addition,notice of the public review period also will occurvia postingof a notice at City Hall (100 Civic Center Drive) and at the Project Site, and publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The NOI also establishes a 30-day public review period during which comments on the adequacy of the MND document may be provided to the City of Newport Beach Planning Division. Following the 30-day public review period, the City of Newport Beach will review any and all comment letters received and determine whether any substantive comments were provided that may warrant revisions to the MND document. If substantial revisions are not necessary (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §I 5073.5(b)),then the MND will be finalized and forwarded to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. A public hearing(s)will be held before the City's Planning Commission to consider the proposed Project and the adequacy of this MND. Public comments will be heard and considered at the hearing(s). If the MND is approved,the Planning Commission will adopt findings relative to the Project's environmental effects as disclosed in the MND and a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the County of Orange Clerk. AutoNation Porsche Lead Agency:City of Newport Beach Page 1-3 V� QP �P ��o Attachment PC 10 Public Notice Information 251 V� QP �P PoRr NOTICE OF PUBLIC O� e C��rF00.N�P HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, October 06, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach - Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Traffic Study for the construction and operation of a 38,473 square foot automobile sales and service facility (dealership) including a showroom, outdoor vehicle display areas, offices, service facility, vehicle inventory storage and employee parking on the roof of the building. A Tentative Parcel Map is proposed to consolidate 11 existing lots creating one 1.64 acre lot. A Variance application has been added after the August 18, 2016, hearing based upon Planning Commission comments to potentially allow a cover for the rooftop parking, which would exceed the 35-foot height limit. The applicant is not proposing a full rooftop cover or a Variance. The project also includes a 12-foot dedication along the Coast Highway frontage and will include the widening of Coast Highway creating a new 3rd northbound traffic lane fronting the project site and the two abutting properties to the east and west. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of several mitigation measures. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs, additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing, the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the Community Development Department Permit Center (Bay C-1st Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, CA 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov/planningcommission. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact James Campbell, Principal Planner, at (949) 644- 3210 or Jcampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2015-095 Activity Nos.: SD2015-002, UP2015-025, VA2015- 002 and NP2015-010 Zone: CG (General Commercial) General Plan: CG (General Commercial) Location: 320-600 W. Coast Highway In the Mariner's Mile area approximately 500 feet west of the Applicant: AutoNation, Inc. intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive Peter Zak, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach 25S rda sy rs m ar,= d G e 9g e a e.c 8 4 4 � � o 30 _--- - R wEn xwv e e t ° 6Cf B A• a, � � Pm i a �a A b, a� :r. grew ✓,a '�gmC a e4ryPi bbrye ryry ♦rbb bb b �`����8 0 r f rq arr rye ry y Nr y rry � q A ' 3 rggVa q' a b ^ � ^�~e AA �♦ e�° raePo�rgt W 5 PA2015-095 (AutoNation) o eoo t,000 Feet 320-600 Coast Highway West 300 Foot Mailing Radius Map e na�moa�° and Additional Properties as shown on Map. -c.... ocument Name:PA2015-095&u Nation addtional m e&esDate:09/13/2016 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport4M%)�R WA2015-095) CHARLES B. CALDWELL COMMUNITY 2715 BAYSHORE DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 OCT 0 3 2016 n� DEVELOPMENT G� September 30,2016 l�DE g�P OP NEWPOt1, RE:Project File PA201"95-AutoNation DEAR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, First,let me thank you for your dedicated service to our Community...it is appreciated. Now let me be brief. As a 45+year resident of Newport Beach and a resident of Bayshores I have witnessed both GOOD and BAD development in our City.Unfortunately I am unable to attend the October 6 meeting but would ask that this letter be READ into the record as I believe to be a BAD project. My opposition to this project is predicated primarily on its MASSIVE scale.Combining 11 small lots,originally intended for smaller,boutique businesses and combining them into one larger parcel defeats the original intent of Mariners'Mile and good planning. The very narrow configuration of the lots is forcing AutoNation to create a 500'+ long, rail car looking ediface,in excess of 50'tall,from the sidewalk and therefore,is totally out of scale and character with the neighborhood towering over the Bayshores community. The Mariners' Mile Revitalization Plan,currently in progress,would certainly not allow such a structure as their goals call for a more"village oriented concept" and to maintain ithe area's smaller scale businesses, NOT an AutoMall. With the exception of BMW all the other auto related businesses along Mariners' Mile have NO service component and are purely sales facilities,on small parcels. Although the AutoNation executive stated pubically they have looked for seven years to find an appropriate location in Newport Beach to relocate their PORSCHE brand and couldn't. I suggest they have missed several better opportunities during that period. In the airport area several large parcels have been re-developed into successful auto sales/service/rental related businesse What AutoNation should consider is a move of their"heavy automotive repair" business for all three models to the airport area. The Planning Commission and City Ciuncil have both recently rejected a MASSIVE multi-family residential development on a site currently used for retail purposesand is now almost abandonened. That site would be an EXCELLENT LOCATION a"heavy mechanical"auto service facility for all three brands PLUS provide more then ample room for auto storage and loading and unloading of vechile carriers. There are no residential units in that area. I also believe this would be a less expensive alternative then the proposed site without the need for a 50' building,auto elevators and numerous porters they would require at the proposed site. With Land Rover service/storage facility located across the street and Lexus and Mercedes both nearby. SALES for all three AutoNation brands could then remain in place at their EXISTING location which would be more than large enough to also facilitate minor repairs,and free up that site so auto carriers no longer need to use Bayside Drive and PCH to offload cars impeding traffic on those streets. Porsche,Audi and Bentley would still be would still be in the Newport Beach"auto district"maintaining the sales tax revenue the City desires to maintain. In conclusion,a 500 foot concrete steel glass monument to PORSCHE,which is in excess of 50 feet in height from the current sidewalk, Is simply not in keeping with the Mariners' Mile neighborhood. I feel this project should be DENIED. Since ely yours, arles B.B.Cal cc: Steven Rosansky, Newport West James Campbell,City of Newport Beach Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) From: Luke Dru <luke@thedrufamily.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:27 PM To: Campbell,James Cc: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter, Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik;Zak, Peter; Biddle,Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: Proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership Dear Mister Campbell and members of the Planning commission I find it unacceptable for the proposed AutoNation Porsche dealership (hereby listed as Porsche)to be built on the proposed site at 320-600 W. Coast highway. At the last city council meeting,the subject of the existing BMW dealership (hereby listed as BMW)was brought up. There is no reasonable comparison between the BMW dealership and the proposed Porsche dealership because of the following: 1. There is a street behind the BMW dealer which helps isolate it from the bluffs (none at Porsche). 2. The distance from BMW to the back of existing residences is approximately equal to the distance from the back of the houses on Kings Road to the existing curb on W. Coast Highway. 3. The height of BMW look to be less than 30 feet above the highway, as compared to the proposed 50 feet for Porsche. 4. A major portion of the BMW is set back from the highway by 30 to 50 feet(much less at Porsche). 5. There is no parking on the roof of BMW(unlike the proposed Porsche). 6. Items 2, 3,4 and 5 make it such that the view of the bluffs behind the dealership is minimally impacted. For instance,the view from the New Mariners Park,the bluffs above W. Coast Highway are visible all along from Riverside Drive to Dover. If the 50' Porsche is built we the citizens will lose almost 600 feet of bluff views. 7. There are no houses on W.Coast Highway across from BMW to have to suffer from the reflected sounds of loudly tuned exhaust systems of the Porsche, BMW and Mclaren sports cars on test drive along this highway. There will also be increased noise from all the additional test drives from the sales demo rides, and service test drives. When the sales and service realize that making a left turn across W. Coast Highway is difficult most of the time, they will start turning up Riverside, across Cliff to Dover to PCH and make a right turn into the dealership. These drives will be like the test drives of BMW's that go along Cliff drive. While walking along Cliff Drive,we saw what looked like four BMW Demo drives Sunday afternoon in about one and a half hours. Respectfully submitted Luke W. Dru Kings Road 949.646.7612 1 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) From: Stop AutoNation Porsche <stopautonationporsche@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 4:23 PM To: Kramer, Kory; pkoetting@newportbeach.gov; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray;Weigand, Erik; Brandt, Kim;Wisneski, Brenda; Nova, Makana; Biddle, Jennifer Subject: Petition to stop AutoNation Porsche project Attachments: StopAutoNation letter to NBPC with all data 10316 Final.pdf October 3, 2016 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Re: AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Dear Members of the Planning Commission: On August 18 the Planning Commission heard the application of AutoNation Porsche to move their car sales and service operation from PCH and Bayside to PCH just west of Dover. Most residents of the two immediately adjacent neighborhoods had just learned of the application that same day. In discussion after the meeting it became apparent that the project is a very unpopular idea for very good reasons. After a series of meetings in September, a group of concerned homeowners developed a petition, asking you to deny this project, which was sent out on Monday, September 26. By noon today there were 734 signatures. The petition addresses several aspects of the project which we believe should disqualify it for its intended spot. After the petition went out, it also became apparent that AutoNation's operation at PCH near Bayside operates in conscious disregard for their permits, storing and washing cars in The Dunes parking lot. They are not good neighbors in their existing spot, and it would be unrealistic to expect them to be good neighbors in their new location. Attached please find a copy of the petition together with a recap of the results and supporting details. We have provided redacted information, and a full report can be provided if requested. Thank you for consideration of our local concerns about this location. Please vote to deny this project. Sincerely, Peggy Palmer Kings Road 92663 pvombaur(a),,aol.com t Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) October 3, 2016 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Re: AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach(PA2015-095) Dear Members of the Planning Commission: On August 18 the Planning Commission heard the application of AutoNation Porsche to move their car sales and service operation from PCH and Bayside to PCH just west of Dover. Most residents of the two immediately adjacent neighborhoods had just learned of the application that same day. In discussion after the meeting it became apparent that the project is a very unpopular idea for very good reasons. After a series of meetings in September, a group of concerned homeowners developed a petition, asking you to deny this project, which was sent out on Monday, September 26. By noon today there were 734 signatures. The petition addresses several aspects of the project which we believe should disqualify it for its intended spot. After the petition went out, it also became apparent that AutoNation's operation at PCH near Bayside operates in conscious disregard for their permits, storing and washing cars in The Dunes parking lot. They are not good neighbors in their existing spot, and it would be unrealistic to expect them to be good neighbors in their new location. Attached please find a copy of the petition together with a recap of the results and supporting details. We have provided redacted information, and a full report can be provided if requested. Thank you for consideration of our local concerns about this location. Please vote to deny this project. Sincerely, Peggy Palmer Kings Road 92663 pvombaur@aol.com Tom Baker Newport Heights 92663 tomlubaker@hotmail.com Katherine Infantino Bayshores 92663 kinfantino@gmail.com . . . on behalf of the undersigned Newport neighborhood residents, working together toward thoughtful, responsible development of Mariners Mile. cc: Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Raymond Lawler, Commissioner Erik Wigand, Commissioner City of Newport Beach Community Development Staff Kim Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Asst. Community Development Director Makana Nova, Assistant Planner Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Stop AutoNation Porsche Petition October 3, 2016 Petition Recap Respondent Location #Respondents Zip Code 92663 475 Zip Code 92662 20 Zip Code 92661 19 Zip Code 92660 165 Zip Code 92659 2 Zip Code 92657 1 Zip Code 92625 26 Neighboring Cities 26 Comments Total Verified Signers 734 Duplicates removed and not included in report 14 Petition to Stop AutoNation Porsche Project Pa lo 2 Planning Commission bcto er 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Petition to Stop AutoNation Porsche Project Newport Beach Planning Commission &City Council: We believe that AutoNationPorsche is a BAD FIT for Mariners' Mile, and ask that the Planning Commission deny the application for this project, and the City Council uphold that decision. Please VOTE NO and deny the project currently proposed for 320-600 W. Pacific Coast Highway,for these reasons: ......The project would replace small neighborhood-friendly businesses with a shiny corporate monolith almost as long as two football fields, wedged against the coastal bluff between two residential neighborhoods. ......Its architecture and size are unlike any other nearby buildings, flying in the face of ongoing planning for a nautically-themed Mariners' Mile. ......The auto-dealership uses (both sales and service)do not primarily serve local residents or harbor visitors and are inappropriate for the residential surroundings, with potential impacts on health,safety, traffic, noise, bluff stability, light pollution, visual resources and property values. More appropriate areas exist within the city(for example, near the airport). ......The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)is not sufficient to address the potential negative impacts attendant to this project. Please require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)to fully evaluate those. In conclusion, AutoNation Porsche does not fit into the developing vision for Mariners' Mile. The redevelopment of these parcels should be deferred until that vision is complete. Furthermore,the potential negative impacts on long-established Newport neighborhoods need more analysis. Approving AutoNation Porsche at this time would be out of sequence in Newport's own planning strategy, and utterly inconsistent with the direction suggested by existing City documents. Please Vote NO on the AutoNation Porsche application. Thank you. Required AutoNation Porsche @ 320-600 W. Pacific Coast Highway FRONT VIEW(NMN FACING)WEST COAST XIGXWAY i Petition Deadline is Monday, October 3, 2016 by noon. https://docs.google.com/foniis/d/I iy88BZDIFZhgyGUF5BduoTIA6wgt l Olz3nj29g_aXyE/... 10/3/2016 Petition to Stop AutoNation Porsche Project Pa 2o 2 Planning Commission -bcto er 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 1. First Name 2. Last Name 3. Zip Code 4. Email Address (so we can provide you with a Petition Recap) 5. Comments Thank you for supporting our request for a NO VOTE by Planning Commission and City Council on the AutoNation Porsche Project along Mariners' Mile. Click SUBMIT to finish. Powered by lbGoogle Forms https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1 iy88BZDIFZhgyGUF5BduoTIA6wgt I0lz3nj29g_aXyE/... 10/3/2016 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 1 10/3/2016 9:52:56 92663 Thank you for your efforts! 2 10/3/2016 9:37:50 92663 3 10/3/2016 8:56:17 92663 4 10/3/2016 8:08:33 92663 5 10/3/2016 7:18:06 92663 6 10/3/2016 5:57:47 92663 7 10/3/2016 92663 No dealership!! 8 10/3/2016 92663 1 believe it will cause too much traffic. 9 10/3/2016 92663 10 10/3/2016 92663 1 like the idea of a "pedestrian plaza" However, NOT at the expense of tearing down historic, great buildings. If there was a way to do it around existing structures, I would be amenable. Other than that, NOT at all. Please NO MORE 11 10/3/2016 92663 traffic/speeding and no more dealerships. 12 10/3/2016 92663 13 10/3/2016 92663 14 10/3/2016 92663 15 10/3/2016 92663 16 10/3/2016 92663 17 10/3/2016 92663 18 10/3/2016 92663 Stop AutoNation Porsche Project 19 10/3/2016 92663 No more car dealership!!! 20 10/3/2016 92663 21 10/3/2016 92663 22 10/3/2016 92663 23 10/3/2016 92663 24 10/3/2016 92663 25 10/3/2016 92663 26 10/3/2016 92663 27 10/3/2016 92663 28 10/3/2016 92663 29 10/3/2016 92663 To build that and widen PCH?This would be a big mistake! Out of touch with the business community on PCH. 30 10/3/2016 92663 We don't want any more car dealer in Newport Beach. Thanks. 31 10/3/2016 92663 32 10/3/2016 92663 33 10/3/2016 92663 NO DEALERSHIP STOP THE MADDNESS 34 10/3/2016 92663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 35 10/3/2016 92663 36 10/3/2016 92663 37 10/3/2016 92663 38 10/3/2016 92663 39 10/3/2016 92663 40 10/3/2016 92663 41 10/3/2016 92663 42 10/3/2016 92663 43 10/3/2016 92663 44 10/3/2016 92663 45 10/3/2016 92663 46 10/3/2016 92663 Please no more dealerships and traffic! 47 10/3/2016 92663 48 10/3/2016 92663 We have to many car accidents, and traffic is already hurting small business. NO MORE DEALERSHIPS!!! 49 10/3/2016 92663 50 10/3/2016 92663 STOP AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT 51 10/3/2016 92663 No more car dealerships in our neighborhood. 52 10/3/2016 92663 53 10/3/2016 92663 STOP AUTONATION PORSCHE PROJECT 54 10/3/2016 92663 no more dealerships! 55 10/3/2016 92663 No more car dealerships in our neighborhood. 56 10/3/2016 92663 No more traffic in front of our business! 57 10/3/2016 92663 58 10/3/2016 92663 No more car dealerships,traffic is already to congested and car accidents are to frequent. We do not want an AutoNation on Pacific Coast Highway. The traffic on this stretch of hwy is already bad. Allowing 59 10/3/2016 92663 this AutoNation will increase traffic and car accidents. 60 10/3/2016 92663 61 10/3/2016 92663 NO MORE TRAFFIC. NO MORE DEALERSHIPS. 62 10/3/2016 92663 63 10/3/2016 92663 64 10/3/2016 92663 65 10/3/2016 192663 66 10/3/2016 92663 NO 3 lanes highway or test drive 67 10/3/2016 92663 68 10/3/2016 92663 69 10/3/2016 92663 Absolutely no way, no dealerships. Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 70 10/3/2016 92663 I'm at a business at 2400 W. Coast Hwy and this would cause a lot of problems for us. We do not want this. 71 10/2/2016 22:46:26 92663 NO VOTE 72 10/2/2016 21:53:29 92663 73 10/2/201618:14:05 92663 This Dealership building is a bad idea and VERY SAD for our beautiful beach area. It just doesn't belong on our 74 10/2/201618:13:18 92663 skyline. 75 10/2/201612:54:34 92663 76 10/2/201612:53:33 92663 Mariner's Mile. PCH. The waterfront. Whatever you want to call it,this is an exceptionally bad location for an auto dealership. (I'm sure the developers would disagree. It would be a great location...for them.) But,think about it! Thi area should be used for restaurants and smaller retail shops and services. People should be able to come here to enjoy the cool ocean breezes and harbor views. I know,sounds corny, but it's about all we have left. A harbor view auto dealership?...No! I wonder how this can even pass preliminary planning! No offense, but you guys at City Planning really need to start using a little bit of common sense! I'm sure the developer will argue that there are already some auto dealerships along this strip. That is true, but it doesn't mean they SHOULD be there! Also,those are much, much,smaller. Locating several dealerships together, large complexes, away from scenic and sensitive areas makes sense. This does not. Thank you. Jim Huyck 77 10/2/2016 12:32:25 92663 Resident of Newport Beach 78 10/2/2016 11:18:52 92663 Shame on Automation, shame on our Planning Commission,stop overcrowding, overbuilding City of Newport Beach! 79 10/2/2016 11:13:42 92663 put all car dealerships on MacArthur with the others This dealership belongs next to other like locales: Harbor Blvd; Dove St next to Lexus; near John Wayne Airport.....tr commercial areas, not Mariners Mile hence the name Mariners not Automotive Mile. I am certain that residents of Th Balboa Bay Club, Bayshores and Cliffhaven/Newport Heights would be willing to drive a little further out to buy their 80 1002016 9:32:19 92663 prized Porsche........driving"it's the reason to buy one in the first place, it's certainly not about the spacial comfort. 81 10/2/2016 8:54:47 92663 1 think that I already signed unless this is a new one. 82 10/2/2016 8:37:43 92663 Too big 83 10/2/2016 4:51:57 92663 No Deal 84 10/2/2016 92663 85 10/2/2016 92663 86 10/2/2016 92663 87 10/2/2016 92663 88 10/2/2016 192663 89 10/2/2016 92663 90 10/2/2016 192663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 91 10/2/2016 92663 92 10/2/2016 92663 93 10/2/2016 92663 94 10/2/2016 92663 95 10/2/2016 92663 96 10/2/2016 92663 97 10/2/2016 92663 98 10/2/2016 92663 99 10/1/201619:55:36 92663 100 10/1/201619:54:37 92663 101 10/1/201619:53:42 92663 102 10/1/2016 19:49:35 92663 Thank you for your efforts in this matter. Thank you for mobilizing our community against this movement initiated for the benefit of the investors, not for our neighborhood well being!They should locate somewhere else in the city that will not be impacted as much by additional traffic(do we really need that?) noise, and traffic accidents,which are becoming increasingly numerous an 103 10/1/2016 17:28:46 92663 especially annoying at any hour of the day or night when all we want to do is get home. :-( 104 10/1/2016 16:51:05 92663 vote NO !!! 105 10/1/201616:39:13 92663 106 10/1/201614:04:29 92663 107 10/1/2016 14:02:41 92663 108 10/1/201614:01:07 92663 109 10/1/2016 12:13:42 92663 Thank you 110 10/1/201610:59:15 92663 111 10/1/2016 10:45:41 92663 Bad idea all the way around 112 10/1/2016 9:33:56 92663 No more car dealers 113 10/1/2016 9:18:11 92663 114 10/1/2016 8:31:45 92663 no auto nation in Newport Beach PCH is not an appropriate location for AUTONATION...SHOULD LOOK AT HARBOR BLVD....there is already too 115 10/1/2016 8:31:01 92663 much traffic on PCH 116 9/30/2016 22:07:50 92663 117 9/30/2016 22:06:47 92663 We do not need another car dealership on PCH. Let's keep our city usable for residents and keep with the Mariner's 118 9/30/2016 22:02:13 92663 Mile theme. I like low profile and nautical. 119 9/30/2016 21:52:16 92663 A Porsche dealership on Mariner's mile would be disastrous for the neighborhood and the ambiance of the city as a 120 9/30/2016 21:48:02 92663 whole.... 121 9/30/2016 21:18:38 92663 A huge project and a very bad idea! 122 9/30/2016 21:05:59 92663 No more Auto sales in our neighborhood! Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Please keep Newport Beach from being over developed. We do not need a Mariner's Mile Auto Sales. Keep what is left of the charm of our neighborhood. 123 9/30/2016 21:04:10 92663 Enough is enough! 124 9/30/2016 21:02:35 92663 No VOTE 125 9/30/2016 20:10:13 92663 Stop the auto dealerships on Mariners Mile 126 9/30/201619:52:28 92663 127 9/30/201617:30:45 92663 128 9/30/201617:08:15 92663 Not long ago,the citizens of Newport Beach voted for LESS growth &development-Despite this,everywhere I look there is more development, and it is large scale. Things are totally out of control. If I wanted to live in Santa Monica, 129 9/30/2016 16:41:51 92663 that's where I'd live. Leave Newport Beach a BEACH community. 130 9/30/201616:36:54 92663 131 9/30/2016 16:35:48 92663 Who's in their pocket? 132 9/30/201616:21:42 92663 133 9/30/2016 16:21:00 92663 Pleezzzzzzz! 134 9/30/2016 15:43:20 92663 not a very good idea for this area. 135 9/30/201614:22:27 92663 136 9/30/201614:21:49 92663 137 9/30/2016 14:18:34 92663 This would be a disaster!!!!! Keep our understated marine-related Mariners'Mile! 138 9/30/2016 14:16:14 92663 No! no !no!to this ugly intrusive project that DOES NOT belong on Mariners' Mile! This proposed building is a behemoth and totally out of character for the area,which is supposed to be nautical in design.What is the point of having a general plan when we seem to be constantly making exceptions to it? Please 139 9/30/2016 13:47:28 92663 reject this project. I own commercial property on PCH. 2201 PCH.Water side. The middle of what was the Ardell property owned now 140 9/30/201612:54:18 92663 Mike Moshayedi. 141 9/30/2016 12:52:50 92663 1 vote NO! 142 9/30/201612:45:15 92663 143 9/30/2016 12:28:30 92663 Mariner's Mile already has to many auto-dealerships!! 144 9/30/2016 11:27:22 92663 We do not need more car dealer/services on a major highway through the heart of Newport Beach. 145 9/30/2016 11:22:33 92663 NO! This can not happen!! 146 9/30/201611:13:37 92663 147 9/30/2016 11:01:13 92663 1 vote No 148 9/30/201610:42:23 92663 149 9/30/2016 10:36:39 92663 Developers and counsel of the city of Newport Beach have got to quit destroying our community! It is a Sad state of affairs that the Powers that be in the city of Newport Beach can only think about growth,growth, growth! The city Council and development committee's never take into consideration the wishes of the people who 11 150 9/30/2016 10:35:01 92663 in the neighborhoods that they are "developing". This project should have an EIR report before any more discussion. I do not want this giant project jammed into this 151 9/30/2016 10:15:40 92663 area of PCH! This is my neighborhood, not an automobile selling Disney world! Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 152 9/30/2016 10:09:42 92663 1 oppose the use of Mariners Mile for an auto dealership such as Auto Nation. 153 9/30/2016 9:53:42 92663 154 9/30/2016 9:46:23 92663 155 9/30/2016 9:38:19 92663 156 9/30/2016 9:37:27 92663 1 would like to see the a quaint Mariners Mile like Corona Del Mar and Lido Village 157 9/30/2016 9:33:53 92663 Leave it like it is with some character 158 9/30/2016 7:59:59 92663 159 9/30/2016 6:56:10 92663 1 vote NO on the automation Porsche dealership proposal 160 9/30/2016 6:48:28 92663 161 9/30/2016 6:37:17 92663 162 9/30/2016 6:08:27 92663 163 9/30/2016 4:30:20 92663 Please do not build this on PCH 164 9/30/2016 0:04:36 92663 165 9/29/2016 23:45:34 92663 166 9/29/2016 21:47:35 92663 167 9/29/2016 21:46:52 92663 168 9/29/2016 21:45:24 92663 169 9/29/2016 21:44:48 92663 170 9/29/2016 21:39:01 92663 NO LOOK AT EVERY CRAPPY DEVELOPMENT AND ITS A CITY COUNCIL'S OWD TO HIS GENITALIA...A LIGHT HOUSE SHOULD NOT BE HIGHER THAN A CHURCH...HENCE, MARINERS PARK VS OUR LADYS CHURCH O 171 9/29/2016 21:38:50 92663 15th STREET 172 9/29/2016 21:32:51 92663 No way jose 173 9/29/2016 21:10:45 92663 174 9/29/2016 21:10:25 92663 175 9/29/2016 20:32:01 92663 NO VOTE by Planning Commission and City Council on the AutoNation Porsche Project along Mariners'Mile!!! 176 9/29/2016 20:21:54 92663 177 9/29/2016 20:21:10 92663 178 9/29/2016 20:19:49 92663 179 9/29/2016 20:15:26 92663 180 9/29/2016 20:02:25 92663 181 9/29/2016 19:48:12 92663 Voting NO 182 9/29/2016 19:46:57 92663 Voting NO 183 9/29/201619:36:01 92663 184 9/29/201619:35:21 92663 185 9/29/2016 19:16:41 92663 VOTE NO Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 186 9/29/2016 19:15:48 92663 NO VOTE 187 9/29/2016 19:02:16 92663 West Newport votes NO 188 9/29/201617:54:03 92663 189 9/29/201617:32:13 92663 Please think of your constituents needs. This seems to be a play by the City Council to generate sales tax revenue 190 9/29/2016 17:23:26 92663 with no regard at all for the desires of the voters. PCH is a nightmare as it is. More traffic added will only benefit City Hall. But they have to pay for their Bood Doggle o 191 9/29/2016 17:20:32 92663 a City Hall somehow, right? 192 9/29/201617:09:32 92663 193 9/29/2016 16:49:53 92663 NO THANK U TO THE DEALERSHIP 194 9/29/201616:46:29 92663 195 9/29/201616:02:25 92663 NO 196 9/29/201615:58:34 92663 197 9/29/201615:25:57 92663 198 9/29/201615:10:51 92663 199 9/29/201615:08:12 92663 200 9/29/201614:50:29 92663 201 9/29/201614:41:44 92663 No! 202 9/29/2016 14:31:18 92663 No No No!!! 203 9/29/2016 14:18:01 92663 Another car dealership on this stretch of PCH is inappropriate 204 9/29/201614:09:16 92663 205 9/29/2016 13:52:59 92663 No to the Porche delearship being moved along Mariners Mile 206 9/29/201613:45:07 92663 207 9/29/2016 13:43:09 92663 Enough Already! No more high density anything! 208 9/29/201613:35:54 92663 209 9/29/2016 13:35:17 92663 This does not fit into the city's vision of Mariner's mile This type of development in the Newport area as proposed is of outrageous proportion. 210 9/29/201613:27:24 92663 211 9/29/2016 13:18:49 92663 Vote:Yes-support Porsche 212 9/29/201613:09:41 92663 NO 213 9/29/201613:09:31 92663 214 9/29/201613:05:55 92663 The proposed relocation&expansion of Auto Nation Porsche at 320-600 W. PCH is of outrageous proportion & completely inappropriate for this area. It resembles no likeness to the thoughtfully planned Newport residential neighborhood and has huge negative impacts to on the health, safety,traffic and noise pollution in the neighborhood. development such as this should be located appropriately in an already zoned commercial area for auto dealerships 215 9/29/2016 12:47:15 92663 such as Irvine. 216 9/29/201612:37:14 92663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 217 9/29/201612:22:55 92663 218 9/29/2016 9:54:39 92663 Noise from the car dealers presently on Coast Hwy is unbearable. My vote is NO! The Porsche AutoNation Project proposes to construct a massive structure on an inappropriate site. This site sits between two residential neighborhoods, not other commercial property. Nothing about the design or use fits a Mariner's Mile theme. The large trucks used for pick up and delivery of multiple automobiles is not conducive to this part of Pacific Coast Highway. Rooftop parking on a building FIFTY feet high will not enhance the southeastern entrance to Mariner's Mile. The bluff provides some buffer to the noise of the highway;this overbuilt structure will 219 9/29/2016 8:47:03 92663 bounce the noise off its facade to surrounding neighborhoods. Property values will be negatively impacted. This is the last thing the City of Newport Beach should approve for development in Mariner's Mile. What does a Porsche have to do with boat? This type of business will only exacerbate the already intolerable traffic conditions on Coast Highway. I suggest that our city council members get in their cars on a weekday morning at 8 AM and see ho 220 9/29/2016 8:39:43 92663 long it takes them to travel from Superior Avenue to Fashion Island. Tell them to pack a lunch for the trip. 221 9/29/2016 8:26:33 92663 No to AutoNation 222 9/29/2016 8:25:02 92663 223 9/29/2016 8:24:12 92663 224 9/29/2016 7:43:22 92663 Please stop approving big developments. Huntington Beach is ugly let's not continue in this way. 225 9/29/2016 7:33:20 92663 226 9/29/2016 7:27:36 92663 227 9/29/2016 7:26:32 92663 "NO"vote 228 9/29/2016 7:12:37 92663 229 9/29/2016 6:39:29 92663 Fuck porche. Like we need more douche bags acting like pieces of shit just cause they have a nice car.There are 230 9/29/2016 5:33:59 92663 enough spoiled fucks driving around in their bmws from daddy. 231 9/29/2016 5:20:58 92663 232 9/29/2016 4:23:32 92663 233 9/29/2016 0:50:00 92663 234 9/28/2016 23:09:37 92663 235 9/28/2016 22:23:56 92663 236 9/28/2016 21:06:16 92663 237 9/28/2016 21:04:33 92663 238 9/28/2016 20:48:32 92663 239 9/28/2016 20:37:32 92663 No 240 9/28/2016 20:28:30 92663 No 241 9/28/2016 20:27:58 92663 No 242 9/28/2016 2013:06 192663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Why is it that developers engage previous mayors of the City to ram their projects through?They're like politicians w become lobbyists when their political terms are up. Residents don't hear about these projects until they've all but passed through all the hoops;and by then it can be too late to do anything about them, and we're stuck with them. 243 9/28/2016 20:06:01 92663 What happened to Green Light?Why isn't AutoNation being included with the rest of the Mariner's Mile discussions? 244 9/28/2016 19:05:36 92663 Please , please don't build this here. Stop ruining beautiful Newport Beach. 245 9/28/201618:13:06 92663 246 9/28/201618:11:54 92663 As a homeowner raising a young family in Newport Heights, I am extremely concerned about this project. My daught is at Ensign and son is in preschool at St.Andrews. My family and I ride bikes down Riverside and PCH to go to the beach every weekend. My daughter rides her bike the same way to Jr. Guards every summer with all of the other Newport Heights JGs. The Jr High kids enjoy Cest si Bon on Riverside for lunch every Wednesday during early out. We have many friends who live on Lido, Newport Shores and the Penninsula who's children ride bikes down PCH to 247 9/28/2016 18:09:51 92663 Riverside to attend Ensign and NHHS. Autonation Porche is NOT OK!!!! 248 9/28/2016 17:54:52 92663 1 support a NO VOTE for an AutoNation Porsche Project. 249 9/28/201617:49:58 92663 Totally destroys our beach community atmosphere,will increase noise,traffic and air quality. Parent company is Volkswagon and operates without morals. Research 400,0000 diesel cars with 250 9/28/2016 17:45:35 92663 smog cheaters sold in the USA 251 9/28/201617:39:55 92663 NO 252 9/28/201617:38:39 92663 253 9/28/201617:36:53 92663 254 9/28/201617:35:42 92663 This is a dreadful and rude project!!! It would do great harm to our lovely neighborhood of Newport Heights and to ou 255 9/28/201617:11:02 92663 town. 256 9/28/201617:02:50 92663 JOCOLVIN@ATT.NET Enough is enough!!!! Leave our city alone and stop padding your back pockets with developers blood money for you 257 9/28/2016 17:02:04 92663 own personal financial gain. Beyond disgusting!!!!!!! 258 9/28/2016 16:59:04 92663 Hear, Hear! 259 9/28/2016 16:19:19 92663 I'm am voting no. This is completely absurd&in no way should be allowed to happen. Please let me know if there is any other way I ca 260 9/28/2016 15:47:22 92663 help contribute to fighting this. 261 9/28/2016 15:46:39 92663 just another nail in the residential coffin for those of us who reside on Kings Rd 262 9/28/2016 15:37:00 92663 No vote 263 9/28/201615:21:29 92663 264 9/28/201615:10:49 92663 265 9/28/2016 15:00:55 92663 Thank you for doing thisC 266 9/28/201615:00:39 92663 267 9/28/201614:50:01 92663 268 9/28/201614:50:01 192663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 269 9/28/201614:48:01 92663 270 9/28/201614:47:30 92663 271 9/28/201614:34:22 92663 272 9/28/2016 14:31:14 92663 No on AutoNation 273 9/28/201614:24:26 92663 No 274 9/28/2016 14:23:32 92663 No Car dealerships near Dover Drive 275 9/28/2016 14:22:38 92663 No car dealership on PCH and Dover!!! 276 9/28/201614:21:13 92663 277 9/28/2016 14:17:47 92663 please vote no 278 9/28/201614:15:56 92663 No 279 9/28/2016 14:15:37 92663 Please keep Mariners Mile an interesting seaside area!!! not a commercial dealership! The proposed development does not fit the nature of the immediate commercial neighborhood nor the residential 280 9/28/2016 14:13:42 92663 neighbors behind it. 281 9/28/201614:12:33 92663 282 9/28/201614:11:58 92663 283 9/28/201614:11:19 92663 284 9/28/201614:09:36 92663 285 9/28/201614:05:30 92663 The noise level would be overwhelming, in addition to the additional air pollution. There has to be hundreds of other 286 9/28/2016 14:05:03 92663 options besides a car dealership..... 287 9/28/201614:02:51 92663 288 9/28/201614:01:25 92663 289 9/28/201614:00:03 92663 290 9/28/2016 13:59:53 92663 This structure not fit with the look of Newport Beach. No on this project 291 9/28/2016 13:57:42 92663 voting NO The AutoNation Porsche project is not suitable for Mariners'Mile. It is far too bulky for these shallow lots and would present a shiny monolithic character for the length of almost two football fields, overwhelming the coastal bluff behind The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods would use small, local service and commercial businesses daily, weekly or monthly and appreciate their being nearby. If we want to buy a Porsche we can just drive a mile over to P 292 9/28/2016 13:32:53 92663 and Bayside. We have already been stuck with Ridgeway's Haunted Villa. Please deny this project. 293 9/28/201613:29:12 92663 1 am over the growth in Newport Beach. I think Donald Bren ruined Fashion Island and the city has ruined the quaintness of Newport Beach over the years. There is too much growth, noise,construction, detours, crowds, and congestion. Let the builders go make their money somewhere else. Newport Beach has plenty of money this should 294 9/28/2016 13:28:01 92663 be an ego trip for the heads of Newport Beach. 295 9/28/201613:22:30 92663 296 9/28/2016 13:12:08 92663 1 oppose the location of the Automation Porsche project along Mariners'Mile 297 9/28/201613:04:23 192663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 298 9/28/201612:45:02 92663 299 9/28/201612:40:55 92663 In my opinion,this proposed development is not in keeping with Mariner's Mile and should be evaluated as part of th 300 9/28/2016 12:39:47 92663 revitalization plan. 301 9/28/201611:03:47 92663 302 9/28/201610:49:16 92663 No 303 9/28/201610:45:38 92663 304 9/28/201610:31:56 92663 NO 305 9/28/2016 10:31:35 92663 1 agree that this is the cart before the horse! The Planning Commission's job is to protect Newport Beach from allowing grossly inappropriate development from occuring. A single 50'-60'tall mono structure stretching 500'along the PCH over 4 parcels is not appropriate and Elie in the face of common sense. Please do not approve this oversized project. 306 9/28/201610:30:14 92663 307 9/28/2016 10:21:27 92663 Thanks for spearheading this! 308 9/28/201610:10:45 92663 309 9/28/201610:06:09 92663 310 9/28/2016 9:55:56 92663 311 9/28/2016 9:30:15 92663 1 vote NO! 312 9/28/2016 9:18:08 92663 313 9/28/2016 9:15:02 92663 314 9/28/2016 9:04:19 92663 315 9/28/2016 8:58:05 92663 316 9/28/2016 8:36:49 92663 A huge NO vote to AutoNation 317 9/28/2016 8:33:53 92663 318 9/28/2016 8:32:06 92663 No! 319 9/28/2016 8:17:59 92663 320 9/28/2016 7:54:21 92663 1 vote NO 321 9/28/2016 7:43:04 92663 322 9/28/2016 7:20:10 92663 323 9/28/2016 7:08:56 92663 Too massive in height and length...certainly not in keeping with the"village"goal of"Mariners Mile" 324 9/28/2016 6:08:17 92663 325 9/28/2016 5:30:15 92663 No vote on Porsche project 326 9/28/2016 4:15:55 92663 327 9/28/2016 4:11:06 92663 328 9/28/2016 3:29:26 92663 1 think they should hav to put up soee story poles to show the height. 329 9/28/2016 0:06:18 92663 Don't ruin what charm we have left. Put the auto stores on Harbor Blvd where they've always belonged 330 9/27/2016 23:02:27 92663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 331 9/27/2016 22:23:19 92663 332 9/27/2016 22:12:41 92663 VOTE NO 333 9/27/2016 22:11:44 92663 No!!!! 334 9/27/2016 22:04:25 92663 Way to large and totally out of line contiguous to residential communities. This project requires appropriate assessment and planning on numerous levels before being approved to prevent las 335 9/27/2016 21:58:07 92663 compromises to the Mariner Miles and the surrounding community. 336 9/27/2016 21:39:53 92663 337 9/27/2016 21:34:20 92663 338 9/27/2016 21:32:48 92663 339 9/27/2016 21:22:20 92663 No car dealership...already too much traffic 340 9/27/2016 21:21:19 92663 No car dealership please 341 9/27/2016 21:19:32 92663 342 9/27/2016 21:16:38 92663 1 feel strongly that the AutoNation project is inappropriate for the location on PCH. Please consider the neighborhoo 343 9/27/2016 21:16:07 92663 that are being impacted by this project. AutoNation Porsche has already demonstrated with their current location that they will be unable to control the arrival of car transport trailers,therefore the space they have dedicated for new car arrival will be inadequate causing traffic congestion and hazardous driving conditions on PCH. A similar condition will potentially happen as customers drop off their cars for service. Scheduling the service times f customers works ONLY if customers adhere to the exact times they are scheduled. In the real world this does not happen. This is demonstrated most mornings at Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz with dozens of cars parked on city streets waiting up to an hour before they can be moved to Fletcher Jones property. Unfortunately, no"overflow"city 344 9/27/2016 20:51:16 92663 street exists for the proposed AutoNation location. 345 9/27/2016 20:43:55 92663 346 9/27/2016 20:43:48 92663 No AutoNation or any other car dealership on crowded PCH.This is not a good use for the area near our homes. Ma 347 9/27/2016 20:41:25 92663 Mariners Mile pedestrian friendly.Thank you 348 9/27/2016 20:38:39 92663 VOTE NO 349 9/27/2016 20:36:48 92663 As a Bayshore homeowner and a resident of Newport Beach for over 55 years, I am greatly concerned that a 490'X! auto center with a large service, sales and resale component is being promoted for Mariners Mile.At the very least, it seems reasonable to delay any decision until a plan for the area is established with input from all residents, city planners, and landowners. 350 9/27/2016 20:35:02 92663 Please do not approve this project at this time. Thank you Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) This proposed building is out of character for the site,will create unacceptable noise issues, unacceptable night lighting that will be a nuisance for neighboring properties, traffic issues that will be dangerous for traffic flaw on PCH especially when the proposed Auto Nation Porsche trailer truck is attempting to unload new deliveries(aka cars) In addition it displaces numerous small business that are popular with the neighboring communities . Their are oth car dealerships within very close proximity to the proposed site ,they are significantly smaller in scale and to my knowledge do not have an on site service centers .A service center in this location is not appropriate due to toxic fumes from the cars waiting in the service line and obvious traffic issues.This location is within close proximity to two long time"Old Newport"established communities(aka. Bayshores and Cliff Haven) These communities desery 351 9/27/2016 20:33:38 92663 the respect and consideration from the various city, planning, county entities and the Ca Coastal Comnission 352 9/27/2016 20:29:30 92663 353 9/27/2016 20:28:51 92663 354 9/27/2016 20:28:21 92663 355 9/27/2016 20:27:45 92663 356 9/27/2016 20:27:14 92663 357 9/27/2016 20:26:33 92663 358 9/27/2016 20:26:10 92663 359 9/27/2016 20:25:46 92663 360 9/27/2016 20:25:12 92663 DO NOT want this terrible project!!! 361 9/27/2016 20:23:49 92663 362 9/27/2016 20:23:49 92663 363 9/27/2016 20:13:39 92663 1 am firmly against the new Porsche dealership proposed for Mariners Mile 364 9/27/2016 20:10:03 92663 365 9/27/2016 20:06:23 92663 366 9/27/2016 20:01:45 92663 NO 367 9/27/2016 19:58:29 92663 Please vote NO 368 9/27/201619:58:25 92663 NO 369 9/27/201619:54:29 92663 370 9/27/2016 19:51:25 92663 1 am not in favor of the Auto Nation Project on PCH!!! 371 9/27/201619:39:52 92663 372 9/27/201619:39:03 92663 373 9/27/201619:38:52 92663 374 9/27/2016 19:38:35 92663 The sound of a lug nut drill all day long is an awful thought.This can not happen and should not happen. 375 9/27/2016 19:32:33 92663 NO on AutoNation Porsche Project on PCH 376 9/27/2016 19:31:39 92663 NO on the AutoNation Porsche project on PCH 377 9/27/2016 19:30:55 92663 NO on the AutoNation Porsche project on PCH 378 9/27/2016 19:18:28 92663 NO! Keep it as it is!!! 379 9/27/201618:54:59 92663 380 9/27/201617:12:17 92663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Vote NO 381 9/27/2016 17:03:36 92663 Thank you 382 9/27/2016 16:43:19 92663 Don'tmake the Mariners mike into an Auto Mall 383 9/27/201616:21:44 92663 384 9/27/201616:11:19 92663 385 9/27/201616:10:58 92663 386 9/27/201616:00:26 92663 What about the CUMULATIVE effect of this and other planned projects: 1.BackBay Landing: Retail,49 Residential units,144 dry dock storage. 2.Newport Dunes Center(Bayside Dr.): permitting events for 5,000+. 3.13alboa Marina West: (Dover Bridge):36 docks and a 19,200+sq.ft. Restaurant/Nightclub (largest in NB)open until TWO am Every Day. 4. Lower Castaways: plans for dock, possible boat launch ramp. ETC....... Not to mention,the extensive dense development in Fashion Island which will also affect PCH and Dover 387 9/27/2016 15:58:23 92663 Bridge traffic. It is not the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach to provide relief to commuters on the 405 freeway and encourage more traffic along PCH. Do we want a highway or a village? It is inconceivable to have both connecting 388 9/27/2016 15:54:56 92663 through the Mariners Mile Corridor. Please say NO to this development. I believe that planning for this section of PCH should be included with that of Mariner's Mile. There is no need to rus 389 9/27/2016 15:34:41 92663 decision until the whole of PCH between Dover and Newport Blvd is thoroughly planned. 390 9/27/2016 14:52:56 92663 My vote is a NO go!Think we can do betterl 391 9/27/2016 14:51:32 92663 Not in favor of this large building being built right below our home 392 9/27/2016 14:50:24 92663 1 oppose the AutoNation proposal and support stoping the project Land Use/Design/Site-The AutoNation proposes a massive commercial industrial development that is incompatible with the intent of the Mariners' Mile Master Plan and undermines the reasons residents have chosen to live in the Bayshores and Newport Heights communities. The proposed use of the land will have a significant negative impact (DESIGN, HOURS OF OPERATION, NOISE,TRAFFIC, SAFTY, LGHT AND REFLECTION, ELEVATION,WATER CONSUMPTION)on the daily lives of the families living in the two adjacent residential neighborhoods of Newport 393 9/27/2016 13:52:58 92663 Heights to the North atop the bluff and Bayshores South across West Coast Highway. 394 9/27/201613:52:33 92663 395 9/27/2016 13:24:54 92663 ]No, no, no Porsche dealership 396 9/27/201612:34:07 92663 397 9/27/2016 12:07:25 92663 1 enjoy my bay and ocean view. Many would be sad if this changed-- 398 9/27/201610:54:56 92663 399 9/27/201610:54:25 92663 We completely agree with your arguments that conclude this is a totally inappropriate utilization of this location for a 400 9/27/2016 10:50:44 92663 variety of valid reasons ranging from design to various negative impacts. Traffic there is already horrible and difficult. This is a residential and tourist friendly city. We don't have room in our crowded city for another gigantic car 401 9/27/2016 9:37:35 92663 dealership. Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) This project does not belong at this location. There are too many unanswered questions about its potential negative effect on the community in regards to health, noise, safety, light pollution and traffic. This project's application should have never been accepted. Architecturally, it is an eyesore for Mariner's Mlle, and certainly not the direction of a 402 9/27/2016 9:28:27 92663 marine theme. 403 9/27/2016 9:25:15 92663 404 9/27/2016 9:24:42 92663 None 405 9/27/2016 9:24:32 92663 406 9/27/2016 9:16:36 92663 I'm very concerned and feel we are overbuilding in our city...With already too much traffic, causing increased accidents.Water shortage it makes no sense to build another dealership when we already have two within a few mile 407 9/27/2016 9:14:58 92663 apart?!! 408 9/27/2016 9:00:50 92663 409 9/27/2016 8:59:59 92663 410 9/27/2016 8:58:51 92663 Over development 411 9/27/2016 8:53:59 92663 412 9/27/2016 8:36:47 92663 413 9/27/2016 8:29:19 92663 414 9/27/2016 8:27:35 92663 no plz on auto nation project.they can find a bigger better site to build. our neighborhood cannot absorb increased 415 9/27/2016 8:14:13 92663 traffic and noise. oh and plz require an EIR.thx. 416 9/27/2016 7:56:58 92663 417 9/27/2016 7:55:31 92663 Please don't make our Newport into a commercial mess. 418 9/27/2016 7:44:03 92663 MY VOTE IS NO! 419 9/27/2016 7:26:09 92663 How is a project of this nature even being considered in this location?! 420 9/27/2016 7:17:43 92663 421 9/27/2016 7:17:02 92663 this would be a horrible project for the area destroying beautiful views, causing noise,and creating more traffic.Ther 422 9/27/2016 6:55:37 92663 are plenty of places to sell cars The reloation of the AutoNation dealership would provide zero benfit to the Newport Beach residents. It would fractu 423 9/27/2016 6:51:47 92663 and degrade the resident quality of life as well as property values. Please do not approve it.Thank you. 424 9/27/2016 6:25:40 92663 425 9/27/2016 4:38:59 92663 Projects such as this are unfortunate Please deny this project. It is unfair to the adjacent decade old residential neighborhoods and is not compatible with 426 9/26/2016 23:46:00 92663 the planned Mariners' Mile. Sincere Thanks This project is incongruent with the planned Mariners'Mile. Would placed an unpleasant hardship on the two adjace 427 9/26/2016 23:41:06 92663 residential neighborhoods. I agree, it is a bad fit for the location chosen. We are looking for leadership to maintain the marine flavor of Mariner 428 9/26/2016 22:57:20 92663 Mile-not futureistic, hard-sided monoliths demanded by a foreign controlling body. 429 9/26/2016 22:13:49 92663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 430 9/26/2016 22:13:04 92663 431 9/26/2016 21:57:45 92663 432 9/26/2016 21:35:40 92663 Mariners'Mile definitely needs an facelift, but not at the expense of pedestrian lives. Let us continue to mirror Laguna Beach.We are Mariners' Mile,we are cozy and we are warm and welcoming...WE ARE FOR SAIL--,WE ARE NO 433 9/26/2016 21:34:53 92663 FOR SALE! 434 9/26/2016 21:22:29 92663 435 9/26/2016 21:19:07 92663 436 9/26/2016 21:18:16 92663 437 9/26/2016 21:14:06 92663 438 9/26/2016 21:13:03 92663 439 9/26/2016 21:11:59 92663 440 9/26/2016 21:10:49 92663 441 9/26/2016 20:57:54 92663 NO on AutoNation Porsche Project along Mariners'Mile 442 9/26/2016 20:48:53 92663 443 9/26/2016 20:39:13 92663 444 9/26/2016 20:37:28 92663 445 9/26/2016 20:37:01 92663 Stop AutoNation !!! 446 9/26/2016 20:36:41 92663 THIS is NOT consistent with a"revitalization"of Mariner's Mile, unless you want it to end up like Harbor Blvd. At half the size and half the height, maybe. Why put a looming, possibly very noisy, eye-sore between two quiet neighborhoods. Kings Road is some of the most expensive housing in NB,why devalue it with noise(which always travels up)and an enormous ugly building below. Why should the residents of Bayshores have to put up with it? 447 9/26/2016 20:35:21 92663 Newport is a bedroom community with some retail. Let's keep it's high quality of life for the residents. I believe an auto dealership is inappropriate on our bayfront.An auto dealership has nothing to do with the nautical setting of our neighborhood. It would be an eyesore as well as an earfull. Please keep our neighborhoods and our be 448 9/26/2016 20:26:25 92663 as it has been historically nautically themed, and with access to the bay by the residents. 449 9/26/2016 20:10:25 92663 450 9/26/2016 20:09:28 92663 Good petition vehemently opposed-traffic will become much worse and access to the facility coming south on pch is impossible. Ha 451 9/26/2016 20:07:38 92663 no place in a beautiful community.will damage property values 452 9/26/201619:46:01 92663 NO!!! There is absolutely no reason to approve this project. It hurts property owners who have invested years, lives in this community. It is simply wrong to cause harm to property owners,families, parents, children who live here in order to make profits for people who don't. Its not fair-it's wrong-it's immoral. People who live here,who make this commun their home, must be heard.Their voices must be stronger than the profit-makers!is not okay to invade Cliffhaven an Newport Heights with this project! It's not okay to wipe out people's lives and property values! People matter and families matter and this project does not belong where you want to put it! 453 9/26/201619:29:47 92663 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Who made PCH a used and new car lot? I would like to see Mariner's Mile be a people-friendly place (not a speed alley) We already have the monstrosity on the corner of Dover and Coast Highway.... Don't let another former city 454 9/26/2016 19:27:48 92663 councilman get this one through tool 455 9/26/2016 19:15:21 92663 Strong no. 456 9/26/201619:07:11 92663 457 9/26/201619:06:39 92663 458 9/26/2016 18:53:59 92663 NO On Autonations proposed project. 1. The building is the size of almost 2 football fields--over 440--feet of stucco and metal. It is not particularly in keepi with Newport.2. The architecture must meet with Porsche Germany's desire which I find offensive. If you want to assimilate,you assimilate not demand. 3. The noise will be horrendous in spite of all the"studies,"they are just studies.4. PCH will backup no matter what the"studies"indicate. The trucks offloading will not get into the drive as predicted as evidenced by the current situation on Bayside Drive with the trucks in the center blocking entrances and exits. The lighting will cast far and wide no matter the"studies."This entire project is an eyesore,will increase traffic 459 9/26/2016 18:52:36 92663 an already congested spot and should not be approved. 460 9/26/2016 18:52:14 92663 Please help us stop this atrocity from happening to our Mariners Mile and our bedroom community. 461 9/26/2016 18:34:46 92663 No way Auto Nation! 462 10/2/1016 92663 463 10/2/1016 92663 464 10/2/1016 92663 465 10/2/1016 92663 466 10/2/1016 92663 467 10/2/1016 92663 468 10/2/1016 92663 469 10/2/1016 92663 470 10/2/1016 92663 471 10/2/1016 92663 472 10/2/1016 92663 473 10/2/1016 92663 474 10/2/1016 92663 475 10/2/1016 92663 476 10/2/2016 92662 477 10/2/2016 92662 478 10/2/2016 92662 479 10/2/2016 92662 480 10/2/2016 92662 481 10/2/2016 92662 482 10/2/2016 92662 483 10/2/2016 92662 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 484 10/2/2016 92662 485 10/1/201618:08:54 92662 486 10/1/20169:47:43 92662 No 487 9/30/201610:37:24 92662 488 9/30/201610:21:29 92662 489 9/30/2016 10:13:57 92662 1 am in favor of keeping the nautical theme for Mariners Mile! 490 9/30/2016 10:01:47 92662 Please consider Newport Beach developed. 491 9/30/2016 8:07:59 92662 No AutoNation This project does NOT meet any reasonable definition of land use planning appropriate for the Mariners Mile.The lar, footprint mega-dealerships for cars/trucks should be focused on the many interior locations available. Our limited coastal commercial properties should be devoted to coastal-oriented commercial. 492 9/29/2016 8:36:33 92662 493 9/28/2016 17:10:26 92662 Mariners Mile does not need yet another car dealership.Seriously. Leave the Porsche dealership where it is. Do NOT permit its relocation below prime residential homes on Mariners 494 9/28/201611:56:29 92662 Mile. 495 9/27/2016 8:08:26 92662 496 10/3/2016 92661 No more traffic. No more dealerships. 497 10/3/2016 92661 498 9/30/2016 21:58:36 92661 This stretch ALREADY HAS 2 dealerships(BMW R Classic)... only clueless planners would consider more ... especially along/near the SHORELINE of 499 9/30/2016 17:32:31 92661 Newport HARBOR. 500 9/30/201616:22:04 92661 501 9/29/2016 11:47:11 92661 502 9/29/201611:46:06 92661 503 9/28/2016 21:16:02 92661 The space is not big enough for the project and it will hurt the neighbors above. 504 9/28/201618:02:33 92661 505 9/28/201618:01:23 92661 506 9/28/2016 17:51:04 92661 507 9/28/201617:50:34 92661 508 9/28/201617:49:01 92661 509 9/28/2016 9:19:31 92661 1 vote NO 510 9/27/201618:02:33 92661 511 9/27/201617:49:35 92661 512 9/27/201617:30:54 92661 1 agree with the petition, and oppose the relocation of this business(the Autonation Porsche Dealership)to this 513 9/27/2016 16:47:35 92661 specific location. Surely,there are alternatives within the City boundaries which would be preferable. PCP 514 9/26/2016 20:08:35 92661 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 515 10/3/2016 11:27:27 92660 voting NO This is a very bad idea, no more car dealerships in Newport Beach!!!We don't need additional tax revenue at the 516 10/3/2016 10:45:14 92660 expense of ruining our beautiful city. 517 10/3/2016 9:45:49 92660 518 10/3/2016 9:04:20 92660 519 10/3/2016 8:23:19 92660 520 10/3/2016 92660 No more dealerships! 521 10/3/2016 92660 522 10/3/2016 92660 523 10/3/2016 92660 524 10/3/2016 92660 525 10/2/2016 22:21:07 92660 526 10/2/2016 20:17:35 92660 The City of NB has TOO MANY exotic auto dealerships 527 10/2/201619:12:40 92660 528 10/2/201618:47:46 92660 529 10/2/201618:11:45 92660 530 10/2/201615:42:25 92660 531 10/2/201614:45:55 92660 532 10/2/201614:37:14 92660 NO 533 10/2/201614:31:17 92660 NO 534 10/2/2016 13:55:50 92660 ...One more example of CltyHall caving in to business interests at the expense of residents. 535 10/2/201613:47:42 92660 536 10/2/2016 10:07:35 92660 NO on project 537 10/2/2016 9:09:35 92660 538 10/2/2016 8:49:03 92660 What on earth could the Planning Commission be thinking?! This will surely change the character of Newport Beach along that strip of PCH. When will they stop? I'm tired of seeing our beautiful community destroyed by greed and th 539 10/2/2016 7:49:10 92660 need to generate more revenue to the city in order to pay off the shocking debt they incurred building the new City H 540 10/2/2016 92660 541 10/2/2016 92660 542 10/2/2016 92660 543 10/2/2016 92660 544 10/2/2016 92660 545 10/2/2016 92660 546 10/2/2016 92660 547 10/2/2016 92660 548 10/2/2016 192660 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 549 10/2/2016 92660 550 10/2/2016 92660 551 10/2/2016 92660 552 10/2/2016 92660 553 10/1/201621:26:06 92660 Isn't it enough that they have allowed over 500 apartments with more to come into Fashion Island? They are ruining this.city and I personally will not vote for one of the existing counsel....and don't even mention the debt for the new cit 554 10/1/2016 21:14:21 92660 offices!They need to be stopped! No one in office seems to care about the taxpayers needs, lifestyle, and wishes. 555 10/1/201620:27:31 92660 NO 556 10/1/201610:34:06 92660 557 10/1/201610:32:38 92660 We don't need another auto dealer on the Miracle Mile....traffic is already bad enough most times of the day,and we sure don't need the lookie-loes driving on PCH to just look at the new cars. Let them stay where they are,thank you...!!!!! Just another way for the city to make more money and then spend more in the long run. You so called conservatives that were elected a few years ago are just like the rest......spend, spend,spend. Watch your backs with the upcomin elections. Another example is the"dumb"art in the parks by the"overly expensive new city hall". Stop the growth 558 10/1/2016 9:00:53 92660 now. And, buy the way, don't approve any more condo's or apartments in the Fashion Island area. Pacific Coast Highway through the Mariner's Mile is very difficult to travel as it is without adding another big business the traffic congestion. As it is right now, we try to avoid the entire area as we travel to our church,St. Andrew's, and 559 10/1/2016 7:27:00 92660 eating establishments both on PCH and the Peninsula. 560 9/30/2016 22:37:40 92660 561 9/30/2016 21:00:47 92660 562 9/30/2016 20:39:22 92660 Hell No to Auto Nation 563 9/30/2016 17:21:05 92660 1 will never approve this project! 564 9/30/2016 17:19:17 92660 1 vote a resounding NO 565 9/30/201614:38:07 92660 566 9/30/2016 13:54:26 92660 Vote No 567 9/30/2016 13:34:07 92660 no to autonaion porsche project please don't let one more company take over--remember what a wonderful place newport used to be for all--not ju 568 9/30/2016 12:39:17 92660 the wealthy 569 9/30/201612:03:30 92660 570 9/30/201612:03:10 92660 571 9/30/201610:42:55 92660 572 9/30/201610:24:17 92660 573 9/30/2016 10:15:50 92660 See Comments by Carole Duesler Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Stop trying to turn our wonderful city into Concrete City. We used to have much needed morning fog. This for has dissipated over the years as more and more houses and monstrous buildings have been built. Also, with the water shortage how can you justify putting up more hideous water user buildings. We already have to pay a huge penalty i we go over our allotment or are caught using water on un-allowed days. Please stop this GREEDY building.! Carole Duesler 574 9/30/2016 10:14:25 92660 This is a NO Vote 575 9/30/2016 9:58:19 92660 Say No to exceptions to the General Plan that turn our city into a mishmash of design atrocities. 576 9/30/2016 9:51:53 92660 No more traffic for us who live in Newport Beach Too much traffic as it is on the highway. For those of us who live in Newport Beach,we must stop more businesses 577 9/30/2016 9:51:01 92660 who will bring more cars traveling in/out of our area. 578 9/30/2016 9:41:56 92660 579 9/30/2016 9:33:48 92660 580 9/30/2016 9:20:48 92660 1 vote No 581 9/30/2016 9:18:46 92660 582 9/30/2016 9:00:01 92660 Way too massive a structure.Architecture does not fit the area. Definitely a traffic problem. The traffic congestion is at an all time high. It's horrible. No more can you get from point A to point B without traffic al 583 9/30/2016 8:14:25 92660 around! -. No more building! 584 9/30/2016 7:26:05 92660 585 9/30/2016 7:22:31 92660 586 9/30/2016 7:14:12 92660 587 9/30/2016 7:07:01 92660 588 9/30/2016 7:05:34 92660 589 9/30/2016 6:08:01 92660 590 9/30/2016 5:38:18 92660 Let's not become Harbor Blvd! 591 9/30/2016 5:34:22 92660 592 9/30/2016 5:28:10 92660 593 9/29/2016 23:14:38 92660 594 9/29/2016 22:41:34 92660 595 9/29/2016 22:35:08 92660 Please vote no on this project 596 9/29/2016 22:08:13 92660 597 9/29/2016 22:06:58 92660 598 9/29/2016 21:46:20 92660 599 9/29/2016 21:01:01 92660 600 9/29/2016 20:56:03 92660 601 9/29/2016 20:46:45 92660 1 am against the AutoNation Porsche Project along Mariners'Mile. 602 9/29/2016 20:45:40 92660 No AutoNation on Coast Hwy. in Newport Beach! 603 9/29/2016 20:44:39 92660 1 am wholly opposed to the AutoNation Porsche Project along Mariners'Mile!!!!! 604 9/29/2016 20:41:36 92660 No on more car dealerships ! Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 605 9/29/2016 20:40:19 92660 Preserve Pacific Coast Higheay and not turn it into a Harbor Blvd STOP THE INSANITY! What are you trying to do to Newport?! Stop bringing these absurd projects to the table that 606 9/29/2016 20:10:30 92660 not fit into the style or culture of this side of Newport. 607 9/29/201619:58:50 92660 608 9/29/2016 19:45:23 92660 No more car dealerships or mass development on PCH! 609 9/29/201619:33:56 92660 610 9/29/201619:33:44 92660 611 9/29/2016 19:25:01 92660 612 9/29/201617:36:25 92660 613 9/29/201617:06:52 92660 614 9/29/201616:50:32 92660 615 9/29/201616:50:14 92660 616 9/29/2016 15:23:40 92660 Vote No on Autonation Porsche Dealership 617 9/29/201615:14:56 92660 1 love Newport Beach and adding inappropriate buildings will RUIN our town. Please STOP the builders who want just to make money and think of our CITY! We are also overrun with horrible apartment buildings like San Joaquin!!! The traffic now inches along--imagine 1000+ more cars from/to that facility!!! 618 9/29/2016 15:00:08 92660 PLEASE CONSIDER OUR FAMILY FRIENDLY TOWN!!!! Alma Vanasse 619 9/29/201614:59:04 92660 NO! on this development! The AutoNation proposal is not in keeping with the character and'feel'of Newport Beach along the NB-PCH corridor, especially with its'unique blend of smaller businesses creating a unique feel and experience, all while supporting sm businesses. Plus NB is prized for providing consumers with a more personalized shopping/eating experience as opposed to a"big box/big chain"experience which anyone can get anywhere. Newport Beach must be preserved for its'uniqueness and Auto Nation has plenty of other geographic locations to choose from for their vehicle sales and service that are more suitable and don't destory our beach/coastal/surf cultur ambiance and trade in on our tourist attractiveness to, instead, a car repair station which...as I mentioned...can be done anywhere. (There's a coner on Harbor Blvd and Wilson, I believe, that is in keeping with AutoNations image an 620 9/29/2016 14:23:56 92660 business offering. Let them go there or find something like it. 621 9/29/201613:04:08 92660 Recently proposed building projects in Newport and Costa Mesa are turning our beautiful little community into an 622 9/29/2016 12:43:59 92660 overcrowded metropolis. 623 9/29/201612:40:39 92660 Please do not let the Porsche application go through. It's not in scale with the surrounding businesses and communi 624 9/29/2016 11:59:55 92660 and it is too industrial for the small coastal community. 625 9/29/201611:59:03 92660 Stop this nonsense! NO expansion!! This impacts all of Newport and especially the residential areas-tell them to 626 9/29/2016 11:55:13 92660 expand inland and NOT in NBi 627 9/29/201611:05:24 92660 628 9/29/2016 9:44:26 192660 Too much traffic and development Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 629 9/29/2016 8:46:01 92660 This project is a disaster. I vote a resounding No ! As a resident of Newport Beach I oppose this project as an unsightly for this lovely stretch of Pacific Coast Highway and for the environmental impact it will have on surrounding homeowners and all residents.As a realtor, I worry abo 630 9/29/2016 7:30:58 92660 property values for the areas immediately surrounding this proposed structure and ultimately the city itself. 631 9/29/2016 6:36:48 92660 No! 632 9/29/2016 5:23:22 92660 633 9/28/2016 23:02:04 92660 That area doesn't need a Porsche dealership.The area is very compact and a place like this will just in crease the traffic in an already congested area. In addition, it will directly impact the residents on kings road and in Bayshores who pay a lot to live in their locations.The residents of Newport Beach don't want high rise condo'a,apartments or a 634 9/28/2016 21:03:04 92660 auto dealer ship. 635 9/28/2016 20:54:11 92660 The building is incongruent with the area and does NOT belong there! The airport area would be a better place for thi 636 9/28/2016 19:27:54 92660 kind of building. 637 9/28/2016 19:18:18 92660 That is an eyesore! 638 9/28/2016 17:44:31 92660 1 vote NO 639 9/28/201617:11:53 92660 640 9/28/201616:52:49 92660 641 9/28/201616:36:57 92660 642 9/28/201616:36:30 92660 643 9/28/201616:25:28 92660 644 9/28/201616:25:07 92660 645 9/28/2016 16:19:02 92660 These proposed projects in Newport Beach have gotten out of control! 646 9/28/201615:46:39 92660 647 9/28/2016 15:24:12 92660 Please keep this for small businesses with architecture to match current. 648 9/28/201615:22:27 92660 A large modern-styled, car dealership is inconsistent with the Miracle Mile area of Newport Beach. This kind of dealership is not a"boutique"kind of dealership which now exists along PCH. Please stop the progression of larger 649 9/28/2016 14:53:49 92660 dealerships and/or other larger businesses not appropriate for this area of our city. Thank you. It needs a major redesign at the very least. Not a high tech space craft, but with a reduced footprint and thematically 650 9/28/2016 14:41:36 92660 in keeping with visions for Mariners Mile. 651 9/28/2016 14:26:30 92660 No more big buildings! Help keep small business on pch! This project appears to be too out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Please work to make it more appropriate for the site by addressing its appearance, height and lighting. I am not opposed to this redevelopment,j opposed to its current iteration. I agree that it should be considered within the entire Mariner's Mile redevelopment 652 9/28/2016 14:25:53 92660 rather than individually. 653 9/28/2016 14:04:25 92660 Please no! 654 9/28/2016 13:41:21 92660 Please,VOTE NO! 655 9/28/201613:02:22 92660 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 656 9/28/201612:49:19 92660 No 657 9/28/201612:48:11 92660 658 9/28/2016 12:27:00 92660 This is a hideous development. 659 9/28/201612:05:14 92660 660 9/28/201611:48:32 92660 661 9/28/2016 11:39:24 92660 Not a good fit for that location 662 9/28/2016 10:39:52 92660 no to the new porsche dealership 663 9/28/201610:11:34 92660 664 9/27/2016 23:04:03 92660 665 9/27/2016 21:23:33 92660 NO 666 9/27/201617:05:02 92660 667 9/27/201616:35:44 92660 NO 668 9/27/201616:34:26 92660 NO 669 9/27/201616:32:35 92660 670 9/27/201614:33:18 92660 671 9/27/201614:20:40 92660 No The project would replace small neighborhood-friendly businesses with a shiny corporate monolith almost as long 672 9/27/2016 9:25:33 92660 as two football fields,wedged against the coastal bluff between two residential neighborhoods. 673 9/27/2016 8:50:39 92660 674 9/27/2016 5:48:19 92660 This is just wrong. It is the wrong use of the stip of Mariners Mile across form and underneath residential properties; is wrong to have the project dictating the appearance of the project which is so unlike everything around it; it is wrong 675 9/27/2016 0:23:11 92660 to have cars of the roof Or to have a 3 story structure in that area.. 676 9/26/2016 22:08:49 92660 677 9/26/2016 21:51:15 92660 678 9/26/2016 21:40:20 92660 Unexceptable as situation stands Preserve our coastal bluffs, and recognize that Mariners Mile is uniquely suitable for low intensity harbor-related use 679 9/26/2016 21:16:16 92660 don't waste it on an avenue of car dealerships that could exist anywhere (and already does in Costa Mesa). 680 9/28/2016 15:36:29 92659 No vote 681 9/28/2016 15:25:18 92659 Newport Beach needs to be reined in. I support no more growth. This huge, hulking project belongs on Harbor Blvd. not on Mariner's Mile! (my zip is 92625, Your system would not 682 9/28/2016 15:21:26 92657 accept it.???) 683 9/30/2016 7:40:57 92648 684 9/29/201617:16:25 92648 685 10/3/2016 8:44:32 92627 What's wrong with the current Porsche dealership location ? 686 10/3/2016 6:54:36 92627 687 10/3/2016 92627 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 688 10/2/2016 19:31:17 92627 Please say NO. Way too much traffic already. 689 10/2/201618:46:57 92627 690 10/2/201612:20:12 92627 691 10/1/2016 12:14:02 92627 We need to stop the ruination of our Newport Beach.Too much useless building 692 9/30/2016 13:14:32 92627 Stop the build 693 9/30/201610:43:55 92627 694 9/30/2016 10:08:30 92627 Not the right place for this sort of business 695 9/30/2016 9:41:18 92627 696 9/30/2016 8:16:26 92627 697 9/29/2016 21:48:41 92627 698 9/29/2016 21:48:08 92627 699 9/29/2016 21:18:46 92627 700 9/29/2016 20:44:42 92627 701 9/29/2016 20:23:05 92627 702 9/29/201619:45:09 92627 703 9/29/201617:59:53 92627 704 9/29/201617:41:09 92627 705 9/29/201617:37:29 92627 706 9/29/2016 15:01:06 92627 No dealership 707 9/29/201613:35:26 92627 708 10/3/2016 92626 709 10/3/2016 11:34:57 92625 This dealership belongs on Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa along with the compitition. 710 10/3/201611:03:56 92625 711 10/3/2016 92625 712 10/2/2016 15:30:47 92625 No no 713 10/2/201614:17:13 92625 714 10/2/2016 10:59:31 92625 this proposed building is way,way to large-it should be in tustin 715 10/2/2016 10:47:39 92625 This project is a monstrosity! Please vote no! It's time we stop rewarding the people who own property on Marinar's Mile and the Irvine Co.whose son owns the 716 10/2/2016 9:58:01 92625 Porche dealership. 717 10/1/201612:56:28 92625 no I support the request for a no vote by the planning commission etc. on the Auto Nation/Porsche project along Marine 718 9/30/201617:04:38 92625 Mile 719 9/30/201613:49:30 92625 720 9/30/2016 11:21:54 92625 against the project 721 9/30/201610:41:52 92625 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Count Timestamp Zip Code Comments AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) 722 9/30/2016 10:25:07 92625 Please,we need no more traffic. 723 9/30/2016 10:11:16 92625 1 am against this expansive use in an already congested area 724 9/30/2016 9:50:36 92625 NO Turn down this project STOP the massive growth and keep the harmony of the businesses already in place! Listen to the people who live a 725 9/30/2016 9:49:41 92625 work in the area and who are effected by this mega business. 726 9/30/2016 7:50:35 92625 NO,NO,NO!!!!! Please maintain the"nautical"nature of this zone. High end car dealerships have plenty of other sprawling areas to 727 9/30/2016 7:17:30 92625 set up. 728 9/29/2016 21:49:15 92625 729 9/29/2016 21:24:47 92625 The proposal needs further study as to comparability with the area and existing businesses. Please don't destroy our community with massive retail and residential developments.Why do we residents have to 730 9/29/2016 21:22:47 92625 continue to fight to m 731 9/29/2016 21:05:42 92625 732 9/29/2016 20:25:31 92625 1 1 have seen this prototype in Riverside, it is inconsistent with Marinews Miles design. Please stop this project. 733 9/29/201619:53:10 192625 734 10/2/1016 192625 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Tom Baker Newport Heights 92663 A9MvhixWF6k9cheibfd4eWport Beach (PA2015-095) Katherine Infantino Bayshores 92663 kinfantino(a_),email.com . . . on behalf of the undersigned Newport neighborhood residents, working together toward thoughtful, responsible development of Mariners Mile. 2 Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) From: Jerry Grice <jgrice2000@road runner.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 7:23 PM To: 'Luke Dru'; Campbell,James Cc: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter, Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik;Zak, Peter; Biddle,Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel; 'Kathy Schuler'; 'Sherry) Clifford' Subject: RE: Proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Luke, I live on kings rd and agree with all your points but especially that last paragraph about the difficulty of making a left hand turn across w.coast hwy,, and what they will discover is an easier way to get back to the dealership, drive thru a residential neighbor, i.e. cliff drive and clover. See you Thursday. Jerry grice From: Luke Dru [mailto:luke@thedrufamily.coml Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:27 PM To: icampbell@newportbeachca.gov Cc: kkramer@newportbeachca.gov; bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov; pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; bhillaren@newportbeachca.gov; rlawler@newportbeachca.ciov; eweiaand@newportbeachca.aov; pzak@newportbeachca.gov; jbiddle@newportbeachca.gov; dcampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership Dear Mister Campbell and members of the Planning commission I find it unacceptable for the proposed AutoNation Porsche dealership (hereby listed as Porsche)to be built on the proposed site at 320-600 W. Coast highway. At the last city council meeting, the subject of the existing BMW dealership (hereby listed as BMW)was brought up. There is no reasonable comparison between the BMW dealership and the proposed Porsche dealership because of the following: 1. There is a street behind the BMW dealer which helps isolate it from the bluffs (none at Porsche). 2. The distance from BMW to the back of existing residences is approximately equal to the distance from the back of the houses on Kings Road to the existing curb on W. Coast Highway. 3. The height of BMW look to be less than 30 feet above the highway, as compared to the proposed 50 feet for Porsche. 4. A major portion of the BMW is set back from the highway by 30 to 50 feet(much less at Porsche). 5. There is no parking on the roof of BMW (unlike the proposed Porsche). 6. Items 2, 3,4 and 5 make it such that the view of the bluffs behind the dealership is minimally impacted. For instance,the view from the New Mariners Park,the bluffs above W. Coast Highway are visible all along from Riverside Drive to Dover. If the 50' Porsche is built we the citizens will lose almost 600 feet of bluff views. 7. There are no houses on W. Coast Highway across from BMW to have to suffer from the reflected sounds of loudly tuned exhaust systems of the Porsche, BMW and Mclaren sports cars on test drive along this highway. t Planning Commission -October 6, 2016 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) There will also be increased noise from all the additional test drives from the sales demo rides, and service test drives. When the sales and service realize that making a left turn across W. Coast Highway is difficult most of the time, they will start turning up Riverside, across Cliff to Dover to PCH and make a right turn into the dealership. These drives will be like the test drives of BMW's that go along Cliff drive. While walking along Cliff Drive,we saw what looked like four BMW Demo drives Sunday afternoon in about one and a half hours. Respectfully submitted Luke W. Dru Kings Road 949.646.7612 2 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 10:51 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: Letter to the City Planning Commission-For the Public Record PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNIING COMMISSION AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD Re. AutoNation Porsche- PA2015-095 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This letter serves to express our concern regarding the proposed project scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission at the October 6 hearing. We are unable to attend the hearing and wish to submit our comments in connection with this project. We appreciate the City's broader recognition that the stretch of roadmap and property known as Mariners Mile is of critical importance to the City's traffic circulation. The City has engaged in an informal community dialogue concerning this area, and its development. There can be no doubt that careful land use, intensification , traffic circulation and parking, as well as noise and view for both residents and visitors, will be Materially impacted by development along this stretch. The proposed project and its operator has already created adverse impacts to the surrounding residential communities, and also poses significant issues relating to introduction of high speed ingress/egress along Pacific Coast Highway. With the significant, every-increasing volume of car and bicycle traffic along Mariners Mile, we have a worsening public safety issue which needs to be carefully addressed---both for residents and visitors, as well as the City. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission carefully study and not approve the proposed expansion until such time as there is a fully noticed and heard, and evaluated Master Plan for the Mariners Mile area. Such a plan should be properly in the form of a Specific Plan,subject to CEQA. Thank you for your consideration. Denys H. Oberman Resident ............................................................. Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO t Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received NOBERMAN AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) $trategy and FkwrwWt Adviw; OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949)476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949)752-8935 Email: dho(d)obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above,to arrange for the return of the document(s)to us. 2 10/4/2016 ATT00002(3).htm Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received Dear Mr. Campbell and Honorable Planning CommissionerAutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) This video was taken this Saturday and it clearly demonstrates how auto carriers perform their duties on PCH at ANYTIME of the day or night. This is a clear example of what to expect if the proposed Porsche Autonation Dealership is approved. This particular area of PCH is much wider that the existing lot of 320-600 West Coast Highway that Autonation is seeking to build on. We must define ourselves, is Mariners Mile going to be Avon Village or an Auto Mall? It simply can not be both. I hope the decision made Thursday, is that this project is not a smart or thoughtful development for the residents of Newport Heights, C1iffHaven or Bayshores. It belongs by the airport or the freeway,where it will have regional access by surrounding cities. It does not belong in our backyard. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please watch the attach video. Peggy V. Palmer Kings Road Both Videos are at the following link: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/PLANNING—COMMISSION/ autonation_public_comment.mp4 Tile:///C:/Usersfcampbell/AppData/Local/MicrosofNVindowsrTemporary%201ntarnet%2OFiles/Cadent.OLdlookt 304C4TX/ATT00002%20(3).htm 1/1 10/4/2016 ATT00001.htrn Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received Dear Honorable Commissioners, AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Please review the following two videos that show how test drives are conducted along PCH. These test drives begin at the dealerships on PCH between 10 AM and 4:30 PM and continue through to Brookhurst in Huntington Beach and then back again. (Almost 6 miles round trip) The decibel reading from my kitchen window from PCH is registering at 85+dBa. Please note that my kitchen window is approximately 150 feet from PCH. According to Autonation Noise Impact Analysis this is equivalent to the following: 80 dBA=Noisy OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES: Diesel truck at 50 feet/50 mph INDOOR ACTIVITIES: Food Blender at 3 feet 90 dBA=Very Noisy OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES: Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet INDOOR ACTIVITIES: None listed It is imperative that an EIR report needs to be conducted. The Autonation Porsche Fundamental Noise Study that defines sound is not accurate. Ironically, the cover of Road and Track, October 2016 issue features the Porsche R&T's official test results, which further substantiate the claim that the decibel levels far exceed what should be allowed in this area. Mariners' Mile is also a residential mile. What do you think a 911 Turbo S can sound like when it can hit 130 mph in 10.6 seconds and has a top speed of 205? In all due respect, I do not want to find out nor do my neighbors. I cant vision a pedestrian scramble with a race track going through it. Thank you for your most valuable time. Peggy V. Palmer Kings Road Both videos are at the following link: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/PLANNING_COMMISSION/ autonation_public_comment.mp4 Tile:///C:/Userstcampbell/AppData/Local/MicrosofNVindowsrTemporary%201nternet%2OFiles/Content.Outlookt 304C4TX/ATT0000l.htm 1/1 10/5/2018 ATT00001.htrn Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received Dear Honorable Planning Commission, AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) We must look at the entire corridor of Mariners Mile when planning the vision. When the Mariners Mile workshop was presented to the residents of Newport Beach, we heard words like eminent domain, a six lane highway that will look like Harbor Blvd.,vertical roof top residences, a pedestrian scramble, a Porsche Dealership. As you can see from the attached videos, this defies the logic of a family friendly village. Increasing the highway will increase traffic. As you will note from the video the traffic flow is well above normal. This is how it moves all day long, except for the typical morning commute that slows between 7:00 AM through 8:30 AM on weekdays. Evening traffic slows between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Weekends are free flowing barring any road work or traffic accidents. There is just no justification of widening the highway, IF you study the traffic flow and the rate of speed and the commuter traffic patterns. In the MM meeting, we were informed of many mixed use locations and that 50% of these new developments will be residential. We need to ask ourselves, what will be the devaluation of the luxury residences along Pacific Coast Highway with the impact of speed and noise. How can a pedestrian scramble work at one end and a high speed highway work at the other end? Newport residents want a "Wow" project, yet we are continually presented with projects that do not benefit the residents or the community or the small businesses along PCH. We know it can be accomplished, as with the Marina Park project and Lido Village. At this time, I hope that you take a step back and look at all the proposed projects and determine if you want an Auto mall or a Village. In my opinion, you can't have both the two don't marry very well. Lastly, to increase the traffic lanes on PCH, is a very very poor plan. Please watch the attached videos. Thank you for your continued dedication that you provide to the residents of Newport Beach. Peggy V. Palmer Video can be accessed at : http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/PLANNING_COMMISSION/ autonation_public_comment2.mp4 Tile:///C:/Userstcampbell/AppData/Local/MicrosofNVindowsrTemporary%201nternet%2OFiles/Content.Outlookt 304C4TX/ATT0000l.htm 1/1 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 6W PO Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation PorscW(f FN6wport Beach (PA2015-095) �n COMMUNITY DEVELOPp1 SOD Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92660 Gq `p. 949 644-3200<UFolk newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commissioners From: James Campbell, Principal Planner Date: October 5, 2016 Re: AutoNation Porsche PA2015-095, October 6, 2016, Agenda Item 1 The applicant has prepared several additional exhibits for consideration. Attachment 1 shows three cross sections. The first one is through the adjacent Mariners' Pointe project for comparison purposes. The second is through the showroom and the third cross section is through the service building. The sections through the proposed project show the Zoning Code base elevation, the 26-foot height limit, and the 35-foot height limit. The architect has also prepared an update of the base elevation exhibit (Attachment 2) which is also Sheet 6 of the plan set. It provides elevation information at three additional locations. This information lead the architect to lower overall the height of the westerly auto lift by 0.8 feet ensuring that it would not exceed the 35-foot height limit. In response to comments about noise, the applicant commissioned a more detailed noise study based upon typical operational activities at a dealership and a Porsche vehicle (Attachment 3). The report indicates the project would comply with the noise ordinance. The conclusions reached also support the analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report preparer and the City's noise consultant will be at the hearing to answer questions about the noise studies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-644-3210 or by email at jcampbell(aDnewportbeachca.gov. Thank you. Attachments: 1 . Project cross sections 2. Updated base elevation exhibit 3. Noise Impact Analysis by Eilar Associates, Inc., Acoustical & Environmental Consulting dated, October 4, 2016 Community Development Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) (3 Stantec Attachment 1 Stantec Architecture 38 Technology Drive, suite#100 I Irvine, CA 92618-5312 Tel. 949.923.6000 I Fax. 949.923.6121 I www.stantec.com Copyright Reserved The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing — any errors or omissions shall be reported to I Stantec without delay. The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that ,L+c'�"'u'.�e'� �— — authorized by Stantec is forbidden. Y \ 53� Consultants 112'-0" COAST HWY R.O.W. 29'-5" o 00 MO Client SI.$ AutoNation. L. 200 SW 1 ST AVE., 14TH FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 SECTION THROUGH MARINER'S POINTE 2 Key Plan: SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" G I I I 00 ' ' 25-0" 45-8" _ ill — — — �$ 0100 35— VE—BASE SEELEVATION _ _ now - - _ _ — - Now OEM 0001M I 26' ABOVE BASE ELEVATION 4"1 Vol 60 112'-0" _COAST HWY R.O.W. - - - - 51'4'" ♦ o - - - - o d ' moo now woo BASE ATION _ P.L. SECTION THROUGH SHOWROOM 2 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.09.13 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD I File Name: Own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD +78.0' AMSL Permit-Seal I 14'-0" 35-0" I moo low own 3 U d i ' 000 ABOVE BASwoo S�A� =WN No" ' — — — — I lowNow — — > I Project: �BASE E �No0000 w r. � M -� o AUTONATION N 10 COAST HWY R.O.W. _ 45'-&i o PORSCHE OF o WO- - - - N NEWPORT BEACH 530 WEST COAST 000 000 NEWPORT BEACH, CANWYS 660 was low 0010 BASF_ E 00 goo logo =1111111 ill +13.0' AMSI Title: s� P.L. y PROJECT CROSS SECTIONS S U ` mao.- 0 0 �m Project No. Scale NOTE: (AMSL) = ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 2007105003 AS NOTED my SECTION CT I 0 N THROUGH SERVICE Drawing No. Sheet Revision 1 �o o� �N SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 5c of 0 ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH Et Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) I I I I I I I I Stantec I I I I I I I I Stantec Architecture Attachment 2 38 Technology Drive, suite 100 I Irvine, CA \\ \ I I I I I 92618-5312 I Tel. 949.923.6000 I I I I I Fax. 949.923.6121 BASE/ ELEV. 25.75' MSL www.stantec.com� I ASE ELEV. 40.75' AMSL I I ALLOWABLE AT +26' 51.75' AMSL Til I ALLOWABLE AT +26' 66.75' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.75' AMSL I Copyright Reserved LLOWABLE AT +35' 75.75' AMSL � PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL I The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO P OPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL I I (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30 I NOT scale the drawing - any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay. I ( GT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' I The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of / BASE ELEV. 35.8' AMSL BASE ELEV. 23'-AML Stantec. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that J/ ALLOWABLE AT +26' 61.8' AMSL I LEV. AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 49' AMSL13.2' AMSL I authorized by Stantec is forbidden. / ALLOWABLE AT +35' 70.8' AMS ALLOWABLE AT +26' V"' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35 58' AML rALLO BLE 49.2' AMSL I \ 6 Consultants PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMS ALLOWABLE AT +35' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET � PRO E AMSL HGT. 53.4' AM A OWAB AT 58.2' AMSL(HGT. OVE F.F.L. 30' \ / (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 40ROP48' AMSL -p 30 (H L 35' � I BASE ELEV. 24.75AMSL 65 B LE ALLOWABLE AT +26' 50.75' AMSL ASE L V. EV. I A OW.Ae1 F"T- ALLOWABLE AT +35' 59.75' AMSL LLOWABLE AT +26' 0 LEA ALLOWAH� AT + 61.6' A j I Client PROPOSED PARAPET IOWA AT .0 OW PROPOS SLI HGT. 59.0' AMSL R 4 ' A ROPOSED P 55 L (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 46.0' 3 (H 25 AutoNation. 200 SW 1 ST 4TH FLOOR 3.25' ---- - ZT AVE.,, 2 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 BASE ELEV. ALLOWABLE AT +26' M -� BASE V. 20.08' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' -4�/ \ ELEVATOR AND ALLOWABLE AT +26' 46.08' AMSL MECH. RM TOWER LOWABLE-AT- AREA 219 S.F. Key Plan: PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. -� AREA d: 249 S.F. AL55.08 AMS t (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 40PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 48' AMSL T (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L. 35'If h --- P4 158' _ _ _ ) -- -- -- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - - -173 - -- - - -�- --21.3 20.4 19.5 17.3 ' 16.5 30 �- 15 BASE ELEV. .3' AMSL X � ----- MECH. RM ARE ALLOWABLE AT +26' 5 . ' AMSL ------------ 291 S.F. ALLOWABLE AT +35' 60.3' A L X25 00 PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 40' AMS ` e� \T C (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 27' 17.1' 17 1s.a' 1s.1' - - - - - - - - - - 1a- - - - - ___ __ - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - 15' 14.7 ------ ----- -- 15 BASE ELEV. 18.7 AMSL - BASE ELEV. 15.16' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 44.7 AMSL _ ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.16' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 53.7 AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.16' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 24 AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 11' BUILDING POINT I (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' WITH THE MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11.5' ABOVE BASE 11.6 1.9' 11.93' 12.08' 12.15' 12.21' 12-- 12.37'X 12.45 P2 - 12.5' P2 - - --'EYPI100Lf345- - - --- - - - X -- - - - - - - - - - - T1.83'- - - - \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BASE ELEV. - - - - - - 1' AMSL - - - BASE ELEV. 16.5' AMSL 11.74 BASE ELEV. 15.8' AMSL BASE ELEV. 15.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.1' AMSL BASE ELEV. 22.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 42.5' AMSL BASE ELEV. 15.25' AMSL BASE ELEV. 14.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 48.1' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 51.5' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 41.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +26' 40.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.8' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT 35' 50.25' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 57.1' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPETALLOWABLE AT +35' 50.25' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 49.8' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 43' AMSL PROPOSED PARA ET HGT. 43' AMSL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 45' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' HGT. 51' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 45' SL PROPOSED PARAPET HGT. 49' AMSL (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 30' (HGT. ABOVE F.F. ) 30' - GT. A F.F.L.) 38 (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 32 (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) 36' BASE ELEV. 16.5' AMSL P1 1n_ff - ALLOWABLE AT +26' 42.5' AMSL ALLOWABLE AT +35' 51.5' AMSL \ - - PROPOSED PARAPET (HGT. ABOVE F.F.L.) WEST COAST HIGHWAY - - - - - TRUE PROJECT NORTH NORTH Revision By Appd. YY.MM.DD P.C. EXHIBIT BP LT 2016.10.04 P.C. EXHIBITS BP LT 2016.08.12 0 10 20 40 DEDICATION SHOWN/RESUBMITTAL BP LT 2016.05.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.17 PORSCHE REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VK 2015.12.15 1ST. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2015.05.08 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" Issued By Appd. YY.MM.DD File Name: BASE ELEVATION EXHIBIT 1 Permit-Seal own. Chkd. Dsgn. YY.MM.DD SCALE: 116" = 1'-0" X BASE ELEVATION ESTABLISHED = 17.5' AMSL AMSL = ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL HEIGHT IS BASED ON 17.5' NAVD 88 RIM rn 3 AREA OF BLDG THAT IS BELOW 26' ABOVE BASE Project: MI ELEVATION nl NOT SHADED, AREA OF BLDG THAT IS BETWEEN 26'-35' A U T O N A T I O N C3 ABOVE BASE ELEVATION. 0 PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH 550 WEST COAST HWY. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3 Title: ALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS ASSUME F.F. ELEVATIONS = 13'-0" AMSL BASE ELEVATION dm BASE ELEVATION ESTABLISHED PER NB ZONING CODE SECTION 20.30.050 EXHIBIT ate. 0 0 0 nm 0 Project No. Scale 2007105003 AS NOTED oa o^ m� 0o Drawing No. Sheet Revision o� o� 6 of 0 >N ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Attachment 3 AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS AutoNation Newport Porsche 550 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, California low Prepared For Stantec Architecture Attention: Larry Tidball 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Phone: 949-923-6903 Prepared By Eilar Associates, Inc. Acoustical & Environmental Consulting 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Escondido, California 92025 www.eilarassociates.com Phone: 760-738-5570 Fax: 760-738-5227 AIL Job #B50314N3 October 4, 2016 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.1 Project Location 2.2 Project Description 2.3 Applicable Noise Regulations 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2 3.1 Existing Noise Environment 3.2 Future Noise Environment 4.0 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT 6 4.1 Methodology 4.2 Measurement Equipment 5.0 NOISE IMPACTS 8 6.0 CONCLUSION 10 7.0 CERTIFICATION 10 8.0 REFERENCES 11 FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Ambient Noise Measurement Location 3. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Operational Noise Contours and Receiver Locations — Doors Open 4. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Operational Noise Contours and Receiver Locations — Doors Closed APPENDICES A. Project Plans B. Pertinent Sections of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code C. Manufacturer Data Sheets D. Cadna Analysis Data and Results E. Worst-Case Instantaneous Noise Level Calculations Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project, AutoNation Newport Porsche, consists of the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new automobile showroom and service building. The project site is located at 550 West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, California. The City of Newport Beach requires an analysis to determine whether the proposed project will have an adverse noise impact on surrounding properties. The primary source of noise that will be associated with the proposed project site is operational noise from service activity and mechanical equipment. Noise from these sources may not exceed the noise limits given in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Calculations show that, as currently designed, the proposed project is expected to comply with City of Newport Beach noise regulations for both fifteen-minute average noise levels and instantaneous noise levels generated on the site. No mitigation is deemed necessary. 2.0 INTRODUCTION This acoustical analysis report is submitted to satisfy the noise requirements of the City of Newport Beach. Its purpose is to assess noise impacts from on-site mechanical units and project-related service activity, and to determine if mitigation is necessary to reduce the noise impacts to be compliant with applicable limits. All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting, abbreviated "dBA," to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol "LEQ." Unless a different time period is specified, "LEQ" is implied to mean a period of one hour. Short duration peak noise levels are expressed by the symbol LMwc. Some of the data may also be presented as octave-band-filtered and/or A-octave-band- filtered data, which are a series of sound spectra centered about each stated frequency, with half of the bandwidth above and half of the bandwidth below each stated frequency. Sound pressure is the actual noise experienced by a human or registered by a sound level instrument. When sound pressure is used to describe a noise source it must specify the distance from the noise source to provide complete information. Sound power, on the other hand, is a specialized analytical method to provide information without the distance requirement, but it may be used to calculate the sound pressure at any desired distance. 2.1 Project Location The subject property is located at 550 West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, California. The project site is surrounded by residential properties to the north and south, and commercial properties to the east and west. For a graphical representation of the site, please refer to the Vicinity Map and Satellite Aerial Photograph are provided as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#B50314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 1 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 2.2 Project Description The proposed project, AutoNation Newport Porsche, consists of the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new automobile showroom and service building. The building has a total area of 72,183 square feet with parking located to the south and east of the building as well as on second floor and roof level decks. The service facility will be located in the west portion of the building on site, and will be constructed of masonry walls with a concrete roof, on top of which parking will be located. Rooftop parking will be covered with a canopy. For additional project details, please refer to Appendix A: Project Plans. 2.3 Applicable Noise Standards Project-generated noise impacts must meet the noise regulations contained within the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which specifies noise limits based on the land use of the properties in question. The primary sources of project-generated noise that are anticipated at the project site are mechanical equipment and activity in the service department. The project site is surrounded by residential properties to the north and south (across West Coast Highway), and commercial properties to the east and west. Section 10.26.025 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code states that noise limits are as follows: • Single-family residential properties have noise limits of 55 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 50 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. • Commercial properties have noise limits of 65 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The City enforces the aforementioned noise limits such that the noise standard should not be exceeded within a fifteen-minute period of time. In addition to this requirement, an added provision states that maximum instantaneous noise levels should not exceed the noise standard plus 20 decibels for any period of time. As hours of operation are expected to be limited to the daytime hours (7 a.m. to 5 p.m.), applicable daytime noise limits will be considered in this analysis. Pertinent sections of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code have been provided as Appendix B. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 Existing Noise Environment A long-term ambient noise measurement was performed beginning on August 8, 2016 through the afternoon of August 9, 2016 in order to determine approximate existing noise levels at the project site during daytime hours when the dealership will be operational. The ambient noise measurement was made at the north property line, on grade with the existing on site buildings. The primary source of noise at this location was traffic noise on Coast Highway. Ambient noise measurement results are shown in Table 1, and the ambient measurement location is shown in Figure 2. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#1350314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 2 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Table 1. Long-Term Measured Noise Levels on Site Date Time Hourly Average Noise Level (dBA LEa) 2 p.m. -3 p.m. 65.5 3 p.m.-4 p.m. 69.3 4 p.m.-5 p.m. 64.8 5 p.m.-6 p.m. 68.3 August 8, 2016 6 p.m.-7 p.m. 68.0 7 p.m.-8 p.m. 67.4 8 P.M.-9 P.M. 65.4 9 P.M.- 10 P.M. 64.8 10 P.M.- 11 P.M. 65.2 11 p.m.- 12 a.m. 61.2 12 a.m. - 1 a.m. 59.2 1 a.m.-2 a.m. 56.1 2 a.m.-3 a.m. 55.1 3 a.m.-4 a.m. 52.4 4 a.m.-5 a.m. 57.1 5 a.m.-6 a.m. 62.1 6 a.m.-7 a.m. 65.3 August 9, 2016 7 a.m. -8 a.m. 68.0 8 a.m.-9 a.m. 69.2 9 a.m.- 10 a.m. 67.7 10 a.m.- 11 a.m. 68.4 11 a.m.- 12 p.m. 65.3 12 p.m. - 1 p.m. 65.8 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. 65.5 As shown above, during the daytime hours during which the dealership will be operational, ambient noise levels were observed to range from 64.8 dBA to 69.3 dBA, demonstrating the high traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. 3.2 Future Noise Environment The future noise environment in the vicinity of the project site will be primarily a result of the same ambient noise sources, as well as the noise generated by the proposed uses at the project site. Noise generated by the service department has been evaluated using noise measurements performed of existing similar facilities. Noise measurements were performed at three different facilities on Thursday, April 23, 2015. The facilities are as follows: Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#1350314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 3 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) • Location 1: Newport Auto Center (Porsche/Audi/Bentley dealership), 445 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. • Location 2: Mercedes-Benz South Bay, 3311 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, California. • Location 3: AutoNation Ford Torrance, 3111 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, California. Noise measurements were performed beginning around 10:55 a.m. at Location 1 and concluding around 4:45 p.m. at Location 3. As the configuration of the service department of Location 2 is similar to what is planned at the subject property (service department with masonry walls and a concrete roof), noise measurements were performed of the service department during an hour of typical operation. Roll-up doors were observed to be open at the existing site during noise measurements, which were performed at a distance of 38 feet from the door opening. Fifteen- minute average noise levels measured on site are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Operational Noise Levels at Similar Auto Service Facility, at 38 Feet from Open Door Time Period Measured Noise Level (dBA) 2:40 p.m.—2:55 p.m. 62.8 2:55 p.m.—3:10 p.m. 62.9 3:10 p.m.—3:25 p.m. 61.3 3:25 p.m.—3:40 p.m. 63.4 As shown above, noise levels throughout the hour were observed to be fairly consistent, with the maximum fifteen-minute noise level of 63.4 dBA measured between 3:25 p.m. and 3:40 p.m. In order to obtain an estimate of noise levels at the project site, this noise level will be considered the typical, worst-case noise level that would be experienced at a distance of 38 feet from an open door to the service area at the subject property. It should be noted that this measurement included contribution from the ambient noise environment, including traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and occasional helicopter and aircraft noise from the Torrance Municipal Airport. For this reason, these noise levels are considered to represent the worst-case anticipated noise exposure. In addition to general noise measurements made at the service facility, noise level measurements were made of various noise sources expected to be present at the proposed project site. Typical equipment noise levels are shown in Table 3. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#1350314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 4 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Table 3. Operational Noise Levels of Typical Auto Service Equipment, at 10 feet from Source Location Noise Source Noise Level at 10 feet (d BA) Measurement Notes 1 Normal detail bay 69.0 Cars starting/stopping, shop vacs, buffer/polisher, hand wash with spray wand 1 Delivery truck car 80.6 Truck idling while unloading cars. transport trailer Measured for a previous Eilar Associates Reference Car alarm 93.6 project, Job#1300411 N1. Car alarm of a 2010 Subaru Impreza. Reference Car door slam 68.5 Measured for a previous Eilar Associates project, Job#1300411 N1. Automobile wheels 2 turning on epoxy 73.2 sealed concrete 1 Impact tool use at 81.4 Measured during tire removal. service repair area Enclosed compressor Champion with 10 HP Baldor motor 3 room with masonry 74,0 measured outside "closed"door which was walls observed to have gaps around the sides through which sound leaks. Hunter Engineering Company TC3700, 1 Tire changer 74.8 installing new tire (observed to be louder than removing tire Above-ground service Rotary Lift SPOA10N560. Loudest part of 2 lifts 70.5 lift is the"popping" noise of the safety height locks activating as lift is raised. As the noise sources listed above are intermittent and unpredictable, these noise levels above have been incorporated into calculations in order to determine worst-case instantaneous noise levels that may be experienced at surrounding property lines. In addition to the noise measurements detailed above, supplemental noise measurements were also performed of a typical Porsche vehicle starting, idling, and driving at a low speed in order to incorporate this noise source into the acoustical model. The vehicle model was a Porsche Panamera GTS. These noise measurements were performed in the parking lot of an apartment complex where the contribution of ambient noise sources to the measurements would be minimal. Measurement results are shown in Table 4. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#1350314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 5 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Table 4. Porsche Panamera GTS Vehicle Noise Measurements Measurement Sound Source Measurement Position Noise Level (dBA) Number 1111 1 Vehicle Starting 5 feet from front of vehicle 62.5 2 Vehicle Starting 5 feet from back of vehicle 75.7 3 Vehicle Idling 5 feet from front of vehicle 59.7 4 Vehicle Idling 5 feet from back of vehicle 59.6 5 Vehicle Drive-By, 5 mph 10 feet from path of vehicle 54.7 6 Vehicle Drive-By, 5 mph 10 feet from path of vehicle 54.6 Mechanical equipment noise levels have also been incorporated into the noise model for the project to determine the noise contribution from these sources. HVAC units will include one Mitsubishi PURY-P288 unit (anticipated to generate a noise level of 64 dBA at one meter from the equipment), two Mitsubishi PURY-P144 units (anticipated to generate a noise level of 61 dBA at one meter from each unit), and four Mitsubishi PUY-A18 units (anticipated to generate a noise level of 48 dBA at one meter from each unit). All units will be roof-mounted as indicated on project mechanical plans (refer to Appendix A). Some of the HVAC equipment will be located within covered penthouses with louvered walls on all sides but the north, which will be solid. Manufacturer data sheets have been provided as Appendix C. Three exhaust fans for the service department are expected to be ceiling-mounted within the service area and ducted to the outside on the west side of the building through a louver. The exhaust fans are expected to be manufactured by Cook, Model 165QMX. A calculation was performed using octave band sound power levels provided by the manufacturer to determine noise impacts at the louver. Calculations show that the estimated sound power level at the louver would be approximately 80 dBA. Manufacturer data sheets are provided in Appendix C. All of the above mentioned noise sources have been incorporated into site-specific noise calculations, detailed in Section 5.0. 4.0 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT 4.1 Methodology 4.1.1 Cadna Noise Modeling Modeling of the outdoor noise environment is accomplished using Cadna Ver. 4.6, which is an industry-standard, model-based computer program developed by DataKustik for predicting noise impacts in a wide variety of conditions. Cadna (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) assists in the calculation, presentation, assessment, and mitigation of noise exposure. It allows for the input of project information such as noise source data, barriers, structures, and topography to create a detailed model and uses the most up-to-date calculation standards to predict outdoor noise impacts. Noise standards used by Cadna that are particularly relevant to this analysis include ISO Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#B50314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 9613 (Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors). Cadna provides results that are in line with basic acoustical calculations for distance attenuation and barrier insertion loss. Further explanation may be provided upon request. 4.1.2 Acoustical Formulas and Calculations The following acoustical formulas and calculations have also been used in the preparation of this report. Decibel Addition To determine the combined logarithmic noise level of two known noise source levels, the values are converted to the base values, added together, and then converted back to the final logarithmic value, using the following formula: LC =101og(I OL1L0 +10L2110 +..joLxi,o) where Lc = the combined noise level (dB), and LN = the individual noise sources (dB). This procedure is also valid when used successively for each added noise source beyond the first two. The reverse procedure can be used to estimate the contribution of one source when the contribution of another concurrent source is known and the combined noise level is known. These methods can be used for LEo or other metrics (such as LDN or CNEL), as long as the same metric is used for all components. Attenuation Due to Distance Attenuation due to distance is calculated by the equation: SPL2 = SPLr —20 tog(D2) D1 where SPL, = Known sound pressure level at known distance, SPI-2 = Calculated sound pressure level at distance, D, = Distance from source to location of known sound pressure level, and D2 = Distance from source to location of calculated sound pressure level. This is identical to the more commonly used reference of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of distance. This equation does not take into account reduction in noise due to atmospheric absorption. Sound Power to Sound Pressure To convert sound power levels to sound pressure levels, the following formula is used: SPL =SWL—201og(D)—0.5 where: SPL= Calculated sound pressure level at distance, and D = Distance from source to location of calculated sound pressure level. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#B50314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 4.2 Measurement Equipment Some or all of the following equipment was used at the site to measure existing noise levels: • Larson Davis Sound Expert LxT Type 1 Sound Level Meter, Serial #4084 • Larson Davis Sound Expert LxT Type 1 Sound Level Meter, Serial #4085 • Larson Davis Model 720 Type 2 Sound Level Meter, Serial #0462 • Larson Davis Model CA250 Type 1 Calibrator, Serial # 1081 • Larson Davis Model CA150 Type 2 Calibrator, Serial # 0203 • Tripods, microphones with windscreens Each sound level meter was field-calibrated immediately prior to the noise measurement and checked afterwards, to ensure accuracy. All sound level measurements conducted and presented in this report, in accordance with the regulations, were made with sound level meters that conform to the American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). All instruments are maintained with National Bureau of Standards traceable calibration, per the manufacturers' standards. 5.0 NOISE IMPACTS Noise levels from service activity and mechanical equipment operation on site were calculated using the noise information provided in Section 3.2 in order to determine noise impacts. Noise emanating from the service facility was evaluated as two separate noise sources, one at each door of the facility. Noise calculations take into account the topography of the site and surrounding area. Noise impacts also consider shielding provided by proposed structures on site, including the canopy over the rooftop parking area, and consider sound reflections off of all buildings, barrier walls, and canopy structures. All receivers are located at a height of five feet above grade. All other receivers are located at a greater distance and therefore will experience lower noise levels than those predicted herein as they will receive additional noise attenuation due to distance and shielding from intervening structures. Based on the assumptions described above, overall average noise levels (fifteen-minute) have been calculated and are shown in Table 5. Combined noise levels of all sources are shown for both the doors open and doors closed scenarios. The closed door scenario assumes a minimal and conservative noise reduction of 10 decibels at the service area, although actual noise reduction will likely be considerably higher with doors closed. Calculations also consider that approximately 40 cars are expected to start, idle for two minutes, and drive on the rooftop deck between the operational hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Detailed calculation information can be found in Appendix D. Receiver locations and activity noise contours are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for the doors open and doors closed scenarios, respectively. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#B50314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 8 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Table 5. Operational Noise Levels at Surrounding Receivers (15-Minute Average Noise Levels) Estimated Noise Level (dBA) Receiver Description Noise Limit (dBA) Doors Open Doors Closed R1 North Property Line 1 55 41.2 32.3 R2 North Property Line 2 55 40.6 31.5 R3 North Property Line 3 55 35.2 26.9 R4 North Property Line 4 55 36.9 36.3 R5 South Property Line 55 47.2 37.6 R6 East Property Line 65 40.2 39.5 R7 West Property Line 65 64.1 54.9 As shown above, noise levels from typical activity and mechanical equipment operation on site are expected to meet the applicable daytime noise limits of the City of Newport Beach at all surrounding property lines with doors open or closed. It should also be noted that actual residential useable area and structures are located at a greater distance beyond the actual north property line, and noise levels are therefore expected to be further reduced at these locations due to additional distance attenuation. Additionally, although noise limits are not dependent on the existing ambient noise environment, noise levels generated by operational activities at the car dealership are expected to be well below the existing ambient noise levels at the site and surrounding areas that are primarily the result of traffic noise on Coast Highway. The overall change to the noise environment would therefore be expected to be less than significant. For these reasons, no mitigation is deemed necessary to attenuate noise levels from activity noise at surrounding properties. In addition to the average fifteen-minute noise levels which account for periods of activity and inactivity at the site, instantaneous noise levels have also been calculated for the noise sources listed in Tables 3 and 4 to determine impacts at surrounding property lines. These noise levels have been calculated using attenuation due to distance only and consider only a conservative estimate of the noise shielding that would be provided by the rooftop canopy for car-related noise sources at the north property line (car alarms, door slams, car starting, car idling, and car drive-by), therefore making these calculated values extremely conservative. The conservative assumption is that the rooftop canopy would provide five decibels of sound reduction at the north property line from the aforementioned noise sources. Results of these calculations have been shown for the worst-case location at each property line, and are shown in a table in Appendix E. Calculated noise impacts show that no instantaneous noise levels produced at surrounding property lines are expected to exceed the applicable instantaneous noise level limits of the City of Newport Beach. The maximum noise impact shown is the car alarm at the north property line. It should be noted that this noise source is the most irregular source documented herein, and is therefore the most unpredictable. Controlling this noise source is out of the hands of management at the project site, as any patron could potentially set off a car alarm at any time. This noise source would also be expected at any commercial business, and is not exclusively applicable to this particular development. Even so, this noise source is expected to remain in compliance with applicable noise limits. It should also be noted that many of the sources listed herein will be located within the Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#B50314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 9 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) service facility building itself, and therefore will receive additional noise attenuation due to shielding from project structures. For these reasons, no mitigation is deemed necessary to attenuate instantaneous noise impacts. 6.0 CONCLUSION Calculations show that, as currently designed, the proposed project is expected to comply with City of Newport Beach noise regulations for both fifteen-minute average noise levels and instantaneous noise levels generated on the site. No mitigation is deemed necessary. These conclusions and recommendations are based on the best and most current project-related information available at the time this study was prepared. 7.0 CERTIFICATION All recommendations for noise control are based on the best information available at the time our consulting services are provided. However, as there are many factors involved in sound transmission, and Eilar Associates has no control over the construction, workmanship or materials, Eilar Associates is specifically not liable for final results of any recommendations or implementation of the recommendations. This report is based on the related project information received and measured noise levels, and represents a true and factual analysis of the acoustical impact issues associated with the AutoNation Newport Porsche project, to be located at 550 West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, California. This report was prepared by Jonathan Brothers, Amy Hool, and Dan Gershun. q6ae Jo`natrBrothdK, Principal Acoustical Consultant Amy Hool enior, coustical Consultant Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#1350314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 10 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 8.0 REFERENCES 1. Beranek, Leo L., Acoustical Measurements, Published for the Acoustical Society of America by the American Institute of Physics, Revised Edition, 1988. 2. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. Harris, Cyril M., Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Acoustical Society of America, 3,d Edition, 1998. 4. Harris, Cyril M., Ph.D., Noise Control in Buildings, Original Edition, 1994. 5. Hirschorn, Martin, Noise Control Reference Handbook, Revised Edition, 1989. 6. Irvine, Leland K. and Richards, Roy L., Acoustics and Noise Control Handbook for Architects and Builders, Original Edition, 1998. 7. Knudsen, Vern O. and Harris, Cyril M., Acoustical Designing In Architecture, American Institute of Physics for the Acoustical Society of America, 2nd Edition, 1978. 8. Raichel, Daniel R., The Science and Applications of Acoustics, American Institute of Physics Press for the Acoustical Society of America, 1 sc Edition, 2000. Eilar Associates, Inc. Job#1350314N6 October 4, 2016 Page 11 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) FIGURES Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) cl ff Dr Kuxs Rd Project ' Location _ W.Coas'.Hv.'� .... O V4l3a. Waverly Dr A _iH 4�SF� FPS rr:,;taRuctid _. U014 MapQuest Portions @N14 TornTam I erms I Priva Eilar Associates, Inc. 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Vicinity Map Figure 1 Escondido, California 92025 Job # B50314N6 760-738-5570 ' I a of sills • • ••- . 1 . F 4 !oK C1 Cil �J . P �FCir9S Rd 1' - y ti , ff MOM &k Pom Egg,, ,f _ - -77 AO E-Pacc-Caastw Grest=viewiQD.r - © x, NOR _ _ Gooearth le i . . # 1350314N6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received ,{ /� 15-095) >- 45.0 >= 60.0 R-2 R 1 C _ ©-0 _i'd's ♦ L_r.1 �� Y >= 65.0 a 1JT �r.T T .+L� - •, , nw- - I _ ,� 1 :e I Jam, -w r ® 7= 70.0 SL r r' i i' �i' � ., ", t �•'-. .'. �'�,� •. . I 1F.� -' R _ it II li rrr����q,� 6><� r � � >- 15.0 �:. � _ w .' �•'' i r. - II f IIyJI, J Ilx-"y4L_II4L _ �_ � ��L(J��� J41 ' ti '��" J'�,�=_ �__ _ - a��5_ �I�Y I:M 1 h t•I_r_F-I_#-a-L=� - _ tJy-. T T 1}��. Jr~4 t ` '�� �/.y$]s��r " �s �p�, _ � � I '-"'3�� _- I T- f I�1•.1eGld _.1 _ � i � ��: �'-�I P 'M1IF j '�'4 r,{.A•y�l - -� - . '' � I+,i�.i Jrh F JJ} Ca { s L ILS.. _ _ � — �"\ •"+` ' I LL R-7 VF_ L .' - �.-. ,It . r-;fin �+• 1--' �� J _ t f +! .rYt�+� t } y L " ' _ - ' I , !X �`^ — -' - J' Y- rii ryl _ !� I''l.[„ -I f- •/'. f - � rT.611 f _ , -7- d.3'-�' . L,. 'tet b W '� I ♦ — __ ,_ — _ _ _ J - 514 .� �— - - _ -._ _ �-t} 1 41. -_ —_ .+.F+.6�'T_ _ — '�1�.-tfr _� � ' _— 1 ' • o r -'t' � 1 :4 L L f 4 n lfll - _ .1 ry � x ti. —F 1: r ,•.-r "I t '� �. - 19T rr L. ,. 1 . \ Vrt � f f // ) �__• - ' '+ Y4 F. 4C- �11�r7Yl F-LY Operational Noise Levels - 'F Service Doors Open Legend Exhaust Louver - - J Receiver Noise Level J' Number (dBA) "L )i R1 41.2 AC Locations 'k_ -" _�°-' JJ 1' _ L r .. r R-S '- L` Service Door • R2 40.6 Car Start/idle Location - 7` - 'g - _—-- I rs R3 35.2 . . I Vehicle Path of Travel p - �I1 I R4 36.9 ® KPI yi I I n'F,;=" l' R5 47.2 1 + �_. Receiver Locations Y R# Receiver Number "� �•�,' j � ,�-��-, - :: , It r fY r I R7 c1 1 Eilar Associates, Inc. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Operational Noise 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Escondido, California 92025 Contours and Receiver Locations - Doors Open Figure 3 760-738-5570 Job # B50314N6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received 15-095) IL' I•M M >= 45.0 >= 60.0 - - R-3 R-4 >= 65_0 R-1 ' R-2 •. , —� — x,r. L L ®r - , >= 60-0 - �.— �_.•__ .- �,, '. "T'. ar "4WY"rJT�f'' 1 I' ri -ktii-r` r 4J-. r-r �I may_ 7 1] 1 L .- _.R.y. I'*..:� 1 ! I _ r Ia.a 111 ', J' J , •L'•, '',I .' '•Jrt—'Ir TL r ,`'�,a�l.`l {�,V r 1 , a r' - �'• - �' ' 1 -qQ I. {! �'- '. - +. ..�Jy�•��_qra �._ _ _ ,. °�. '' a�_r 1 tI �3r� I I __ r � ti. _ _ W 13 f }] I`S. ; \ ,•�r'y/�T �r j �x• .1 Il5 IL }�j �4' TF I L Y 6 J i a LL �1ti5• Y"� +� 1 :.. ' ,Tr, I ,,,fir— _.'Lr��..-�"r l, ! t 5_, �,� .. t f '�_ `� , l •' r f �' ; Iri � Ll - I�,S I• =i'.1 � -_.r-.—T� 4 � _ IN .4 l{k i�` Y� I.�,� . �ry r" `•, . l ii L a L r t ! '.yv7Y,.., � _ 4 - _ _ I . .___ � l IH 'J Lf.6t��LL - - r . I - i• 3 v '��`, i}a! _•+r� ]"I •�; , _ _ ,..- •-- 6.Fr� -� '— �..~' •.r° r. , TWT 1 • ti yy Z' L L. �.r k �,r�--�_ �x ti. y `-II li L •I rr.,'=� ;.Ir • IK' ' Operational Noise Levels- _ Sewice Doors Closed Legend t Exhaust Louver -- — - Receiver Noise Level ® AC Locations r Number �dBA) Service Door a; _. _ R1 32.3 Car Start/idle Location - R7 31.6 R3 26.5 . . 1 Vehicle Path of Travel p I R4 36.3 ® Receiver Locations NPI - R5 37.6 R# Receiver Number �- - ,jB `l'' ' " R6 35.5 S1. r' R7 54.5 Eilar Associates, Inc. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Operational Noise 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Escondido, California 92025 Contours and Receiver Locations - Doors Closed Figure 4 760-738-5570 Job # B50314N6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) APPENDIX A Project Plans Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 ItemN Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porscl JSf afkac(PA2015-095) J.,.vILL,g n.. .nnf mak.u m�r.v,l m wa�eaoo pAWJIYw.m f�leA 603 KINDS RD. +e 111.1 F..1 511 KINGS RD. 503 KINGS RD. 421 KINGS RD. 411 KINGS RD. 403 KINGS RD. 321 KINGS RD 311 KINGS RO Qw, nxE.,rra � F -- eAmcw.wnn- ^� AutoNation ai -- Al lIN 18rAVE.IOrH flCM yb ' E r Vuna.oN.ERmo . . . . F___ I . . . . . . . . . . . i j II Ij li ii 'I I +^ El 'A\ \ i \ A\r, \ I I ® 11 y�.�, _ ew3aY ♦ �iLal r r rti�FF�i�4'r1�1 I I II -- &iffT NOD( _ I AA - mrio ulww mrmJ - s �J®gyp - A LLMiNILIMM i a3 AW mNx4 M a�mnv'9 MU. © CM _IVA- _ E .1 Emir tlK 17 _____ b , rH.Pr wMOfLgA I \ _ -Y Wos✓[L6 us9c uan avR aAvf vxrs .wIN.W.vfY \��.., xnx.af [NMC slm P.N MLi cw.ru m1�M' nCIWE PM W W.OI MDarw3 A H IBL[.l&r N xP ipIWF 1H. WSME 01K ---—-— - —--- _ — --— ----WEST COAST HIOHWAY — — — — — -- -- _ mwm anvmiwoN —v m nrw nu.nrl --- 0 10 xo 6CaLE' t'-t0'-M PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCNL f_ly-C PARMIO SUMMARY BIILONO AREA P6CAP SSE REDID wn Arum rrnr ruf Nw __ nosltral •Ra.mar atm..e.-aaarmoe n a,Nt.m+NE Na I•.� _ _ ea.Na Ra aaro rex,rat w ww AR�IIYio u NL FMIr IMOuc ra arMl3 ® me 0 mb r WaJ. Ku[ Mtwwl er/At M m.aJ IV m6z yMZ.N 0gp6 P.AnE a.5a4s ''v V_ I.xmu E- avl VO2.M}re W.S M NfrNX q�C.rC 60.urta flPr Iue u104.9P3 fpf.CL.aW rWN 1 Arµa®mN°NWCPpNY• NaYLLa KaaW Nd t..atl5bIL1 ,ay.V. Ma13r}Jnr R°ni .IJ a! .yp®"/sNR1m Nurtagcu6vY¢Sv Yv fv\'w�i[wrnm9uf"° "' _ .Nrar _ NYir buR®�ASS®lAl!Ic 4UTONATION PORSCHE OF �N4 ra dalMa Aa NS W4 aA N'MWrN9N.l f.2 W Figmf .g Y vim[�u fm c NEWPORT BEACH Aa.m.rNw.ar.m war �.rn15wfft...^mruwJ...w tErr�f n rum vm.rm n mammm®u.v.m �u rvromr v[ nµwA IV A yr IlrypOpT Ni011 COAST"Y. nw al M[pMrt Y,yaOl -.� mrr hlcl[wm arvr w r mra u un .wa fI IT a rev.w.cv.m y .rmaa N rr...rierrm. PROPOSED �•iKwNs°mean sua wM.w aam ar r•••1°'w• wrmi uea.m em. SITE PLAN rc I16. 3oe V. KAVNUJ YfCMM1MEO MUSIC AS NOT m''.AA�U ama >.m'YR !KV Rltr CPTKI A..wn R16a14\ .r O (wrl vi->s 1 At nning Commission - October 6, 2016 SECOND FLOOR SIL JRIE�-AREAA1iaAJ— mN A ditional Materials Received „yWw rscl cd# (PA2015-095) StlMM MtltIBNirO CW1vM%� J[LUfFDrMFM 41Rl.bggj.'X' Jtl LRrcloy tnw.vrriro3 M[EVL 4r4 �•E` 1.1'9ap9216pV }F. a9B71,61}1 ST,xN XtW[f➢X iN 41RVTw� �dxiuun M,MRrvr i ..nrvn m�n.0 Nai[.r mrra m.mmy^raa n..rurrn. rtl"n.r i.ry na -�J[ --aou[ fm�1.r6 I -` I I 0 eoC IN C s�i.cE y5p nviOU>, Wx_ E` ( W '�l `r11 Q<J m� x -.—__.__._ _����• / I D•O � � � � � � I Oml .a sas iWr W / e cxr.Vor[ ` AutoNation. rv// W¢psw,navmo,mo, ���{r��5��{� SxgvIgpn B60n I FCRf LNDQtWLF-R2DJ6 Er r.r U � 39NICE6NE61dX �an x•amm cw.a x,m - SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 FFIRT FLOOR AREA SUWMRY �'eJIX�ru E�w�[.mrl� 11 nett s[ rA50 PP. r'IXc nop (wr w, >m•iv. 77 t6eee af. I I � IkJWn J � I ^ � 1u101i, J�,y[fd� /.P201R S�CIOCV�] J 91 q3W •�. E`NO �-n I O - I [6E.naF'H�NYIve41lY ___ / \i\ ' X\ •.'I\ .•\V J[\ ••\V J t\ JJr\V i.'t\ •\„ Y\\ S�ErtV✓S OaNE \L o� 11u_6, 1C _�---���I TI� �IIIII�d II ofII IMLI•'�r'^oJII JII ! I -� � cuwo AOi, ! xr III - exxco �\ unv.mxarrx vs \i wm� \\�\ f� , It I'w / I� J'w ����\\�\ �� �J%'-Y�V � t� I I I II II ti — I�II1—'vl I I I I xmti5etl •K w. uu.[o IIRNCF WpY31/Jl3 o l II o —9 _L--—_ �i 91CV EGV®.� IOg3 � I `6uvar.uv[v4wa 0.4' AUTOMATION PORSCHE OF TRLE PRO.ECT NEWPORT BEACH NORTH NORTH RRITPORT YILCK,C 920410 C llh FIRST AND SECOND e x 6 2 FLOOR PLANS va IY� gomx� sa scrLE: N6'r r-v' WIM AS NOTED FIRST FLOOR PLAN wee my-ra' 3 a 0 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 an ;rt„' w ItemN Additional Materials Received �KMM \l4'w^m AutoNation Porsc Sf afkac(PA2015-095) •.M MRI IYIi M1YKI / in 1WffirS erWmr � _.�. _ _ _ _ SYMec,Vl'.b:tire[rf m wa�eaoo OgfyrA�H cw.ss ROOFTOP TRELLIS DETAIL 5 PARTIAL ELEVATION VIEW 4 SV.12�i SCWE v7 b AutoNation M1 S'NISTAVE,IOM ROM iORr WDHVW.E R.'tlDl IWO NAr 6 ofR�M9.� eitY�mry�. �w.lm.Fi4¢E �T91 KIM oy4f • .EMwCK.[�Mf MyM�y� �yy��y 'I<Vr IqQ fN KIM sw�� .me.a fOUY TLo.TwTc'Llt- •2.u[iu•v� � @�c���s� no aU['rx! 0..ux v rv..c fll..l i- f..[ -i Ki.L rw65 IE:-.x(Eii .fl.l wY95'� EAST ELEVATION 9 WEST ELEVATION p 7✓J�Inf-r-C ttuG Inl'-T4 I Li I 111:1 SWN \ M nwm RwYc.O�IIM _ miwor wv unVl uF Vr nO�Kfwo is.Nwic su•w�i K ww mawraID Y!!Y KlM1.w63 �� s W w .u61 9wYM�� .Vm¢�"%�KfX �. A.W¢�pwll KCXWLY�fmMmo re xY YN KIM Iwu ¢miss oma¢fne..vaw �. wn cnr .VM wr¢ Q px macaw +®n lm•+ V:m �•�,• w na o�. — Y M 11111 1 4UTONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH !AO"IT COAST"v. .0WONT MACK OA SASSO R BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATMS pw w Ol® AS NOTED SOUTH ELEVATION N` uMa enc-rte 4 a 0 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item NAdditional Materials Received AutoNation P( wStat**c(PA2015-095) MG Y NI NJ MA M1��M1Y�gTW Baa via.Kn ®SOUe�HWE�ST GROUP O 0 MNF0 AUTO LIFT FLUIDS — ELEC.RM.. EWORKITALLI SHOP EQUIP. f`fOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 lip Proposed Ceiling mounted Exhaust Fans \—(Typical of 3) G AUrONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH mo alar mrrN.v FIRST FLOOR PLAN WEST SIDE FIRST FLOOR PLAN-MST SIDE NONE M2.12 0 nning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item N Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porscl a JStafkallic(PA2015-095) E1Fb[MtlVtLn r¢G 4331 lI H0.W]!m0 ¢ Mi Yll.l131 �Lfn¢a r,Yl"rj--,s ruv. ®SOUeHWET GROUP r+m.et®+� waac�aawo GCRL LntDEPpyE.R I1L+ wlr� lA RCN. W PARIS stORAGE aQ@ ANOIiI ia+ / CA AUTO-LIFT Proposed exhaust louver location sER+c rs eEww para A>NYID.mU11 nox Fr.+ DETAL BAYS ---__ API11 M y n m aWm•wAmVnx Proposed exhaust shaft —-- PY A. [w OY M Fa0 �w PA/! AUTONATION PORSCHE OF NEWPORT BEACH Rm WE9f�.R�IRn �vRcxr Ant cA meo SECOND FLOOR PLAN WESTSIDE + SECOND FLOOR PLAN-WEST SIDE !P NONE YRA�NR er waim M2.2.2 e 0 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received rsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) ® Stantec Ie mx.iw v...wA.z Nm Cyyyl. u.. AutoNation m swisc.uE.�m noon rom uwe+aus.a m°� vr� TED 80011/RD01'MEA OIWMf ofM NRa I..piu NY •OI.N qY°�P IIF.M1iI n.LL -BbU7.wf��� ppxts �,.Ytt..pµ4 MYL u!r gievlK M1M 1w�a a -41 4 -11 WOO LT a;.;� - E ..... i 6MnuTxaor xwra nwa -__ - �.••• w wa e�w Mi ruviM[icon 4. 1a w AUTOMATION TME MIDJwr PORSCHE OF s RamR NORTH NEWPORT BEACH t R�00[1[[�M 01 XNO i TW ` THIRD FLOOR /ROOF PLM s moiwn AS raoho THIRD FLOOR I ROOF PLAN I I 3a a 0 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) RIBBED METAL DECKING MATT GREY FINISH — SLOPE EXTENDED WALL ABOVE PARAPET TO RAIN GUTTER J UNDERSIDE OF CANOPY UCHT FIXTURE TUBE STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS PAINTED SW7019 GAUNTLET GRAY PARAPET WALL us "r z 3 ROOF TOP CANOPY DETAIL 5 SCALE: 1/4' = 1'-0" Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) APPENDIX B Pertinent Sections of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 6d6Mn5 Ch�W1026COMMUNITY NOISE CON-R4ODiDgCommission - October 6' 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received 1.0. �,�0.2.0oe�i�M�t�d [J�}i.s.e �roMe 1.s..________ .pnnsch C8�_Re@�h /PA2015-095) Theproperties hereinafter described assigned b)the following noise z088S: Noise Zone | -- All sinQ|a'' two- and multiple-family residential properties; Noise Zone || -- All commercial properties; Noise Zone III -- The residential portion nfmixed-use properties; Noise Zone |V -- All manufacturing urindustrial properties. The actual use Vfthe property shall be the determining factor inestablishing whether aproperty iSin Noise Zone |' ||' ||| 0r |Vprovided that the actual use iS8legal use inthe City ofNewport Beach. (Ord. 95'38 § 11 (pad). 1995) 10.26.025 Exterior Noise Standards. �....................................................._................_................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all property with odesignated noise zone: ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL (Equivalent Noise Level,NOISE TYPE OF LAND ' Loq) ZONE USE 7a.nn. tuiOp.nn. 10p.nn. tu7u.nm. | Sing|e'' bwn'Vr 55 DBA 50 DBA nnu|Up|e'fanni|y residential || Commercial 65 DBA 60 DBA ||| Residential 60 DBA 50 DBA portions of mixed-use pnDp8di8S |V Industrial or 70 DBA 70 DBA manufacturing If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed either of the following: 1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute period; 2. A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period 0ftime (measured using&-mxeightndslow nespnnoe). h«pxwvwwom*pum|smnwzmnxxSoarowmisapom|!cmd=gpmwc&ow:m=om&|nma=o�/�zmmsop/cgram�/�zor||eo'usuttSaaroh�/�5cooe,oata%soCA�/�5cwe. 4/10 5It520t5 chapter IO26COMMUNITYNOISECONTW4nning Commission - October 6, 2016 C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds then 's s n ardit e m oin3h Ndditig l Materials Received °Auto a ion orsch dMewpor} 'eacPh (PA2015-095) level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. D. The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. E. If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. (Ord. 95-53 § 1, 1995; Ord. 95-38§ 11 (part), 1995) 10.26.030 Interior Noise Standards. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. The following noise standard, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within all noise zones: ALLOWABLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL (Equivalent Noise NOISE TYPE OF LAND Level, Leq) ZONE USE 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. I Residential 45 DBA 40 DBA III Residential 45 DBA 40 DBA portions of mixed-use properties If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. B. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed either of the following: 1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute period; 2. A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. D. The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. E. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. (Ord. 95-53§ 2, 1995; Ord. 95-38§ 11 (part), 1995) 10.26.035 Exemptions. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._......._..... http:/Aw .codepublishirg.com/dlSearctVdiisapi6.dll?cmd=getdm&Dxld=98&Index=D%3a%5cProgram%o2OFiles%5ccnSearch%5CUserDato%5oCA%5cNe... 5ry0 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) APPENDIX C Manufacturer Data Sheets Wimom 2016 ZTMII If • , , , • : : eived (Consists of Two PURY-P144TKMU-A(-BS)and One UfrV-111 OUKLUK -1w:fming Kit) -095) Job Name: Schedule Reference: Date: OUTDOOR VRF HEAT PUMP WITH HEAT RECOVERY UNIT OPTION SYSTEM FEATURES o Standard Model........................................PURY-P288TSKMU-A • INVERTER-driven compressor o Sea Coast (BS) Model........................PURY-P288TSKMU-A-BS • Air-source,simultaneous cooling and heating OPTIONAL PARTS • Long line lengths-for details see Engineering Manual 0 Twinning Kit(required)...............................................CMY-R100XLCBK • Connects to CITY MULTI indoor units o Joint Kit................................for details see Pipe Accesones Submittal • Controlled via CITY MULTI Controls Network o BC Conhollec.................................for details see BC Conlyder Submittals o Lav Ambient Kit....................for details see Low Ambient Kit Submittal o SnoMl-latl Guards Kit.........for details see Snow/Hail Guards Kit Submittal o Base Pan Heater Kil.............for details see Base Pan Heater Kit Submittal Specifications System Module 1 Module 2 Unit Type PURY-P288TSKMU-A(-BS) PURY-PI44TKMU-A(-BS) PURY-P144TKMU-A(US) Nominal Cooling Capacity Btulh 288,000 144,000 144,000 (2881230V) Nominal Heating Capacity Btu/h 320,000 160,000 160,000 (2081230V) Operating Temperature Range•1 Cooling(Outdoor)•2 Refer to Module Data 23-115°F(-5-46°C)OB Heating(Outdoor) -4-60•F(-20-15.5-C)WB External Dimensions(H x W x D) In.I mm Refer to Module Data 6431/32 x 68-29/32 x 295/32 64-31/32 x 68-29/32 x 29-5/32 1,650 x 1,750 x 740 1,650 x 1,750 x 740 Net Weight Lbs./kg 1,430(648) 715(324) 715(324) External Finish Refer to Module Data Pre-coated galvanized steel sheet Electrical Power Requirements Voltage,Phase,Hertz Refer to Module Data" 208/230V,3-Phase,60Hz Minimum Circuit Ampacity(MCA) A Refer to Module Data" 53/48 53/48 Maximum Fuse Size A Refer to Module Data" 60 60 Piping Diameter From Twinning Kit to Indoor Units Liquid(High Pressure) 1-1/8(28.58)Brazed (Brazed)(In.I mm) Gas(Low Pressure) 1-3/8(34.93)Brazed Refer to System Data Max.Total Refrigerant Line Length Ft. 3,117 Max.Refrigerant Line Length Ft. 541 Refer to System Data (Between ODU 8.IDU) Max.Control Wiring Length Ft. 1,650 Total Capacity 50-150%of ODUs Refer to System Data Indoor Unit Model I Quantity P06-P96/2-50(Max.No. Refer to System Data Connectable Branches:48) Sound Pressure Level dB(A) 64 Refer to System Data Fan Type x Quantity Propeller fan x 2 Propeller fan x 2 Airflow Rate CFM Refer to Module Data 11,300 11,300 External Static Pressure I In.WG(Pa) Refer to Module Data Selectable;0,0.12 or 0.24°WG;factory set to 0"W.G. Compressor Operating Range 7%to 100% Refer to System Data Compressor Type x Quantity Refer to Module Data Inverter-driven Scroll Inverter-driven Scroll Hermetic x 1 Hermetic x 1 Refrigerant Refer to Module Data R41 GA x 26 lbs+1 oz R410A x 26 lbs+1 oz 11.8 k 11.8 k High pressure sensor,High High pressure sensor,High High Pressure pressure switch a(4.15 MPa pressure switch at 4.15 MPa Protection Devices Refer to Module Data (601 psi) (601 psi) Inverter Circuit Over-current protection Over-current protection (Comp.I Fan) Fan Motor Thermal switch Thermal switch EER 11.2111.3 AHRI Ratings IEER 17.6/18.6 Refer to System Data (Ducted/Non-Ducted) COP 3.4113.20 FFi. Rating SCHE*3 18.20/19.03 Refer to System Data Ducted) corrosion Protection:Cellulose-and potyurethane-resin coating treatment applied to condenser coil that protects it from air contaminants m thick;Salt Spray Test Method-no unusual ms[development to 480 hours. S):Mpm thick;Salt Spray Test Method-no unusual rust development to 960 hours. NOTES: '1.Harsh weather environments may demand performance enhancing equipment. '3.Simultaneous Cooling and Heating Efficiency Ask your Mitsubishi Electnc representative for more details about your region. - Each individual module requires a separate electrical connection. 2.Fadetails m extended coding operadm mnge dW to-10°F DB,see L=Ambient Kit Submittal. Refer to elechical data for each intlMtlual module. Specifications are subject to change without notice. 02014 Mitsubishi Electric US,Inc. 2016 ' ' ived Model: 095) Job Name: Location: Engineer Name: Contractor: System No.: Date: OUTDOOR VRF HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM FEATURES • 3-phase, 208/230V •Modular variable refrigerant flow(VRF)systems; lav - smaller capacity units can be piped together to form a single, large-capacity two-pipe system I •Selectable fan static, 0.12 or 0.24"WG external static = ?I pressure;factory set to 0"WG ==I • Connects to CITY MULTI indoor units; controlled via CITY MULTI Controls Network (CMCN) =__1 • External finish: Pre-coated Galvanized-steel Sheets • Operating Temperature Range _- Cooling (Outdoor):23° - 115°F (-5°-+46°C)DB s='� Heating (Outdoor): -4° -+60°F(-20° -+16°C)WB - —� PURY-P144TKMU-A OPTIONAL PARTS []T-Branch Joint(5 72,000 Btu/h)....................CMY-Y102SS-G2 pT-Branch Joint(73,000- 144,000 RhA)..............CMY-Y102LS-G2 C3Joint Adapter(Port Connecbr>54,000 BUth)........ CMY-R160C-J pBC Controller.....CMB-P104/105/106/108/1010/1013/1016NU-G [3Mah BC Corlhclec...CMB-P108/1010/1013/10164CW1016NLA IA [3 Sub BC Controller................CMB-P104/108NU-GB/-1016NLLHB Specifications Model Name Unit Type PURY-P144TKMU-A Nominal Cooling Capacity Btu/h 144,000 Nominal Heating Capacity Btu/h 160,000 External Dimensions(H x W x D( In.I mm 65 x 68-29/32x 295123 /1,650 x 1750 x 740 Net Weight Lbs.I kg 715/324 Electrical Power Requirements Voltage.Phase,Hertz 208230,3-phase,60Hz Cooling Power Input kW 11 20 Heating Power Input kW 1354 Cooling Current(208/230V) R.L.A. 34.5/31 2 Heating Current(21 1230V) R.L.A. 41.71377 Minimum Circuit Ampacity(MCA) A 53/48 Maximum Breaker Size A 60 Maximum Overcurrent Protection A 87/80 Liquid(High Pressure) 7/8122.2 Piping Diameter(Brazed)(In.I mm) Gas(Low Pressure) 1-1/8/28.58 Indoor Unit Total Capacity 50 to 150%of Outdoor Unit Capacity Model/Quantity PO6 to P96 11 to 36 Sound Pressure Levels dB(A) 61 a Fan Type x Quantity Propeller Fan x 2 Airflow Rate CFM 11,300 Direct-drive Inverter Motor Output kW 0.92+0.92 Compressor Operating Range 15%to 100% Compressor Type x Quantity Inverter-driven Scroll Hermetic x 1 Compressor Motor Out utkW 9.5 Compressor Crankcase Heater kW Refrigerant R410A Lubricant MEL32 High-pressure Protection Device 601 psi 14.15 MPa Compressor I Fan Protection Device Overheat Piotecton/Thermal Switch Inverter Protection Device Overheat/Overcurrent Protection Blue Fin Anticorrosion Protection:Cellulose-and polyurethane-resin coating treatment applied to condenser coil that protects 8 from air contaminants; z1 pm thick,Salt Spray Test Method-no unusual rust development to 480 hours_ Is I At A ' • ' mission - October 6, 2016 nflill litil • • ` dditional Materials Received Job Name: AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) System Reference: Date Indoor/Outdoor A 1 /13 �— - - Blower Motor(ECM) FLA 0.33 Indoor Unit PICA-A18HAS Blower Motor Output IN 30 SHE/Moisture Removal 0.68/5.2 pt./h Outdoor unit PUY-A1814HAG(BS)UNIT OPTION: Outdoor Unit n Standard Model_._.....________.._..._.._____.......___.......PUY-A18NHA6 Compressor DC INVERTER-driven TvAn Rotary F. Seacoast(BS)Model.......................................................PUY-A18NHA6-BS Fan Motor(ECM) FLA 0.35 ACCESSORIES: MOCP I A 120 Indoor Unit Airrow Rate(Low-Mid-High) ❑ Condensate Pump(BlueDiamond X87-711/721;115/1 DRY 320-370-425 ❑ Condensate Pump(Sauemiann S130-1151230;115,11 Indoor ❑ Disconnect SwBch(TAZ-MS303) (Cooling) WET CFM 290-33x380 ❑ Wireless Remote Controller(PAR-FL32MA-E) ❑ Wireless Signal Receiver(PAR-FA32MA-E) Outdoor DRY 1,200 Outdoor Unit Sound Pressure Level ❑ Wind Baffle(WB-PAI)" •Afloesoperationto PF(-18•C). Indoor(Low-Mid-High) 36-40-03 ❑ Advanced Wind Baffle(WB-SD1 and/or WB-RE1)" d3(A) ^Allows operatorn 0-20PF(-29P C). Outdoor Cooling 48 ❑ Air Outlet Guide(PACSG585G-E) ❑ Wall Bracket(OSWB2000M-1) External Dimensions Controls - Controls Indoor(H x W x D) 11-5/8 x 35.3/8 x 9-13/16 ❑ Wireless Controller(MHK1) (295%898%249) in Advanced Wired Controller(PAR-31 MAA) intimm) ❑ Simple Wired Controller(PAC-Y753CRAU) Outdoor(H x W x D) 23-5/8 x 31-1/2 x 11-13/16+7/8 ❑ M-NET Adapter(PACSF83MA-E) (600 x 800 x 300+ 23) ❑ Temperature Sensor(PACSE4ITS) Net Weigh[ SPECIFICATIONS: Indoor -F(17737) tbl.(MI .' outdoor 89(40) Cooling BUM/w 1 18,000/2,240 External Finish •Rabg Conditions per AM Standard Cooling l lndooc 80•F(27'C)DB/67•F(1P C)WB Indoor Munsell No. 1.0Y 9.210.2 Cooling I Outdoor:95•F(35•C)DB!75•F(24•C)we Capacity Range Outdoor Munsell No.3Y 7.8/1.1 Cooling 1 m 8.000- 18,000 R41CA; 31bs., 12oz. Operating • .• 1/ Cooling -200 F to 1150 F(-290 C to 460 C)DB** Liquid(High Pressure) 4(6.35) In.(mm) -Applies only to systems Miuning Advanced windBaffle Kt Gas(Low Pressure) 1/2(12.7) Egipnerd operation range without any additional wcesso fes:23•F to 1115•F(b•C to 46'C)DR Equipment operation rage with Standard Wind Baffle.P F to 115•F(A 8•C to 4P C)DB. MBximim Total R(m) 165(50) For operation below-20'F(-29°C)DB.please contact your Mitsubishi Electric represent". Refrigerant Pipe Length AHRI Efficiency Ratings Maximum Vertical R(m) 100(30) EER 8 Separation SEER 15.3 208/230V. 1-Phase. 60 Hz Specifications are subject to change wifhart notice. 02015 Mitsubishi Electric US,Inc COOK Planning Commission - October 6,Received Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Compute-A-Fan v9.6 - Fan Selections - QMX-HP 08-16-2016 Model# Volume SP Power Motor Fan OVEL TSPD Static Wt Relative Budget Operate Payback (CFM) (inwc) (HP) (HP) RPM (fpm) (fpm) Effic (lbs) Cost Price Cost/Yr (Years) 1)135QMX 5000 2 3.92 5.0 3026 2528 10701 43% 463 1.44 $4,750 $682 Never 2)150QMX 5000 2 2.66 3.0 2237 2048 8784 63% 521 1.00 $3,300 $463 - 3)1650MX 5000 2 2.52 3.0 1834 1692 7922 67% 579 1.07 $3,550 $439 10.42 4)180QMX 5000 2 2.46 3.0 1558 1422 7341 69% 634 1.21 $4,000 $428 20.00 5)202QMX 5000 2 2.54 *3.0 1278 1123 6775 67% 739 1.35 $4,500 $442 57.14 6)225QMX 5000 2 2.74 *3.0 1113 910 6556 61% 889 1.49 $4,950 $477 Never 7)135QMX-HP 5000 2 4.66 5.0 3546 2528 12532 34% 461 1.53 $5,100 $846 Never 8)150QMX-HP 5000 2 3.09 5.0 2506 2048 9841 54% 545 1.14 $3,750 $538 Never 9)165QMX-HP 5000 2 2.79 *3.0 2016 1692 8708 60% 604 1.21 $4,000 $486 Never 10)180QMX-HP 5000 2 2.64 *3.0 1683 1422 7930 64% 654 1.31 $4,350 $460 350.00 11)202QMX-HP 5000 2 2.53 *3.0 1352 1123 7167 67% 761 1.49 $4,950 $440 71.74 12)225QMX-HP 5000 2 2.67 *3.0 1146 910 6750 63% 935 1.67 $5,500 $465 Never 13)245QMX-HP 5000 2 2.83 *3.0 1023 767 6561 60% 1053 1.80 $6,000 $493 Never ALT(ft)= 30 TEMPERATURE(' F)= 70 Nam IMPLR(in) OBI OB2 OB3 OB4 OB5 OB6 OB7 OB8 LwA dBA Drive Lass (Medium) 1) 13.5 96/102 98/97 91 /87 88/88 84/83 85/85 83/83 76/76 92/92 81/80 6% 2) 15.0 77/84 80/81 82/84 80/85 76/82 76/78 74/74 71 /71 84/87 72/75 7% 3) 16.5 79/83 80/80 80/82 79/82 77/79 75/75 72/72 67/68 82/84 71/73 7% 4) 18.0 80/84 81 /80 81 /82 79/81 76/77 73/73 70/69 63/66 82/63 70/71 7% 5) 20.25 81 /84 83/81 82/81 78/80 75/75 72/71 66/67 58/62 81/81 69/70 7% 6) 22.5 83/84 85/82 82/82 78/79 75/75 71 /70 64/65 56/60 81181 69/69 7% 7) 13.5 97/101102/101 95/91 93/92 88/87 88/88 86/86 80/81 96/95 84/84 6% 8) 15.0 82/92 82/85 84/88 83/86 81 /83 79/80 78/77 73/71 87/89 75/77 7% 9) 16.5 80/88 81 /84 82/84 81 /84 78/80 76/76 74/72 69/66 84/85 73/74 7% 10) 18.0 79/86 80/83 81 /82 79/82 76/78 73/72 70/68 64/63 82/83 70/72 7% 11) 20.25 79/86 81 /84 80/83 78/82 74/75 70/69 66/64 60/60 80/82 68/70 7% 12) 22.5 80/87 81 /84 79/84 76/80 72/72 67/67 63/63 58/59 78/81 66/69 7% 13) 24.5 81 /87 81 /84 78/85 76/78 71 /71 66/66 61 /62 57/59 77/60 66/69 7% Notes: *Larger motor may be needed for startup.Save the fan to see motor requirements. dBA AND SONES AT 5 ft FROM FAN Relative Cost,Weight and Budget Price(US$)includes Fan,ODP motor and drives,estimated speed controls if present and does not include accessories.(3/4 hp Operating cost(US$)based on 12 hours/day, 250 days/year and$ .07 per kw/h. Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) APPENDIX D Cadna Analysis Data and Results Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model-Sound Levels _ _ " ID Type Oktave Spectrum(dB) Source Weight 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin Existing Svc Bays L1 Lw(c) 103.0 94.5 92.0 90.9 91.7 88.5 83.9 79.1 95.7 104.5 Measurement Mitsubishi PURY-P288 L4 Lw(c) A 75 75 78.2 Mfr Mitsubishi PURY-P144 L5 Lw c A 72 72 75.2 Mfr Mitsubishi PUY-A18 L6 Lw(c) A 59 59 62.2 Mfr Car Starting L7 Lw(c) 104.3 98.3 91 91.4 79.4 73.5 62.6 57.6 90.8 105.6 Measurement Car Idling LS Lw(c) 84.7 77.8 71.5 66.3 64.8 70 64.6 62.5 74.4 86 Measurement Car Drive B L9 Lw c 94.5 80.4 73.3 74.3 68.1 64.6 60.4 56.4 75.7 94.7 Measurement Exhaust Louver L10 Lw 60 57 70 78 75 71 68 79.4 81 AIM Page 1 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model•Point Sources Name ID Result.PWL Lw I Li Height Coordinates Operating Time Day Type Value X Y Z Day (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m) (min) Service Area S-1 95.7 Lw L1 1.52 178.85 139.83 5.48 Service Area S_2 95.7 Lw L1 1.52 110.86 129.67 5.48 HP1 S_3 75 Lw L4 8.38 255.42 149.44 12.34 HP2 S_4 72 Lw L5 8.38 255.52 148.12 12.34 HP3 S_5 72 Lw L5 8.38 255.51 146.54 12.34 AC 1 S_6 59 Lw L6 8.38 1 218.74 153.32 12.34 AC 2 S_7 59 Lw L6 8.38 218.74 151.99 1 12.34 AC 3 S_8 59 Lw L6 8.38 202.95 153.41 12.34 AC 4 S_9 59 Lw L6 8.38 112.13 133.67 12.34 Exhaust Louver S_10 79.4 Lw L10 6.1 110.49 130.62 10.06 Car Startingl S_11 90.8 Lw L7 8.38 221.99 147.76 12.34 6 Car Idlingl S_12 74.4 Lw L8 8.38 222.86 147.93 12.34 96 Car Startingl S_13 90.8 Lw L7 8.38 170.83 146.71 12.34 6 Car Idlingl S 14 74.4 Lw L8 8.38 170 146.91 12.34 96 Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model •Line Sources Name ID Result.PWL Lw/Li Moving Pt Source Coordinates Day Type Value Number Speed X Y Z Ground (d6A) (km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m) 245.42 145.07 12.34 3.96 Car Drive By LS_1 63.9 PWL-Pt L9 4 8 176.66 141.89 12.34 3.96 161.07 134.46 10.35 3.96 116.43 131.98 10.35 3.96 Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOC IA -U56qitlN1Torsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model -Barriers(1 of 2) Name ID Coordinates Z-ext Cantilever x Y Z Ground (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) 110.61 131.79 9.29 3.96 Service Branchl BA 1 110.3 140.57 9.29 3.96 160.65 142.4 9.29 3.96 174.64 142.93 9.29 3.96 110.71 127.95 9.29 3.96 Service Branchl BA 2 110.83 125.77 9.29 3.96 179.85 128.64 9.29 3.96 179.72 133.19 9.29 3.96 Service Roof BA 3 110.34 140.68 9.29 3.96 68.93 - 110.71 125.67 9.29 3.96 Svc Drive Overhang BA4 178.93 132.59 11.1213.96 3.96 15.24 _ 202.8 132.8 11.12 Door Headed BA5 110.73 126.89 9.29 3.96 1.68 _ 110.67 131.84 9.29 3.96 Door Header2 BA 6 179.6 133.14 9.29 3.96 1.68 179.26 144.1 9.29 3.96 160.33 143.29 12.65 1 3.96 160.22 151.15 12.65 3.96 201.66 153.05 12.65 3.96 North Pk Barrier BA 7201.5 155.14 12.65 3.96 1.68 247.93 157.4 12.65 3.96 247.99 152.88 12.65 3.96 253.66 152.97 12.65 3.96 254.04 143.64 12.65 3.96 Mech Roof 1 BAB 253.81 151.06 12.8 3.96 6.58 258.14 151.24 1 12.6 1 3.96 110.43 138 13.72 3.96 Svc Top Barrier BA-9 110.3 140.57 13.72 3.96 160.71 142.48 13.72 3.96 Mach Roof 2 BA 10 216.94 155.61 12.8 3.96 4.49 220.04 155.71 12.6 1 3.96 Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOC1^1015$�JplO�.Iorsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model•Barriers(2 of 2) Name ID Coordinates Z-ext Cantilever X Y Z Ground (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) 253.73 152.9 13.57 3.96 Canopy 1 BA 11 9.31 248.08 152.82 13.57 3.96 219.98 155.89 13.57 3. Canopy 2 BA 12 96 14.2 247.92 157.5 13.57 3.96 217.21 155.63 13.57 3.96 Canopy 3 BA13_ 12.41 204.32 155.06 13.57 3.96 Canopy 4 BA 14 204.64 152.96 13.57 3.96 10.53 178.95 151.89 13.57 3.96 Canopy 5 BA 15 174.65 151.65 13.57 3.96 14.5 160.3 151.14 13.57 3.96 160.41 142.78 11.58 3.96 Canopy 6 BA 16 10.2 117.72 140.67 11.58 3.96 179.71 144.98 13.57 3.96 Canopy 7 BA 17 3.75 174.85 144.67 13.57 3.96 Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOC IA TFBS�INITorsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model -Buildings Name ID Coordinates X Y Z Ground (m) (m) (m) (m) 160.4 150.8 11.28 3.96 160.35 142.43 11.28 3.96 174.64 142.9 11.28 3.96 174.67 144.69 11.28 3.96 179.37 144.88 11.28 3.96 179.35 145.53 11.28 1 3.96 191.7 146.24 11.28 3.96 195.69 144.89 11.28 3.96 200.54 141.3 11.28 3.96 202.29 137.21 11.28 3.96 206.04 137.41 11.28 3.96 Showroom BL 1 208.11 133.37 11.28 3.96 217.3 133.63 11.28 3.96 226.7 134.3 11.28 3.96 237.61 135.22 11.28 3.96 250.58 137.14 11.28 3.96 253.95 137.67 11.28 3.96 253.35 155.86 11.28 3.96 247.7 155.64 11.28 3.96 247.74 157.4 11.28 3.96 201.73 154.86 11.28 3.96 201.8 153.19 11.28 3.96 179.39 151.93 11.28 3.96 179.36 151.83 11.28 3.96 247.95 155.41 14.33 3.96 Stairs(Showroom) BL_2 248.08 153 14.33 3.96 253.6 153.05 14.33 3.96 253.5 155.62 14.33 3.96 270.83 157.6 11.27 3.96 272.68 129.02 11.27 3.5'6-- 303.91 129.81 1 11.27 3.96 303.64 136.56 11.27 3.96 Neighboring BL_3 330.37 138.02 11.27 3.96 330.63 132.59 11.27 3.96 364.5 133.78 11.27 3.96 370.46 135.37 11.27 3.96 374.69 145.43 11.27 3.96 374.03 162.1 11.27 3.96 Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Acoustical and Environmental Consulting Cadna Noise Model -Noise Levels at Receivers, Doors Open Name ID Level Lr Heightl Coordinates Day X Y Z (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m) North1 R_1 41.2 1.52 150.79 153.73 16.91 North2 R_2 40.6 1.52 170.15 154.36 16.07 North3 R_3 35.2 1.52 221.41 156.59 12.34 North4 R_4 36.9 1.52 261.99 158.08 9.49 South R_5 47.2 1.52 203.8 79.58 4.87 EastR_6 40.2 1.52 271.81 127.49 5.48 West PIRP7: 1 647-1-177-52-1 99.7 1 128.7 1 5.48 Cadna Noise Model-Noise Levels at Receivers,Doors Closed Name ID Level Lr Height Coordinates Day X Y Z (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m) North1 R_1 32.3 1.52 150.79 153.73 16.91 North2 R_2 31.5 1.52 170.15 154.36 16.07 North3 R_3 26.9 1.52 221.41 156.59 12.34 North4 R_4 36.3 1.52 261.99 158.08 9.49 South R_5 37.6 1.52 203.8 79.58 4.87 EastR_6 39.5 1.52 271.81 127.49 5.48 West R 7 54.9 1.52 99.7 1 128.7 1 5.48 Page 7 of 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) APPENDIX E Worst-Case Instantaneous Noise Level Calculations Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Acoustical and Environmental Consulting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Worst-Case Instantaneous Noise Impacts at Surrounding Properties North PL(Limit:75 dBA) South PL(Limit:75 dBA) East PL(Limit:85 dBA) West PL(Limit:85 dBA) Noise Source Noise Level at 10 feet Distance Noise Level Distance Noise Level Distance Noise Level Distance Noise Level ft dBA ft dBA ftdBA ft dBA Normal detail ba 69 52 54.7 192 43.3 404 36.9 146 45.7 Deliverytruck car transport trailer 80.6 97 60.9 148 57.2 500 46.6 34 70.0 Car alarm* 93.6 85 70.0 181 68.4 158 69.6 381 62.0 Car door slam* 68.5 85 44.9 181 43.3 158 44.5 381 36.9 Auto wheels turnip one ox sealed concrete* 73.2 51 54.0 190 47.6 325 43.0 246 45.4 Impact tool use 81.4 52 67.1 192 55.7 404 49.3 146 58.1 Enclosed compressor room with mason walls 74 52 59.7 192 48.3 404 41.9 146 50.7 Tire changer 74.8 52 60.5 192 49.1 404 42.7 146 51.5 Above round service lift 70.5 52 56.2 192 44.8 404 38.4 146 47.2 Car starting* 69.7 15 i 61.2 i 105 1 49.3 1 10 i 69.7 i 10 1 69.7 Car idling* 54.7 15 1 46.2 1 105 1 34.3 1 10 1 54.7 1 10 1 54.7 Carpass-by,5 m W 54.7 15 1 46.2 1 105 1 34.3 1 10 54.7 10 54.7 *Adjusted at north property line to account for reduction from canopy over rooftop parking. Conservative estimation of reduction in sound is 5 dB. Appendix E-Instantaneous Levels Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) VIA E-MAIL(Jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov) and post. October 5, 2016 James Campbell City of Newport Beach Community Development Dept. Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Porsche AutoNation Proposal, Planning Commission Agenda 10/6/16 Dear Mr. Campbell: As a resident of Newport Beach, I am appalled at the proposal for a 38,000+sq. ft. Auto Sales & Service facility on Coast Highway. Among my concerns are that: 1. This is a Marine Community with a beautiful harbor that is a destination for all Southern California residents. Any revitalization of Mariner's Mile should be in keeping with the character of our city. A commercial facility of this size and nature belongs in a different location! New development in this prime area needs to reflect our community and be for the benefit and enjoyment of all its residents and visitors. 2. The present Porsche dealership on Coast Highway has two entrances/exits, one on Coast Highway and another on Bayside Drive - used for service and deliveries. There is often a very large Truck Lorry filled with cars parked in the middle of Bayside Drive, awaiting access to the facility. This situation impedes traffic on Bayside Drive and often makes it difficult for nearby residents to safely exit their community. THE PROPOSED FACILITY WILL ONLY BE ACCESSED FROM COAST HIGHWAY. How will these Lorries that need to deliver automobiles affect Coast Highway? 3. There would be significant noise and light pollution. This proposal is not appropriate for Mariner's Mile. Respectfully, Margo O'Connor 90 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Biddle, Jennifer From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:52 PM To: Campbell,James Cc: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik;Zak, Peter; Biddle,Jennifer Subject: Please Observe and Listen to a REAL Porsche Decibel Level Test for a Porsche (Video Attached) Dear Newport Beach Planning Commissioners, In light of the proposed Autonation Porsche Dealership and the Fundamental Noise Impact Report that was given to you by the applicant, I ask that you please review the following footage that shows the start up of a Porsche is 88.9 decibels and that can exceed 125.2 decibels. This is not in line with what was provided to the Planning Commission by the applicant. Now times that sound to the amount of Porsches in 550 feet area that would be backed up to a residential neighborhood. Not only will this project impact lighting, noise and traffic, it will by all health definitions affect hearing loss to the surrounding residents: Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB).Like a temperature scale,the decibel scale goes below zero. The average person can hear sounds down to about 0 dB,the level of rustling leaves. Some people with very good hearing can hear sounds down to-15 dB. If a sound reaches 85 dB or stronger,it can cause permanent damage to your hearing. The amount of time you listen to a sound affects how much damage it will cause. The quieter the sound, the longer you can listen to it safely. If the sound is very quiet,it will not cause damage even if you listen to it for a very long time; however, exposure to some common sounds can cause permanent damage. With extended exposure, noises that reach a decibel level of 85 can cause permanent damage to the hair cells in the inner ear,leading to hearing loss. Please review the video and observe the decibel levels and listen to the sound of just one Porsche. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oKCKF-cNvlbl Lastly, the Workshop that was held at the Balboa Bay Club, the residents asked many questions, in fact seven pages of questions that were charted by Autonation, the Architect and Steve Rosansky. I think that you should know that NOT one of these questions, was ever addressed or answered by the applicants. Thank you for your time and and continued support to our community and the residents of Newport Beach. t Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received Peggy V. Palmer AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Kings Road z Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Subject: FW: Proposed Porsche Dealership Attachments: Kings Road Objection LetterRl.doc From: Mark McGuire [mailto:mrmcguirelawCabcox.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 3:18 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Campbell, James; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; mrmcguirelaw@cox.net Subject: RE: Proposed Porsche Dealership Hi Brenda and Jim. Please see attached letter. I did not hear back on the best way to deliver the letter and it is already coming later than is ideal (I apologize for that, I did not see the latest staff report until Friday. Also we were unable to talk before Tuesday). I faxed a copy per the Planning Secretary's suggestion and I will also copy the Planning Commissioners' City email addresses on this transmittal. Best regards, Mark Mark R. McGuire Attorney at Law 2311 Calle Las Palmasv San Clemente, CA 92672 mrmcguirelawna,cox.net t Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Mark R. McGuire ATTORNEY AT LAW 2311 Calle Las Palmas San Clemente,CA 92672 (949)584-1126 • (949)492-9290(fax) Email:m cguirelaw@cox.net October 5, 2016 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach(PA 2015-095) Honorable Chairman Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: I represent several homeowners living directly above the proposed location for the AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach dealership (the "Project"). My clients are all longtime residents of Kings Road,and they all have serious concerns and objections to the Project as proposed. On their behalf, I respectfully submit that the facts do not support the findings needed to approve the Project in its current form. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires the City to undertake additional environmental analysis before acting on the Project. Before enumerating detailed concerns and objections, please note that my clients do not oppose all future development on the commercial lots below them. However, the current Project proposal is simply too big, and AutoNation proposes a combination of uses that is too intense for this narrow, constrained parcel abutting a cherished residential neighborhood. The residents on Kings Road understand why Porsche would like a showroom along Mariners' Mile, given that other high-end automobile brands have located along this stretch of Newport Beach. Use of the parcels for a"showroom only" facility that respects the standard 26-foot height limit may be viable; but to try to also shoe-horn repair operations and substantial automobile inventory storage on the site evokes the proverbial attempt to stuff ten pounds of potatoes in a five-pound sack. It doesn't work, and the neighbors would suffer all the negative consequences if the Planning Commission approved the Project as proposed. Please be responsive to the community's concerns and reject the Project as presently configured. My clients have the following specific concerns about and objections to the Project: 1 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) 1. Heiuht Concerns and Obiections. The Project purportedly stays below the maximum height for flat-roofed projects in the Shoreline Height Limit Zone, but this has not been fully demonstrated. Our understanding is the City's code requires the establishment of a base grade plane that slopes from front-to-back as well as side-to-side. The building needs to fit below a parallel maximum height at all points along the established base grade plane. The applicant provided numerous spot calculations in the Project plans, but the applicant did not include the base grade plane in building cross-section exhibits, which would help ensure/demonstrate that the building nowhere protrudes above the maximum height limit, which slopes in parallel to the established base plane. For example, the westernmost automobile elevator is a massive structure that rises 47 feet above the finish floor elevation of the building(47 feet is more typical of a 4-story building, not a 26-foot commercial zone). Height calculations for the two northernmost corners of this automobile elevator are provided, but no calculations are provided for the southernmost corners of the automobile elevator, which presumably have lower permissible height restrictions (because the base plane is sloping down from back-to-front on the site as well as from west-to-east). The applicant should provide cross section exhibits illustrating the base plane as it runs across the site and from front to back, and then should show: (A) Where the building exceeds the standard 26-foot height limit; and (B) Whether the building stays 100% below the 35-foot height the applicant seeks as an exception to the standard. Even assuming that the proposed building does not protrude more than 35-feet above the established base grade plane, my clients nevertheless object to the applicant's request to exceed the 26-foot high standard height limit. We respectfully submit that the findings that must be made to allow an increase in height above 26-feet cannot be made or supported in this instance. The first necessary finding to depart from the normal 26-foot height limit is that the Project provides additional amenities that are not normally required. The draft findings attempt to support this finding by declaring that "the project provides a larger setback than is required thereby providing more publically [sic] visible open space." Well, "open space" is one way to describe the applicant's parking and sales lot—or any typical parking lot for that matter. However, it is not factually accurate to claim that the Project's combination customer parking/auto sales lot is an "additional amenity" not normally required. In fact, parking spaces adjacent to a street are required to be set back (the Project meets the bare minimum), and typically parking along Mariners' Mile is required to be screened by a landscaped hedge (in this case the Project does not because it is trying to highlight rather than hide the cars on the lot). The draft findings seem to denigrate the design of the relatively recent Mariners' Pointe project next to the site by contrasting its "smaller setbacks"to the Project's proposed"open space" along the street; yet the Mariners' Pointe project arguably comes closer to promoting the design goals for Mariners' Mile than the Project, because it creates a pedestrian promenade of storefronts, thus "activating"the street level. Many planners would argue that having buildings up front and parking behind is a preferable approach (though admittedly this does not make sense for an auto dealership). 2 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) It is understandable why the applicant wants to carve deep into the bluff at the rear of the site to provide an auto sales lot along the street frontage, but the applicant does not provide extraordinary amenities by doing so. In fact, carving into the bluff so extensively runs counter to General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.19.13, which requires projects to "locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality . . . of the bluff faces." Staff argues that the policy does not apply to this stretch of bluff because the City did not include this area in a 2010 bluff overlay zone. However,the General Plan continues to contain this policy, and the General Plan cannot be "deemed amended" implicitly through later adoption of a bluff overlay zone. The tail does not wag the dog. The second necessary finding to allow departures from the 26-foot height limit is that "the architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow,recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes." The design of the building has a modern corporate vernacular Porsche wants to promote (although perhaps had inspiration been sought from buildings like Gehry's Bilbao museum, the Sydney Opera House or Newport's City Hall, the design could have paid greater respect to the nautical heritage of Mariners' Mile while still remaining modem and sleek). In any event, it defies reality to say that the design includes "recessed planes" or"varied roof planes." It is a very long building, with repetitive grill-like elements along the service center half and walls of glass along most of the remainder. The roof is flat, flat, flat (not varied), and it serves as a car storage/employee parking lot. The second finding cannot be met. Most significantly for my clients, the third necessary finding cannot be met either, because the requested increase in height results in an undesirable relationship between the building and existing adjacent development. The draft findings for denial are better supported by the facts on this point than the draft findings for approval. However, even the draft findings for approval acknowledge that "[t]he increased height of the project reduces the separation of rooftop parking for the project and residents rear yards. Project—related noise, reflected light and glare, automobile headlights,parking lot aesthetics, and general commercial activity may be nuisances that would otherwise be at a greater distance to residents if the building height were not increased from twenty-six (26)feet to thirty-five (35) feet. " Take, for example, the home and backyard at 421 Kings Road. The cross-section provided by the applicant does not accurately convey the true relationship of the Proposed Project to this residential property. Not shown in the cross-section is a patio/garden area at elevation approximately 51' AMSL (other properties also have lower level uses not called out in the cross-sections). The proposed rooftop parking would be as close as 10-20 feet behind and 10 feet below this patio/garden area. One of the automobile elevators very close to 421 Kings Road would protrude almost 16 feet above the parking deck, to elevation 56.25' AMSL—which is more than 5 feet above the patio/garden area of this home. There is no question that if the applicant were granted the requested exception it would, as the draft findings for denial state: "subject residents to increased noise nuisance attributable to cars on the roof or other commercial activities." 3 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) The applicant contends that a partial roof cover would avoid the nuisances created by the requested exception to the height limit. However, a partial canopy will not eliminate all nuisance impacts. According to the Project's own noise study, ambient noise already exceeds the residential standard along Kings Road, and the Project would increase the daytime noise levels at these homes—and "daytime" in this context means as late as 9:00 at night! In addition, episodic noise would disturb the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood even if such short duration incidents don't cause the Project to violate longer duration noise level thresholds. Please remember these are Porsches (not Chevy Volts) we're talking about. The final required finding to allow an increase above the standard height is that"[tjhe structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase." The Project comes very near the maximum FAR of 0.5 for a consolidated lot project(if the lot area to be dedicated for highway purposes is subtracted, the FAR maximum is exceeded). But while a building with an FAR of 0.5 could be constructed on the combined lots without the height increase, such a building would not also be able to accommodate everything else proposed by the applicant, namely an auto sales lot, numerous service bays, and an auto storage parking deck on the roof. In other words, the height exception is not being sought to add architectural interest or greater floor-plate heights; rather, the increased height is needed to cram all the activities AutoNation would like to fit onto a tight site. Keep in mind also that the applicant is not merely asking for an exception to the 26-foot limit. The applicant proposes carving into the bluff, building a retaining wall vastly taller than the City's standard, and then utilizing to its advantage the City's method to measure height in order to go as high as 47 feet above the building's finished floor elevation. At its highest points, the building is almost double the typical maximum height for buildings within the Shoreline Height Limit Zone. Even on the eastern portion of the Property, which is fairly flat, the applicant's proposal takes advantage of the "base height grade plane"to gain anywhere from one and a half to five feet in extra height from what the existing actual grade would permit. For the foregoing reasons, the residents on Kings Road respectfully request that the Planning Commission reject the request to exceed the 26-foot height standard. The 26-foot standard would still allow the applicant to construct a very substantial building on the Project(up to two stories), but it would help to avoid the undesirable aesthetic and nuisance effects that would result from the more massive building being proposed. 2. Noise Concerns and Obiections. The noise concerns expressed herein are relevant both to both planning/design considerations and to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). The MND incorrectly concludes that no significant noise impacts would result from the Project. The Project would cause significant noise impacts that have not been adequately mitigated, and would violate CEQA if approved as proposed. The Project proposes numerous activities on this narrow sliver below my clients' homes. The applicant wants to conduct auto servicing and repair, auto inventory storage, and also wants a large sales showroom, offices and an auto sales lot. However, according to the Project's own noise study, these activities would cause exterior noise levels at residential properties next to the Project to exceed the City's applicable thresholds. 4 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Specifically, the noise study, on Table 9-3 on page 61, estimates that the Project's operational noise combined with noise from existing sources would result in exterior noise levels over 60 dBA Leq. (i.e., in excess of the City's typical standard of 55 dBA Leq and the estimated ambient level of 58 dBA Leq). Were the Project to proceed and generate the noise levels estimated in the study, it would violate the City's Community Noise Control Ordinance, which states that it is unlawful for any person to create any noise "which causes the noise level when measured from any other property to exceed either of the following: (1) the applicable standard for the zone for any fifteen minute period; or (2) a maximum instantaneous sound level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time." Section 10.26.025 of the Community Noise Control Ordinance. It appears that at least Part 1 of Section 10.26.025 would be violated. The presumed ambient noise level exterior to the homes along Kings Road is 57.8 dBA Leq (i.e.,higher than the otherwise applicable standard of 55 dBA Leq), so the Project cannot cause noise levels at the receiver sites to exceed 57.8 dBA Leq—yet the table clearly indicates that it would. In addition to showing that the Project would violate the Community Noise Control Ordinance, the noise study also acknowledges that the Project's estimated contribution to cumulative noise levels would exceed 3.0 dBA Leq at a sensitive receiver location above the Project. The noise study appears to have ignored the applicable General Plan significance threshold, which says that a 3.0 dBA increase is significant (Noise Element Policy N 1.3), and instead incorrectly stated that only a 5.0 dBA increase would be significant. Thus, while the noise study and MND acknowledge the Project will result in noise levels that violate the Community Noise Control Ordinance and increase noise levels at a sensitive receiver location beyond the General Plan's significance threshold, the MND nevertheless concludes Project noise impacts are not significant. This is incorrect. The neighbors also question both where ambient noise level measurements were taken from for use in the study and where the study designated sensitive receiver sites for estimating noise impacts. As can be seen on Exhibit 5-A, location L 1 is on the far side of the street on Kings Road, and location L2 is on a residential lot above West Coast Highway but considerably east of the proposed Project site (the location is behind the Mariners' Pointe project). Logic and the requirements of the City's Community Noise Control Ordinance would dictate taking one or more measurements from directly above the Project site on exterior portions of the residential lots used for outdoor enjoyment. Sensitive receiver locations would also logically and legally be located in the same locations. One example is the yard area previously discussed at 421 Kings Road, which is only about 10 feet above and 10-25 feet away from portions of the building proposed. The projected noise level contour map including in the noise study appears to show noise between 65-70 dBA Leq in this location— well above significance thresholds. It is impossible to know the consequences of not having any ambient measurements from such locations. Perhaps the ambient noise levels used based on readings from other locations are too high, in which case the "ambient" standard applicable would have been reduced. Or perhaps the ambient noise level nearer the Project site is higher, in which case the Project's 5 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) General Plan significance threshold for contributing to a cumulative increase would have been lower. Another concern about the noise study undertaken is that it utilized a very complicated modeling program dependent on assumptions about how operations within the Project site will be carried out. A variety of"best practices" appear to have been factored into the modeled operations. My clients question whether those assumptions constitute an appropriately conservative"worst-case" scenario given reports that operations at the existing Porsche/Audi/Bentley dealership fall far short of best practices. The remedies under the City's Noise Control Ordinance would theoretically be available should residents find that the Project, once built, exceeds community noise standards. However, this is neither a pleasant nor particularly effective process for any of the parties concerned. Waivers of the standards are sometimes granted to avoid a financial hardship to projects already up and running that can't meet the standards, and repeated calls for enforcement can leave everyone unsatisfied. The General Plan seeks to avoid such clashes in advance by requiring "that new commercial development abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible." General Plan Noise Element Policy N 4.3. The Project has not been designed to minimize noise conflicts; it tries to undertake too much too close to a sensitive residential area immediately above it. Finally, the applicant proposes to extend the canopy on the roof parking lot to cover all parked cars (but not the drive aisle). The assertion is that this would further attenuate noise impacts, but there has not been any attempt to actually measure what the canopy, as extended, would achieve in terms of noise reduction. So while the neighbors above don't want to be dismissive of attempts to improve an intolerable situation, the fundamental problem with the using the roof for parking cars accessed by large automobile elevators is that these activities would occur in in very close proximity to their yards, patios and homes. The City required Mariners' Pointe's parking structure to be completely enclosed on the sides nearest Kings Road, and no other project in the vicinity has parking on the roof. Parking should be prohibited on the roof. 3. Geological Concerns and Obiections. Protecting the structural integrity of the bluff both during and after construction of any project on the lots below is a critical concern for all homeowners above on Kings Road. The Project needs a very large retaining wall (or walls) in order push the building into the bluff face (thereby freeing up the front portion of the site for an auto sales lot). The bluff is considered potentially prone to landslides. However, the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Project appears to have only drilled borings on the flat portion of the site. Without conducting some investigation of the conditions within the bluff, it is not possible to know the precise underlying geology (Are there any slip planes? Is the direction of the bedding favorable or unfavorable?). Having more information up front would be vastly preferable to simply stating that "standards will be met." 6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) In addition, the preliminary geological report included with the MND says the wall may need to use tie-back anchors and that it may be desirable to use soil nails. However, either could require construction within the properties of residents along Kings Road (the staff report for the October 6`h hearing says the wall has been designed to not require any work off-site, which conflicts with statements made in the geotechnical report). Permission may not be forthcoming from one or more residents (nobody has been asked yet). It would be beneficial to confirm now that this very large retaining wall can be feasibly constructed without encroaching into neighboring properties; but it is not clear how this could be confirmed without first gaining a clear understanding the geology of the bluff. 4. Historical/Cultural Resource Concerns. The MND concludes that there are no cultural resources of concern on the Project site. However, no investigation whatsoever was made concerning the several buildings that would be demolished to implement the Project. Instead the MND simply concludes that none of the buildings are listed on a State or National Historic Registry, and none were included on a list of historic resources made by a City Ad Hoc Advisory Committee in 1991-25 years ago. The very first policy in the City's Historic Resources Element of the General Plan reads: Maintain and periodically update the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach and require photo documentation of inventoried historic structures prior to demolition. The last update was apparently undertaken 25 years ago, but CEQA requires that agencies consider the potential cultural significance of buildings like those on site, by investigating who designed and built them, who used them, and for what purposes. Ironically, the Phase I Environmental Investigation Report reveals more about the history of these buildings than the cultural resources portion of the MND, because it at least gives the names of the original owners of the buildings to be demolished. That information combined with a quick google search yielded limited but interesting information. For example, it turns out that the building at 320 West Coast Highway was owned, designed and used as offices by an important California mid-century architect, Philmer J. Ellerbroek (1905-1969). Ellerbroek designed a number of exceptional homes on Lido Isle, Balboa Island, Laguna Beach and Bel Air, including for a home for film star Ray Miland and a home long known as the Art Linkletter house in Bel Air. Many of his homes were photographed by the great architectural photographer Julius Shulman, and those photos are now archived at the Getty Museum. Ellerbroek also apparently designed a number of local schools, and with his one-time partner William H. Blurock, collaborated with other notable architects in the Master Plans for Orange Coast College, Golden West College and UCI. Ellerbroek also designed the Rempel House on Balboa Island, which was built in 1948 and was included on the City's list of historical resources by the 1991 ad hoc committee. Lastly, Philmer Ellerbroek served on the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission from 1940-50 (that ought to count for something, right?). 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Neither I nor my clients are architects, so we can't comment in much detail on the design aspects of the original building at 320 West Coast Highway except that it clearly is mid- century modern. At a minimum, the building at 320 West Coast Highway appears to warrant further investigation and likely warrants a requirement to undertake proper photo- documentation prior to any demolition. It also appears that the building at 400 West Coast Highway building was also built in a mid- century style by and for a local architect (Frederick Hodgdon). Finally, the hotel/apartments now called the Shops at the Cove and the building housing used sports cars both display mid- century modern characteristics that at least warrant investigation before tearing them down. 5. Comments on the Most Recent Staff Report. I will try to comment as briefly as possible on several points in the recent staff report that were not covered already under specific headings (addressed in the order they appear in the staff report). First, the report discusses proposed changes to the Project since the last meeting. There is a certain irony in the fact that one change, after hearing that the Project is too big, was to add additional square footage to the building (via a new auto-lift lobby). Presumably, the lobby is intended to hide a portion of the large retaining wall behind it, but this still does not change the fact that the height of the wall exceeds City standards (discussed later herein). It is true that auto dealerships can be permitted on the site pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit, but only if the findings to support a CUP can be made. However, the intensity of use and the configuration of the Project proposed by the applicant precludes making the necessary findings for a CUP. The Project proposes service bay activities very close and immediately below homes until 7a.m. to 7 p.m. five days a week, and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Other activities will occur until 9 p.m. during the week. Please put yourself in the shoes of these homeowners and ask: (1) Are the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity? and (2) Will operation of the use at the location proposed be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use? A Porsche sales lot and showroom with offices and perhaps limited indoor automobile storage, in a building that seeks no exception to the standard height limit, could probably work on the site. Beyond that and the site is just too shallow and constrained to work. The extension of the rooftop canopy was discussed above, but the concept of a full roof canopy via variance was not. It is difficult to comment on such a proposal because the applicant is not proposing it and no visual analysis of it has been attempted. It would not be legally proper to adopt a variance at the upcoming meeting. More review and input of the community would be needed to consider it. Certainly my clients would not view a full roof canopy as addressing all of their concerns regarding the Project. Unless the retaining wall also serves as one of the exterior building walls, it is not an "integral part of the building" (which would exempt it from certain height restrictions). It is not proper to declare the retaining wall "integral" to the building simply because it is important to the site plan, and thereby exempt it from the applicable height restriction. 8 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Lastly, the staff report places the blame for AutoNation's unpermitted use of the Newport Dunes property to park 170-plus Audis entirely on the property owner. A sophisticated company like AutoNation knows permits are required for such activities. The failure to obtain a permit directly or ensure that the owner had secured a permit undermines my clients' confidence that permit conditions would be adhered to if the Project moved forward. Thank you for considering the concerns and objections presented herein, and thank you for serving the community of Newport Beach. Please do the right thing and reject the Project proposal. If AutoNation Porsche wants a sales presence on Mariners' Mile, it can come up with a smaller, less intense proposal that is truly compatible with the surrounding community, both in scale and design. Very truly yours, [ORIGINAL SIGNED] Mark R. McGuire 9 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 12:44 AM To: Campbell,James Cc: Campbell, James; Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Biddle,Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel;TOMLU BAKER Subject: Proposed AutoNation Porsche Dealership Denial Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Members of the Planning Commission, 1. We presently have enough large developed sites (Bay Resort, Mariner's Pointe, BMW, etc. ) on Mariners' Mile (MM ). We really do not need any more Auto Dealership/Service Facilities on MM. Let's keep it Mariners' Mile and not Motor Mile. 2. There is strong Newport Heights/Cliffhaven/Bayshores neighborhood opposition to the Porsche Autonation due to size ( approximately 550 feet of highway frontage), lack of nautical theme, design dictated by international company/not compatible with MM,noise, air pollution, light pollution, traffic , height, reflective surfaces, lack of a complete Environmental Impact Report, significant elimination of the bluff with the associated view of the bluff from PCH and the Harbor, long hours of operations, use of PCH for customer vehicle test rides, etc. 3. This proposed behemoth Porsche Autonation will result in a REGIONAL PORSCHE MAINTENANCE/SALES DEALERSHIP located between the two long term existing residential neighborhoods of Bayshores and Newport Heights/Cliflhaven. The proposed Porsche Autonation development is totally incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The proposed Porsche Autonation development with the disregard of a nautical theme is totally incongruent with the Revitalization of Mariners'Mile. This Porsche Autonation project should be completely denied. Sincere Thanks, Tom Baker Newport Heighs t Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting ' AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) i LI Tustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA JN 923-007 PLANNING 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 1`714.505.6361 October 6, 2016 James Campbell, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 RE: RESPONSE TOM.MCGUIRE COMMENT LETTER(OCTOBER 5,2016) Dear Mr. Campbell: We have reviewed the comment letter provided by Mr. Mark R. McGuire dated October 5, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "comment letter") prepared on behalf of several homeowners in anticipation of the Newport Beach Planning Commission hearing on October 6, 2016. This comment letter addresses several issue areas, _ including comments that relate to environmental topics that were analyzed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)dated July 8,2016. The discussion below provides a response to those comments that directly relate to the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the MND,specifically those associated with noise,geology and soils,and historic/cultural resources. NOISE To determine if the Project-only operational noise levels would satisfy the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code noise level standards,the Project-only noise levels were analyzed independent of the existing ambient noise levels based on standard practice for noise analysis. To combine the Project-only noise levels with the existing ambient noise levels as the commenter suggests would not demonstrate if the Project itself would exceed the noise level standards. Further, the Municipal Code "allowable exterior noise level" standard does not indicate the combination with the ambient noise level,but ratherthat if the ambient already exceeds the standard,the ambient shall be the new standard. Therefore, combining the Project and ambient noise levels would inaccurately represent the Project's actual individual operational noise levels for comparison with the Municipal Code. This is further demonstrated in Section 10.26.010 Definitions of the Municipal Code as it states the, "'ambient noise level' means the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources,excludingthe alleged offensive noise,atthe location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made." Here the Municipal Code states that the"alleged offensive noise"or in this case, potential Project operational noise levels which being compared to the Municipal Code standard, shall be considered as excluded from the ambient,and therefore,not evaluated as a combined,with-Project noise level. To determine if the Project-related operational noise level increase on the ambient environment is potentially significant, a separate analysis is conducted In the Noise Study since the Municipal Code does not represent the significance thresholds for Project-related noise level Increases. Under the MND significance noise thresholds C and D, consideration is given to the magnitude of the Project- related noise level increase on the existing ambient noise levels. The Noise Study uses guidance developed by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise(FICON)to determine the potential impacts due to the operation of the www.tbpianning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS Planning Commission - October 6, 201'6 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) .A RESPONSE TOM.MCGUIRE COMMENT LETTER(OCTOBER 5, 2016) October 6,2016 RESPONSE TO M. MCGUIRE COMMENT LETTER(OCTOBER 5,2016) Page 2 of 5 PLANNING Project on the existing ambient noise environment. This is based on a court case, Gray v.the County of Madera, No. F053661, which upheld that "there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant" Therefore, the FICON guidance thresholds, which are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise, were determined to be appropriate to evaluate the Project-related noise level increases based on the existing ambient noise environment. As also discussed in response to Paragraph 6,the lower of all the daytime ambient noise levels measured at five locations, 57.8 dBA Leq at location L1, is used to evaluate the Project-related operational noise level increases since a lower the ambient noise level has a greater potential of resulting In a higher Project-related noise level increase. Further,the Project operational noise analysis assumes that all of the noise sources are operating simultaneously, and multiple locations of the same noise source are accounted for throughout all levels of the Project building. This represents a conservative approach since the reference noise levels used in the Noise Study are based on multiple measurements of the same noise source, and the worst-case reference noise level of each category is then used in the actual noise model. By using the lowest measured daytime ambient noise level at location L1,and conservatively calculating the Project operational noise levels,the increase at receiver location R3 of 3.1 dBA Leq thereby represents a barely perceptible noise level increase under worst-case conditions. Further, no additional barrier attenuation is provided by any backyard fencing or walls at receiver R3 to represent the worst-case conditions. Based on the existing ambient noise level measurements collected in the Project study area, the ambient noise levels at location L1 of 57.8 dBA Leq represent a conservative,existing noise environment for comparison with the Project-related operational noise level increases. This Is evident in the higher noise levels collected at location L2, which approached 59.3 dBA Leq,since this location more closely represents the location of backyards of the homes adjacent to the Project site which experience traffic noise from West Coast Highway. By using the lower ambient noise level measured away from West Coast Highway at location L1,the Project-related noise level increases are shown to be greater than if the ambient noise level of 59.3 dBA Leq had been used. Using location L2 to represent receiver location R3 would result in a Project-related noise level increase of 2.4 dBA Leq,which would satisfy the FICON threshold in the Noise Study and represent a less than barely perceptible increase. Overall,the ambient noise levels at location L1 represent lower,more conservative ambient levels when compared with the worst-case Project operational noise levels. Further,when combining two noise levels,for example of 60 dBA each,the increase is 3 dBA,which would result in a noise level of 63 dBA. This increase would be considered barely perceptible by most people,and it is not until a 5 dBA Increase,especially when the ambient noise level is lower than 60 dBA,that a readily perceptible increase would occur. By using the lower ambient noise level in our analysis at L1,the potential impact due to the Project is amplified. The preparer of the Noise Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) does not typically have access to private properties and based on their professional experience, backyard noise level measurements can be influenced by dogs barking, landscapers, pool pumps, water features, sprinklers, and other potential noise sources specific to each backyard. Instead,the report preparer identified representative locations for outdoor living spaces, and in the case of this noise study, chose locations L1 and L2 to represent the more conservative Kings Road residential noise levels at L1 and the West Coast Highway noise levels at L2. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) RESPONSE TOM.MCCUIRE COMMENT LETTER(OCTOBER 5, 2096) October 6,2016 RESPONSE TOM. MCGUIRE COMMENT LETTER (OCTOBER 5,2016) Page 3 of 5 PLANNING The CadnaA 3D noise prediction model represents the worst-case Project operational noise levels In that it assumes all operational activities are operating at the same time, and accounts for multiple locations of the same noise sources operating simultaneously as well. These activities Include service bay activities, car wash/detailing, car horns, car transport deliveries, parking lot car movements, car alarms, roll-up doors, and roof-top mechanical ventilation equipment. In reality, these activities will vary throughout the day and conservatively overstate the Project-related noise level Impacts. Further, the CadnaA noise prediction model represents a spatially accurate noise 31) noise model with all noise sources on their Indicated floor and elevation,to accurately reflect the noise levels at each receiver location. In an effort to avoid future potential noise control issues, the noise study was prepared using the worst-case operational noise levels from the Project and demonstrates that the operational noise levels would satisfy the Municipal Code daytime noise level standards underworst-case conditions. The Project includes design features such as orienting the mechanical equipment room louvers away from the residential homes north of the Project site. In addition,the Noise Study recommended that the use of car horns be restricted on-site to reduce the nuisance noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations. While some noise may be heard from the Project,the Project-related operational noise levels are considered a less than significant impact based on CEQA Guidelines. At the time the noise analysis was prepared, a closed canopy was not proposed for the roof of the Project. The Noise Study shows that the Project-related operational noise levels would satisfy the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code noise level standards without any attenuation provided by a potential canopy. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The MND identifies that the 40-foot slope at the rearof the Project site is subject to instability,Including landslides (Pages 5-43 and 5-45 of the MND). As discussed in the attached letter prepared by the Applicant's civil engineer (Attachment A), the Project design would include a retaining wall that would be designed to resist the forces of the slope above the retaining wall. Several types of retaining walls would be considered to create an integrally stabilized ground reinforcement system. The design of the retaining would ensure that the retained soils would be stable and would meet the requirements of the 2016 California Building Code Including applicable safety factors. The proposed Project does not include any offsite impacts to the residential properties upslope of the Project site, the ground reinforcement system would be designed to be contained wholly within the Project site. As the proposed design features would be designed to fully address the potential for slope instability and would be reviewed by City of Newport Beach staff for regulatory compliance,the comments provided in the comment letter do not identify any credible evidence that the impacts to geology and soils were not adequately analyzed. HISTORICAUCULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts associated with historical resources are evaluated in Section 5.4.5, Cultural Resources, of the MND. As discussed in the MND,no buildings within the Project site,including the structure located at 320 W.Coast Highway, are listed as historic or potentially historic by the State of California or by the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Newport Beach. The commenter states that the structure at 320 W. Coast Highway was designed by and used as an office by Philmer J. Ellerbraek, a prominent Southern California architect known for www.rbplanning,coux PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS Planning Commission - October 6, 20T6 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) RESPONSE TOM.MCGUIRE COMMENT LETTER(OCTOBER 5, 2016) October 6, 2016 RESPONSE TOM. MCGUIRE COMMENT LETTER (OCTOBER 5, 2016) Page 4 of 5 P L A N N I N G designing commercial and residential buildings from the 1940s through the 1960s, and commenter implies that this association may render the building a historic resource. The MND disclosed that the buildings on the Project site, including the 320 W. Coast Highway structure, are of historic age and"exhibit some architectural elements associated with mid-century architectural design style." The previous building's use as an office by a prominent architect does not per se qualify the property as eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code identifies the criteria for determining whether a resource qualifies as eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources,which includes properties that are "associated with the lives of persons important in our past" The State of California does not provide guidelines under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 to determine whether a property associated with "persons important in our past" qualifies for the California Register of Historical Resources. However,the U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service IN PS),which manages the National Register of Historic Places, published a National Register Bulletin that provides guidelines for evaluating and nominating properties associated with significant persons. The NPS directs that three steps be taken to determine whether the property meets the eligibility criterion, Including 1) determining the Importance of the individuals associated with the property; 2)determining the length and nature of a significant individual's relationship to the property under study and to other historic resources and decide why the property is an important representation of that person's accomplishments;and 3)assessthe historic integrity of the resource by determining if the property retains enough authentic historic character to convey Its significant associations and qualities. In the case of the 320 W.Coast Highway property,the building has a square,brick front facade with and is currently occupied by Find,a consignment store. Although the building was designed by and once used by architect Philmer J. Ellerbroek,the physical structure does not exhibit evidence associated with the length and nature of Philmer J. Ellerbroek's work or his use of the building as an office. Moreover,the structure does not retain design elements that are an important representation of Philmer J. Ellerbroek's architectural accomplishments. Mid-century modern design elements that are present In Mr.Ellerbroek's body of architectural work are not exemplified at 320 W. Coast Highway. Accordingly, it is our professional opinion that the conclusion presented in the MND finding that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact historical resources is accurate. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING, INC. i Shawn Nevill Senior Project Manager www.thplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting ` AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) EXHIBIT A Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) �tHAHBACH-LEWIN, INCA STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS "Timely Solutions Based On Timeless Principles" I October 3, 2016 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA Re: Porsche Newport Beach 550 West Coast Highway Newport Beach,CA Hohbach-Lewin Project No. 10861 It is our understanding that concerns have been raised by some residents in regards to the slope stability behind the proposed retaining walls. It should be noted that the proposed retaining wall will be designed to meet the current building code requirements and will be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach to assure that these necessary building code provisions are met. As a part of meeting the current code requirements,the walls will be designed to resist the forces of the slope above the retaining wall along with seismic forces in the event of an earthquake. These forces have been developed as a part of the project geotechnical report based on site specific investigations. Several types of retaining structures are being evaluated to create an integrally stabilized ground reinforcement system capable of resisting the driving forces in the WUQu G &E. slope. The design of the retaining wall will ensure that once complete, the retained sail will be J a W H089ST5 sE stable and will meet the requirements of the 2016 California Building Code including applicable ANTHON E SE. safety factors. VMW HOU"M BE ASSOCIATE PNNGPALS, Please contact this office if any further questions arise regarding the stability of the adjacent ORTOE SNASHwTMI GE. slopes behind the proposed retaining wall. BENIORABSGGATE6; E 0 ORY MD GU GREG ROURfGUE6 G.EE Hohbach-Lewin Inc. �QQ qC B&LDAIEY SE STUMV LOM EE 1 EDOIE NIA 9.E, rn s 4177 M ASSOCIAns, JEREMWI LEGRUE &E. d S V GHRIB MORTONB..E E. * MICFUEL RESCH 8Anthony W. Lee, S.E.#4177 ,q Ar V��\ NAE MMES SE principal FDA 8MVIN DEBM BE Q�CFE55lDTy4� CE DEPT MANAGER �,� '( FIS(,*hFFyC SIUHENN � /n+ A 14ADMANAGER: 4 80383 M GILRABMiO Jaret Fischer, P.E. EXP,3131/17 Stantec Consulting Services In # MARIBANGLABGO Senior Engineer Lr cNtv �P OF CA�1F 545 Sansome Street,Suite 850, San Francisco,CA 94111 (415)318-8520 PALO ALTO SAN PR AN CI 9CO LII Ga NR PASADENA Petition to Stop AutoNation Porsche Project Planning Commission - OctoW fro 1 iJ Item No. 3n Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) v Petition to Stop AutoNation Porsche Project Newport Beach Planning Commission&City Council: We believe that AutoNationPorsche is a BAD FIT for Mariners' Mile, and ask that the Planning Commission deny the application for this project,and the City Council uphold that decision. Please VOTE NO and deny the project currently proposed for 320-600 W. Pacific Coast Highway,for these reasons: ..The project would replace small neighborhood-friendly businesses with a shiny corporate monolith almost as long as two football fields,wedged against the coastal bluff between two residential neighborhoods. ....Its architecture and size are unlike any other nearby buildings,flying in the face of ongoing planning for a nautically themed Mariners' Mile. ......The auto-dealership uses (both sales and service)do not primarily serve local residents or harbor visitors and are inappropriate for the residential surroundings,with potential impacts on health,safety,traffic,noise,bluff stability,light pollution,visual resources and property values, More appropriate areas exist within the city(for example,near the airport). .....The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is not sufficient to address the potential negative impacts attendant to this project. Please require an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)to fully _ evaluate those. In conclusion,AutoNation Porsche does not fit into the developing vision for Mariners'Mile. The redevelopment of these parcels should be deferred until that vision is complete. Furthermore,the _ potential negative impacts on long-established Newport neighborhoods need more analysis. Approving AutoNation Porsche at this time would be out of sequence in Newport's own planning strategy,and utterly inconsistent with the direction suggested by existing City documents. Please Vote NO on the AutoNation Porsche application. Thank you. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfy4VlgbKttiHNNhDVPBptBp2BBcVSl CgCc4zIL4B22yVxDPANiewform?c-o&w-1 _ - Page 1 of 3 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA201 -095) AutoNation Porsche - N wpoi t Beach a NEW. r ljF �t EWPp .. Planning Commission public hearing u s October • • • pq� oRN`p Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Discussion a c9tFO PNEP August 18, 2016 public hearing continued Additional outreach Architectural design concerns Consider more complete roof cover Concerns — notice, size, height, noise, lighting, access, land use, design, consistency with Design Framework ■ Outreach Staff meet with Bayshores HOA AutoNation hosted meeting at Balboa Bay Club Notice New notice provided to larger area io/o6/2oi6 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Vicinity F , n Map Romp If Ch aven. A r - i -111 I � _ McDonalds 71 CGAST MWYW 1.4 -Baysh . I8E9 CRfSTVAEW UR � CRESTVIEW DR 0 It G B]1 N 40* O 'jRf� m 9p 00Q 205 io/o6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 1• Project Setting - J �- '...p... 1ji�N�I 11 1 i y...,i✓ i _..� � Kl!� si mc. t c 2014 Pictometr iolo6/2016 CommunityDevelopment D' •. • Division Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Project ` S a .C'4t/FORN�P Modified exterior materials Medium gray stucco and less black siding Stainless steel mesh screens Enlarged roof cover and reorientation of rooftop parking New autolift lobby 10/o6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 5 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Land Vehicle Sales and Service Allowed with CUP Compatibility of use Physical suitability of the site No detriment community Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework Guidelines Strategic Vision Improves auto-oriented strip Does not affect village area Design Framework 5-sided architecture, nautical building materials, color palette, landscaping iolo6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Discussion OLirs a .C'4t/FORNP ■ Rooftop parking Partial larger cover Full canopy requires Variance approval (Variance application noticed) ■ Building height measurement Base elevation established by zoning code Base elevation and heights verified Complies with 35-foot height limit Majority of building 30-32 feet above finished floor Tallest feature would be 46 feet above finished floor Finished floor would be 1. 5- 2 . 5 feet below sidewalk 10/o6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 7 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach -095) ttachment 1 i e i' SECTION THROUGH MARINER'S POINTE i i . anw - a ' SECTION THROUGH SHOWROOM i -------------- �z..N i 8�� s e i J 8 SECTION THROUGH SERVICE Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Discussion Ois a .C'4t/FORN�P ■ General Plan Policy LU 6 . 19 . 3.2 6. 19. 12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. ■ Retaining wall Proposed building screens entire wall Visible portions of the wall no taller than 8 feet 10/o6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 9 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Discussion OLirs a .C'4t/FORN�P Improving Coast Highway Dedication required by General Plan and Municipal Code Lengthens existing merge and improves operation of Dover Drive/Coast Highway intersection Will not increase traffic speeds May reduce traffic through Newport Heights Operations at existing dealership 10/o6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Comments ♦ CEQA u i e.. C P qC/FO PN„ 11 letters and emails received (afterstaff report) All oppose the project Final MND prepared Additional comments received Noise, historical, geotechnical Changes to the project including Variance Changes minor, no new impacts, no recirculation necessary io/o6/2os6 Community Development Department - Planning Division 11 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 095) Recommendation a .C'4t/FORN�P • Conduct a public hearing ■ If appropriate : Approve the project Approve the project with Variance Deny the project If final action is taken : to-day appeal/call for review of Tentative parcel map 14-day appeal/call for review of remainder of application . 10/o6/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -095) Change to Resolution r^ Thms ac+ien shall h`Eeme final and effective fe rteeR (14 days following th�atthis Reselutien was adopted unless ' me an appeal it filed with the City Cori in -�EcerdaFl -n with Pn�re�iic-ienc- of f� BWTitle 2e D! -� nninrv` -�nd The action to deny Newport Parcel Map No. NP201�-010 shall become final and effective ten (10) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 1A Subdivision . The action to deny Traffic Study No. TS2016-001, Site Development Review No. SD201�-002, Conditional Use Permit No. UP201�-02� shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning io/o6/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 13 a a ti 410 M For more information contact: IF James Campbell, Principal Planner 949-644-3zio JcamF)beII@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov AutoNation Site Devetopment Review Need for Project - Aerial View , � � .✓ � na_ non tleeor� d 4: /. .. �\ Coo 9 7� -�J Need for Project - Street View p Iy Google MEME 0 , moi.,i i Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche 0 Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Site Plan cos»ate RD. II sz wxcs ao, II s.+aNss ac II so:rciacz ao II .x+xwcs ao II .++awus RR. II .os aNss RD. I :v.wcs RD. I s»awcs ao. I j I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I _ _ _------ :__ j lL> ."'.' �/=a<• !"^�.a.=""`c4o <. `�W'\<%!%' ��D 1713'x'_ A -----'� i .--_ � IW *r, _ �'. TT N -jWEST /_ -- ------ -----_ -- COAST HIGHWAY -- --_—_—_ O 0/0000/00/0 Site Aerial View 1 ��t �� 1, �� �'•` � !" it - •r ` - r y 7�r 1 �eL rn ®_. Von Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Beach (P 095) Site • • Driveway • WWWN : name NOWNEWN, ------------ r t v f = v M i y —+ - - - - 1"" j - u 3T COAST HX3FWAY _ - m—. . % - — — — - j j s ° o o �o - o�fj� •- oo L�\�-6�IIl�e p9� 1• Dealership Services j/j /%%j/�. Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -4MOMMOMMutoNation Porsche of Newpoft Beach 1PITWATIF-095) First and Second Floor Piamn ---------------- --------------------- :77 ---- -- 00/1' SECOND FL PLAN F ------ V/0111 7z' ------------- ----------------- AMMMEftH Foam 0 mm7w mmmFI 19 1• Roof Plan WIN,FRj7t—1 r,'b'1� �• oil m. NOR r •,//, / �jir/y// / // //r %///,r//,r r�//�/r /r /Gr //ro///r/rr2/�r // ////r�r/, r�/�ra� Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting ,4*,rsche of New 12,YWATIF-095) Parking and Circulation Plan two PARKING SUMMARY 3RD FL�R R� 7, IMP DO< 171W� ............ ............... 21 1022M�4 �- Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (P -095) DoorsService SPIRAL� FV� HIGH PERFORMANCE RIGIO ROLLING DOOR Ultra peed,Security and Full Vision-All in One Door Ltr.,rc4.1n�h,SVtr,1NSVeim(Rl,Lv.iI-n..,Mn m,L,,.nimmedmc I—,-Wnh..nc unµ,pard anpu,Ou niWr.+.wn. W.W.a,I ulu.luµL npn , '"..i.W u•I.0 nn I- ,—W.n', nrlx>Vv,—A.It.SVlr,I FV mWnmv .—I,I.,Y 1w illIWI yxnl,a,."-S M¢dmd yp Inv,,,"uIny - nni. ILw in lar-W.N Indu.uo nW quia, lu 4dl"Ih.4,—,buµhv ivn I,.nw..N wirf •'•rchmnlq mwmmou. u nu Ihr.-InAd.as m umudmi,Anq,hgL-ueh W*.NI a•1n.h pn--m rnwbk lnuµe Manunµ.dµe.yxmim. "hilar Qukr. Wd,no nxul-�o-nxW maua.I)w, ,V—dSp-1 rnhndggM— F-.,,d— nF«mdem prdnnbnaM mmnmmulhgh,Af,the SI-A FV .,AnlnrVpiin gxrnim. u,I]ulx pwr 1.111g11.N.M eliusmy Io,hlµhapLna. S.le-fk nq-rna,..mm lull-vJrhu,Mmr ,lu..dml<IttYrk quare pre.nn rev,mµ nlµe in the h.—Wr Amide IWI'-d da, and,dhd vWy n rhe&—I rhreahnll. SmmM1(*—, a.'IW tight,A.nnl S'. r dim—m Inr en,hk, P-- J—p.huniry4 minae,ped Ain.—II u�A a,l cwnml aLll Jm.L�mvm ISn Fflinieu and l'yQn Seal Rilr�rhvuc v:n.4«.•W..I.nWwnh.Auuhk 910 o FBI M®ro HEIM17W1110", euLly mnnFrnx VnnJe a W H.cd yyw dmr p,llmhn.Nni.,nJ in.kmrn avdv. -v •r — c— Service Doors map IdNal a T WE 12 Car Carrier - Inventory Delive Hours of Operation SO ME VOW ------------- • tr 8 O tr o . ee . Test Drive Route $s, , 01,11 Osla Mesa OIr � . 10, _ A�LLNN a,s \ Newport,Beachf 41'0 W Coast H ghway 4 o 11 o oo i , / r.� r/ // / �iir ,/ :,:/.@ %: ////rr0/� %i.�/r,5'/,;;'/r•, ;�"/./�%':�GS:'195r..%:,:'/�; r:G.//, %��:./ ,r G r����%/ifG 15 Construction Timeline Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PTWAIr-095) Original / • VWA VIM, -,,... f 6' setback % j 12' setback 28 service bays % % j ff. _ ' T tauest,feature j �°® �� � It���®� c� c� c�°(d (�'E� E�°f�()°Ed Ed'E•d Ed°Ed Ed Edi at front l 0 4 ? ar carrier unloading b ceY Y / tw RE-- ______ _____ iw:w+mer _ °•` / _- ___ __-_- -_ _- ST COAST HIG - _-_L-- --- -- - % 3 driveways 7- % j_ PROPOSED SITE PLAN j j Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche 0 Newport Beach (PA201 -095) Mariner's Mile Design Framework MARINER'S MILE NF.xvpnwIB&%CII,CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC VISION & • DESIGN FRANIEWORK • 74,F00.e, e Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNattion Porsche 0 Newport Beach (PA201 -095) DesignMariner's Mike / mxm+e o.ccnew.Marnwenmavr�axa�maoev�^rramn.orx.la>Qeuewrwm a R+. CRT OF NEW FORT REACH Ilevring Umc. flernRr lo.2gq /(/��•I'`f+1 YLANNfNG DEYANtMENT Agrnda Item No: /a ,4,y1�3 ].WIN'EwPDRT HUIILF.VARD Surt Prnon: roma CamPLrll -"':� N[WWRT BEACH.CA T.M1SP 19:191 Ma.lLV � NJ91 Nbi21p,fAX194911JJ.125o AOMal Point: N/A SUPPLF.hIENI'AL HEPO H'1'TU JInI'UH AND CITI'CUUNCII, PROJE/;I': %Ulu egic VWon 5 Uteri,F mnm,%orkRlXnDOI!IA 13�\ AmerMmrmNo.ypdQ SUNU,URY: Clarification of lmM.aapc xtadmd for pJm vee:antl Painmd vign re+Wctinn Diwuuion Staff recommend,that he City Council curoi@r Iw.rhang,to the implememing ordinanen, The Dm change is to the proposed landscape mrip abusing the Mreet.l'he pro,hmd mmcdard will require u minimum 4 fool wide pLmcr with a hedge and palm inw,The Planning Cnmmiuinn mended the langmgc of the original draft nrdinatu making it more clearly undcraandoblc.In re-dmHing the uainn.staff inadvertently changed the meaning of the ruclion incommono with rhe reeommcndaiun of the Marini s Mile Duni.,,Ownns A,saelnion.The pmam d,ah languip require%that uees he planted every IR feet unleec physically inRusible.and in that case. they could be duetted in gnuPn,of thou.The Pmvtus draft allowed more Rehibllity in the spare;laauon�,,of 1[51-e yam i(m0l.ibilh,w'Pa,included,by1(Jeaiylnlsss i��in...lt[[[�the Nwine,,Mile II��h��s u �L Owners As urnlu V�n`%hV( �uu no II Evfuullan"c: IIII otdu-o RI.Jrinrurm nJwnu I,d— fan Palm)..amm;mnmob—h enol Mipbr mal nt-o inob 1p1rn,,Full b Pn'mM rven'IN Iter nn rrmn unJ n^I'br rlimnal..h. m;,d^,rrm n/m,n Pontin lwsuuge approved by the Planning Cnmmiuinn: Pulm vin'bath he N'mhinprmdn rMmm IMrrin^run Ynlm)uirnu mimoui—f Yfmnrvuk LriyAr unrl,rAHmiunFr nt'r^, TO m;doa.—it nf,am 1-1,,Y be rulmlvml h,Airnlirhl; ,hr rwul r.rrc,firma..by IBJra.1Fr rf stat hath b Luvml rwry IN fon our rnrrn,mrd yips mf—ildrdoe mPhT,nv1,rbrrrunror,,M1rymayhr."du hu,"'nl viha minimumrf .11...rm Prr duan. Suggcsmd language '... PulrnnmuMll hr lYmFiger'nhuuMmm M1tln;ran Fun P^Ial rnM1unnnunumrfNl"^'rnnhk nrgF,ruxlwMnrr Tnr umbo u/Prhlm „Iudl lv ruLUlnrrd Fr Airnliug i num mrnrmum u rm dr mal mm f'^"n,uNr Ly INler'.Dor n,lnh urn alroll Fr InmmJ new INlerr nn r'rnv,-.M .!rrrrr�wfm;.-.: ant^ml'Lr r1rurr,xl..uh o P. nrirumrr,u a!'h,rr r,n,rr,ores.,. .......... Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche 0 Newport Beach (PA201 -095) DesignMariner's Mike / +oxm+e v.ccnas.wm�vswms:w�awa�aoevm F�ama„wxtrawuewswm ndwks thm111oh�gLvmingdowumem ik uumhulaP habil No.LTlrc vision far Mariner's Mile .1 he draft Design Framework describes these idem in detail and conmins policies to guide future in fprooven t -of the district. The. Design Framework is Vatended to bre a general policy document that will be ad-visory in nature, and projects, public and private, will be evaluated against it before appraval., The City's consultant and primary authorof the D_cosign Framework, Mr, Keenan Smith, VESOMM r;ill be available to elaborate upon the various plmt.ning and design concepts during the hearing if requested. 1^--� q r� fl v4 yr e o F� c9 or a n csa d tl�o — r Within,dte Mariner's Mile Specific PW arta thc.Cny hss implemented the Site Plan Revicw often which.1.1.rcew Pkming Commission inview of p je r whew there is cot ss is general a 35% j of the gross door arta or 3300 squam din in mea weinded. is Other This process is such in j nmurt m no guidelines ar ourl& findings wcrt included..exi u,proe plan cocas such m Chown village dye dasign and dhe existing guidelines,but nli review a accu to cnsurt they are followed.The study meaf the des Afrthe existing Mvrincdge,ec Speig ArtaPlan ata the prepared rn Cosst HighwayVtc of the arta eo(he back bay bridge excluding Mile which ill rhos prepared the ami,IsnssmCk pater]ffw Si,stero,coc Pinto ,In fer5.Mmit kn Milewhichwillimpiensmchc DgUiXIMS W thek xt it lyeets pmam f the study In ardor w implement these ne ovens pmpcny with. .s m thee, kiercxmnxwn of the xmdy arta zonari has p,ale 0 a new wcday dooms withiav new folio oftheruling Cods:Chandu 30dsMmitxr'shfik urt..Theamettlmcnu will.crui tk following devcbpmem smtndl sig landscaping.lighting.suban e d uses fencing en wdits equipment sueeuing g to dason aM signs.No within the to tk pert Design uses,floor usor lionise a ng ordint building height are ProPoud within We pmporA Detign Framcxmk or implementing aNitunW mrctMmcnta gnndsmpfng-The new Widsnpe provisions will requim a minimum a-faot wide hedge aM palm mw along Const Highway.Tustin ab iliverside A.cnoce'I u.,continuous hedge nud palm mw will link she various pmpenies together in a eoksi x comma word add to the wnw of place.Additionally.interim Ping lot land aping stmidatdx will k included to on,tim I urs for every a xpacee This hedge mM palm row and interiar lncxlping will her mandatory requiremensx. Moira' I;k Swe9c Virion A R111 Fina —k Anerdux.L NO.SW OnMer 10.elAtO Pogo S Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting rsche of Newport Beach (1P -095) Vor Mariner 's Mite Design Frarnewor "The City should use a land planning consultant to assist in developing policies to enable new / development/redevelopment throughout the study area to meet the following goals: a) Encourage lot consolidation. b) Encourage parking consolidation. c) Coordinate site design relative to adjacent properties,without establishing a design"theme" d) Upgrade onsite landscaping and fences e) Unify streetscape(lights,trees,paving materials,and fences) f) Update sign standards to encourage signage practices and promote a higher quality image g) Develop public sign program to unify image and identify parking area's and points of interest h) Enhance pedestrian access to businesses i) Upgrade entry monuments j) Reduce the number of curb cuts along Pacific Coast Highway k) Consider impacts on and goals of Mariner's Mile as individual parcels develop 1) Include provision for public views of and access to the Bayfront, except where adequate public access already exists or where public access is inconsistent with public safety" 10/4/00 Pct 5 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting rsche of Newport Beach (1P -095) Vor Mariner 's Mite Design Frarnewor DESIGN FRAMEWORK MARINER ' S MILT. 5.00 ARCHITECTURE Buildings are significant functional,visual and symbolic elements of the built environment. They serve to house human activities and present themselves as expressions of the ambitions,aspirations and public identity of their owners and users. Mariner's Mile, due in part to its history of uses and generally overriding commercial nature, encompasses a vast range of building types, whose functional requirements, sizes, scale and symbolic needs vary greatly. These building types range from large automobile dealerships and marine supply outlets to high-rise residences, mixed-use and strip retail centers, small shops, restaurants, drive- throughs and individual offices. Architecturally,this variety makes for a highly eclectic mix of buildings on Mariner's Mile. In turn,this variety and mix, overlaid by the predominant auto-reliant bias of the district, favors buildings of individual expression and strongly resists efforts towards any unified architectural theme. Thus the imposition of a rigid architectural theme is considered inappropriate for the study area. The nature and character of Mariner's Mile call rather for establishing key design principles and promoting thoughtful and tasteful design while allowing creative flexibility. VE Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting rsche of Newport Beach (1P -095) Vor Mariner 's Mite Design Frarnewor dwg own MARINER ' S Mlt. : DESIGN FRAMEWORK 5.23 Nautical Materials and Elements While avoiding an overt theme the appropriate use of nautical building materials, elements and details is consistent with the history and character of Mariner's Mile could enhance the overall character of Mariner's Mile. Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PTWAIr-095) General 1 Lvnd Uas Element / OP A zirespecifc anxlysis eh,Jl Le cundnaeJ fi+r�Jrvelapmem m ebr<rminr.rhe appropriate e¢c,eoafiguaiiaq and devipp of the eieW erid access eomdor deal names these uhjrwrivea,which shill Is sul�lem nr xppnrval N tfie 1)evelupmenr Plan rc+irnPewees.!lap T.1) LU 619.10 Wated'mm Promenade .ca�af r camel an rhe My 5aunyrc"unpleomca ami pares dmr ensure access for coa1il ridma.Pursue devalopmrnr of a pedmrdaa pmmewde along me aaylnmr.(1,",�'l Community/Neighborhood Village adc ic LU 619.11 R �d GrilinmA lid ugwd'n p mzvC*candan nccriri,(lay 1 P.11. / dnj STRATEGY j j LU 6.19.13 Lot Consolidation on Inland Side of Coast Highway � Y BB Permit development intensities in areas designated as LG 0.3 to be increased j P � "CG(O.3)" to a floor area rano of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate large commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. (� 2.1, 5.1 j LU 619.16 Parting and Sappovvig FecUitim for Wared'mm Uvea i j j I�.xplam aJJinand options for rhe development anJ tamnun a(parbry;anJ wfirr j suppoviag GcUium larchuuas,yxht calm,and oUacr wetcrlxmtusca.Oay ISIPJ j j j Corona del Mar j The(xnc mr dcl Stu comdw cncods abvp,Caaet lli dnia,bct'a'cen Am mdo Avcnuc and llaacl Uriee. It is Jemlopvl Wilk urnmcrcid uses mid epccirltq shape that le ilp srrce adjoining meidmonl nnghbwhoode,anti im Imcd nun dot erm highwvr rmvcI.cad coeaW rieimn.Among Newport Beach General Plan Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (P -095) General 1 WIN Land Uaa Element / Lcxfd.M1Pay •• rFN pna lYl l.-ofY NEBILt NEIGHBtlIHCWB 91iG1F UNRRESDENINL Sngb UNRaltlenllal ITa RSD obprcy$plbsmaranga pttlNaAed dips NalepplkaDN DBladad—" fmiy.NentlNdwen'ng unes on a eingb bgd brag tica not rcbm oa numeor.,n, ve houanp Sng1aUNRabenX3 1 nm RS-A odf ory npllas to a ano,at anachad sn,h NMap AC%,k, ANad S-A frt readnMlal dwelling unfs on a and,atal M and 110 tloesnol Mkffi mrdonnums of.,a.ha n, nVO UNIT The AT att apgke b a radon aro lemly N.1,V.ebb RESMTM-Rt randa�ml dared,units adr ae dupe.ad NULnpIERmN1E11nNL NUNpN RaNeNYI—RN And,RM dagoatlon N blinded b plpvbpmiate at, UnhWamormNNa mu4fankratlenpYdesebpmxdmnb"allaimd arwuMuflbsabpmeMa adeYMddrkFgunb. NZNPed on be Lind use FNrea NuNpb ResNentbl nim R"desbnaNm k bat at proNtle Plant M UneperfaeoruNmblNa Wa. Dmf NUn / CEIGGHW� TatCCNNc�Anan—pa.na na.fl}nEppprmaio W.IanfdRr6n,J R FF., ohand.. .. IJVIU iQLI ILII QVL1V IIy. GENERAL COMMERCIAL— The CG designation is intended to provide for a wide CG variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve citywide or regional needs. elwwrat,oni ommrcial en reaatlall,adonal .and j en rage phy"and vbuel ewes b pre bay on weledpnl mmtar®IrA iMraMalbutlilpaYaona neatllebq VISITOR SERMG i CVde Menke Mbprp ebr Flwraoatnand...n., CONNE0.CNLL�V not iy srve v¢oraeOa allyof NNevpat Beado rdr edon LalMllse Rn. ®Newport leach General Plan Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PTWAIr-095) General 1 Land Use Element DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Corridor LU 6.19.6 Corridor Identity and Quality Implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan District and Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. (Iraqi 20.1) Harbor- Fronting Properties LU 6.19.7 Architecture and Site Planning While a diversity of building styles is encouraged, the form, materials, and colors of buildings located along the harbor front should be designed to reflect the area's setting and nautical history. (Irap 8.1, 8.2) Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -qq AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach ., r-095) August 2016 Design a now 1 0 MM 00 G a Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach QTPOW-095) Rendering from Stre .. ............ ----------- FS/1 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach 1, 1 -095) Ctose Up Rendering I j Brushed, non-reflective vC^•M1 M1M1'lµ Perforated silver silver panels 4A • �•.,M•: K .:j, metal canopy .....::.... •yl uCl:":li:•:ti':•:Yti':' ,Yli:•: ':tiYlfl:,L , �il:t:ti:y:�:�{:Y,4:ii'.11,J JXIh L',•:i,i•:: _ � •'Y'.}.4µl:!J�.L .'.4L'l:i:lL.{l�,L!y'{LJl.'.•:ti i� l:J•�••,�M1i:lii}l!: ' Vl�po t Beach _ CY 4YhL} A•ti L•,.ti! tii,: '•:: :i4lfh+I,J, L••},M1•LK4•Lti4lY••1�,,1•., f,ll,:•Y�'i.• Q ^//"'}:'{•' 4,114�'�Y VM144 ,., ,,,,:+,• �•}:�:•:,, �� Ir YY. i�'L:`,L ALL V{LY!!� NL:L'i:V\•i:�y+,+•,• 'G j j Close Up Rendering 2 Top 20' brushed, non- reflective silver panels Sign to be turned off after hours , - 24" own - 70 center of sign Bottom 10' - k -- -- glass butt glazing jf Entry to service Decorative pavers EMIL ;,,%:•,i is%i% 31 Close Up Rendering 3 Stainless steel decorative metal screens Brushed, non-reflective silver panels - L- Insulated clerestory windows for natural light Corrugated Grey painted plaster, I limestone finish metal panel Service doors Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (PA2015-095) Updated • • ts 07 , Canopy on east 4 affRA'�73 sideofbuilding 00000 so !yA7**!* 'a 000600.1 vcn�.auwwu Yra�a�se.�rti,. VA*!'ii ii*ii*o*!!A'• Exteriorso 9090 a gI 000"" FRI IVegas go as Goes gas�I/A9/i!**•0!!!9971$3� of service ,.:!'i'P V°tf1�A•.:""YX�.I`�:•..T i+}i■s�4**•!99!!*a 9979s+* *eR9'�'l 9'f^l')9mh9'l71 i7*'H 4,{5 �•�� YN%K X40\IrtO RTy I1M4 0 Seven grounding Roof canopy eternents YiYYYIVl■ Ya,Y,N'i on service • L4W AEFLECTMTY VALUE SC1CDULE wn� w Acoustical undercanopy LfK#Y C6!♦YfMMIiLL ItR4 ■OM YT4.[ia I1LL9YY5f N,Y Yoe YIKx •Yurnn wT.a•ca 4Y•II Mariner 's Mile Design Framework Compliance AgNmEftH �o o�f� oo �\ -6� �e p9� 1• Mariner's Mile Design Framework Compliance /i���/%i//ji•o/%i/� jG% ��i., %i•o/riG//mi �//rG�/., ..�i%�/ od %i 'i�i��ii%i Resident Concerns 8e - 8w Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (P -095) StabilitySlope \III NONBACN-LEWINa INC. srreucruaAL g crvu eNalmcEres Cfty of Newpon Bench planning Commisipn I W Civic Center Dime NcwIeon Brach,CA Re: Panache Newport Beach esn Wesc.Bonast Blgnway NowPort Batch.CA % mundemII hbach-IavnrP�rojcct No.IUNfiI It is o anding Nat ca s har-e bwn raisedby some residems iu regards m the,I., / stabilitybehiodthepro wdmmiWd walb. It should be noted that the proposed mudding wall will be designed to men the current building code requirements and will be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach to assure that these noose*Wilding code provisions am mm. The design of the retaining wall As a pan of mewing[W cumont code rryuircments,Am walls will be designed in main due forces of the slope nWve the rcminmg well alung with acismic forces in the oven of w anhquake. will ensure that once eomplete, t h e The.fomes have been dcvclopM as apan of the p jeer gco ochnicol report based on site 'pccific mvawigatipna. nd mialscin typo of stainingeable resof asking driving aluated to freate an ences. in retained soil will be stable and will . a cone ly a design ground count call w system capable of resisting[di driving fomes it the .slope. 'fhef�OFue e,asomg is o will atatae West once onsupleie We retained soil will be stable and will meet the requimmmts of We 2U1h California Bwlding Code including applicable lown � sE iferyfacm, meet the requirements of the 2016 a.Please eenmct Was office ff any funha questions oast renaming the stability of We ndjacent zt uPesbehindWFtoisedremivic, � California Building Code including (€S usohhac�ewnn °wog applicable safety factors. Anthony W.Lee.S.E.#6M Principal pA t / �pfEE51n�. wva - ��Ol it3CFYE9 �� \\p\+},,t CB0387 Jars Flscher P.E. EIp,Minr Stamec Cgineerng S.111 In gym. � / "1 Engineer Senior Eng a rw� 50fi 6arcome Soso,ENe BSa, San Fnml-soG8.111 r.rbt][B85aa Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (P'MAIr-095) 1 Noise Auto Na Bon Noise Impact Analysis / TABLE 9-2: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS(DBA LEQ) Receiver Total Project-Only Noise Level Threshold Location' Noise Levels(dBA Leq)' Standard (dBA Leq)' Exceeded?' R1 52.2 58 No R2 57.5 58 No R3 58.0 58 No R4 51.8 58 No R5 49.4 58 No R6 55.6 58 No R7 50.4 58 No R8 45.6 58 No 'See Exhibit 9-A for the noise receiver locations. CadnaA noise model results as shown in Appendix 9.1. a Daytime exterior noise level standard as shown on Table 3-1. °Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level threshold? Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -MR AutoNation Porsche of IN '�Wffr-095) MND Noise Study AutoNation Noise Impact Analysfs TABLIF FS-1: NOISIF & VIBRATION IMPACT SIGNIFICANCIF SUMMARY Analysis Report Significance Section With out Mitigation With Mitigation Off-Site Traffic Noise Less than significant n1a Operational Noise 9 Less than significant n1a Construction Noise Less than significant n1a 10 Construction Vibration Less than significant n1a 'In/a" =No mitigation required sincethe impact will he Iessthan significant. AMMMEftH Supplemental Noise Study e , . 40 Noise Study Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Beach (P -095) • / Mechanicat Table 3. Operational Noise Levels of Typical Auto Service Equipment, at 10 feet from Source Location Noise Source Noise LevelMeasurement Notes 10 feet (dBA) 1 Normal detail bay 69.0 Cars starting/stopping, shop vacs, buffer/polisher, hand wash with spray wand 1 Deliv ort ttrurailer c r 80.6 Truck idling while unloading cars. tranMeasured for a previous Eilar Associates Reference Car alarm 93.6 project, Job#130041 1 N1. Car alarm of a 2010 Subaru Im reza. Reference Car door slam 68.5 Measured for a previous Eilar Associates project, Job#1300411 N 1. Automobile wheels 2 turning on epoxy 73.2 - sealed concrete 1 Impact tool use at 81.4 Measured during tire removal. service re air area Enclosed compressor Champion with 10 HP Baldor motor 3 room with masonry 74.0 measured outside closed"door which was walls obsethrough which sound ed to have leaks.aps the sides Hunter Engineering Company TC3700, 1 Tire changer 74.8 installing new tire (observed to be louder than removing tire Above-ground service Rotary Lift SPOA10N560. Loudest part of 2 lifts 70.5 lift is the "popping" noise of the safety height locks activating as lift is raised. 6 Vehicle Drive-By, 5 mph 10 feet from path of vehicle 54.6 Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Beach (P -095) • / Mechanicat NINE I a a 1-1-1 1 Table 5. Operational Noise Levels at Surrounding Receivers (15-Minute Average Noise Levels) jj Estimated Noise Level (dBA) j Receiver Description Noise Limit % jj (dBA) Doors j Open Doors Closed j R1 North j Property Line 1 55 41.2 32.3 j jjj R2 North Property Line 2 55 40.6 31 .5 j R3 North Property Line 3 55 35.2 26.9 % jj R4 North Property Line 4 55 36.9 36.3 j R5 South Property Line 55 47.2 37.6 j jjj j R6 East Property Line 65 40.2 39.5 j jR7 West Property Line 65 64.1 54.9 % j j Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting e of Newport Beach (P 095) Noise • Doors 0 - ON _j >= .0 it M r . .,T , _ >=50 50.0 ` R-4�a`e M >=55.0 0 R1 R2 ' ., - a\ _ Rh r C>=600 >=65.0 >=70.0 % """X1� 1 i3 ♦ e -, Y >=75.0 � �` M1,y�. po Lt jt '+[t� 'r..".' R-6'( 1 r . ail �_ �v— `.. �. ` J - .s�' L r - - _ YY Vr- 3,�TT Go J I AY / Operational - ,� Op rNoise Levels - Service Doom Open Leae ReceiverRome Level j Exhaust Louver Number (def) AC Locations R1 012 006R 5 0 service Door , 40 % Car e Location .J��— R3 352 Vehiclecle Path of Travel ({P� � 0 I� + n'f Rd 36.9 R6 472 ® Receiver Locations 'I' ( I y, -�. zJ y _ R6 d02 j. RN Receiver Number j j Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting port Beach (P -095) Noise • Doors Close � lopilio �>=450 j _ M>=500 ` M >=550 R 3 a1 R'4 y1 jR 1 h R 2 i` - ,en.`I. _ C>=60 0 j , a �' • ez �, lil M >=750 I 1A 11 ON j -7 , r P. � y / i 'nJ�rsi{ ,(y �9t.x.S. _ ___�- y r'- _ __• _ - j - -—/ r�N;I over V7�8T Cau+ , j - ~Operational Noise Levels- Service Doom Cloned Legend - Eshausilouver _ Receiver Noise Level / AC Locations 4^:— Number Service Door R-5 R1 J 1 , :. ./ .�_ .�.- RCar 6brt/ltlle Location ,�src_:' R33 j, .., Vehicle Path of Travel R4 36.3 ® Receiver Locations 'IUP y T �yy �1 R5 37.6 RN Receiver Number �' ,yC^. Li '_' R6 39.5 R] 545 j i e Existing Site Lighting AmwmEftH Mariner 's Pointe Architectural Lighting East x� an 11,L-113 I- 48 Mariner 's Pointe Architectural Lighting Mariner 's Pointe Parking Garage Ent fy qW Elm I a McDonald 's Night Lighting �d� .• tom. 0 "alm" 'I • . ja ' Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of IN TWAIr-095) Photometrics ........ .. . .. ..... .. M44 .................................... ......... .. .. WEST COAST HIGHWAY XPWS3 + + Lighting Components s. . 53 e ts , Signage ro eeeee IlluminMion IL ------------- 0 54 �v a � � � �o - o�fj� •- oo L�\�-6�IIl�e p9� 1• Building Height Comparison , ° o o Cross Section through Mariner's Pointe Building Height Cross Section through Showroom e 'SJ MR 57 Building Height Cross Section throng ervice Cross Section through Showroorrw o0 Cross Section through Service - Roof View Sim , 411 Kings Roa - Before - �' •a.1 - �.. e tai •es - �' - . . ` • • ` •• • 2 2 -• View Sim , 411 Kings Roa - After Enclosed mechanical r :-� 4I jI View Sim , 411 Kings Roa - Before ------------------- n Ln 63 View Sim , 411 Kings Roa - After ----------------------- Relocated Drive 94M W- 64 AMMMEftfl West Coast Highway Widening Qm 65 e ° e. Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting P -095) CoastWest Highway / 9*W j Orange County Transportation Authority 2015 Master Plan of Arterial Highways j https://issuu.com/octamarketing/docs/mpah / ON / / t '1 j j yy �nN RAV NC 7 � j 7 t: h 4F IL 4 LEGEND r ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS S a ••.PRINCIPAL ••� / ••••• MAJOR — ••••• PRIMARY y — ------SECONDARY a•S / - --.-COLLECTOR � t ROADS OUTSIDE OC ssiunoR �I�1 / SHOWN FOR CONTINUITY cus / PRI•DIDAI —FREEWAY EI.a ONweRwe••r M _ TRANSPORTATION A(ptmmW.o.aaameD.DODADT CORRIDOR NA1OR / A UM%M 000m•SDIDTORS / —SMART STREETS LANE Awmllwe.w.w. ACT SMART STREET 6 LANE PRWARY SMART STREET I LANE Ata DNS RPw.a Avamme]•N•14.000 b b 000 ADT • EXISTING INTERCHANGE SECONDARY tln•UM0q R0.0W / • PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AvamnwNCOLLEC ORMOOOADi / WLI WR / RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVE nm.wa�aaw1.10 T / A¢ommo0mes'SW 1010000 ACT / 'S r rtne r • ni / ME bomb rtb i•wpwe o y / • West Coast Highway Widening Coast Highway Existing Lane Con guration - - 0 . L r Y {Y• w - �E Pacific Coast Hwy i.,ii Coast Highway Road Improvemen s E Pacific Coast,Hwy IL _4j l , w _ ( ' R rte moi.,i i Planning Commission - October 6, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Presented at Meeting AutoNation Porsche of Newport Beach (P -095) Petition Petition to Stop AutoNation Porsche Project Newport Beach Planning Commission 8 City Council: We believe that AvIoNstionPOrsche Is a BAD FIT for Madners'Mlle,and ask that the Planning Commission deny the application for this project.and the City Councit uphold that decision. Please VOTE NO and deny the project currently proposed for 32D.6D0 W.Pacific Coast Ng hway for these reasons: .....The project would replace small neighborhood-friendly businesses with a shiny corporate monolith almost as long as two football fields,wedged against the coastal bluff between two residential neighborhoods. ... architecture and size are unlike any other nearby buildings,flying In the face of ongoing planning for a nautically-themed Madners'Mlle. ......The auto-dealership uses(both sales and service)do not primarily serve local residents or harbor visitors and are Inappropriate for the residential surroundings,with potential Impacts on health,safety, traffic,noise,bluff stability light pollution,visual resources and property values.More appropriate areas exist within the city(fpr example,near the airport). ......The Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)is not sufficient to address the potential negative Impacts attendant to this project. Please require an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)to fully evaluate those. In conclusion,AutoNation Porsche does not fit Into the developing vision for Mariners Mile, The redevelopment of these parcels should be deferred until that vision Is complete. Furthermore,the potential negative Impacts on long-established Newport neighborhoods need more analysis. Approving AutoNation Porsche at this time would be out of sequence M Newport's own planning strategy,and utterly inconsistent with the direction suggested by existing City documents. Please Vote NO on the AutoNation Porsche application. Thank you. Petition •i/'moi / i'i /e, r/// i�ir ////��io/r 4,iri / G6,0/ 'r ./i, .//j /.q/i/ / �.///- /i;'rr, /%%//%ji////p,%ice/iii,/.%/�/ii ��%�ii� I r A 4 r / / _/ /. /r/ rr // % % /i4 r / , %r /// /i // i �i i � /, r //i,' /I / ',i / / /, %/i� / / /i/ 7/ ;i% r;visr,.;i% i% / .�/�',;j'�/fir //. r � '�, / / �� 4, .;//i/r /�./,/i, �%/%.r / //:%, % .i/ 9 It . 10'/, //,/ �/� % tow % / %/ %/, /As,/jii r / /i' , / i//%ai% ��//iiiC/ .st ,. j ro //ii ,/i/ r/ / �j r / r. / / / rr /% / /. � .r �/ / / p / / / //r/ / �,%ii%//!� /� i�i i/i/ r „/i, y� /%i //.j / j%i %r// -i �r /i.//• % q� r .r / / /// % .ice/toA /w,III,//i i% /' / ,•/r L /,i�% / -�///i / �,r /r ///dui /'r,/ / / /i , ' q, / �j �uqi '� wL�r /. / 4. 4/ , it � y i %r AW - --/ / AW 41 r rrii /i /r/ riy�%/r %/r.�///rii ��4//%//�r • /6 r�'� // 4i ,. i/ ;', 4 ;,.4 • r� ' / s ' G .G '.ir ,• G/r44'. - .G / /SC•�%t,%iv///%. %/r !/L///%//,:%ri j�% % %% r,iG %%%�i /Aso%i% /%'%///,r�. %r� i.%::'ii/ %�%•�%//� i��- �� /// % . 9 /=r /iIs ii �/4r� .;� /'�� % % � / r , 'r - %i/i,/,i 1 GO Ago ��ii�/�r%///„�:�!/3�/r�i:"/%�%%i vii/-ui r!/iii%/%ii////1,�4f?:%.i�%i//,'///i//i.�i%i,..;4�//�i//���q�/,i'//i/.�j�i/� ij/��///i/��'%//%%�i•��.ri // //. r/ r/r r'/r//.vi /i/ / „✓ ///r /�/r of Concern over Existing Use Permit Violations Conclusion y . 73