Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Newport Coast Development Agreement (PA2011-030)a�WPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 13 October 25, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner APPROVED: TITLE: Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 14 (Newport Coast) (PA2011 -030) ABSTRACT: An annual review of Development Agreement No. 14 (the Annexation and Development Agreement Between the City, the Irvine Company, and Irvine Community Development Company Concerning the Newport Coast and Adjacent Properties), pursuant to Section 15.45.080 of the Municipal Code and Section 65865.1 of the California Government Code. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conductor public hearing; and 2) Find that the applicant has demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement; and 3) Receive and file an annual report of the Annexation and Development Agreement (Attachment A) FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Section 15.45.080 of the Municipal Code requires the City Council to periodically review development agreements to determine if the applicant has complied with the terms of the agreement. This review must be conducted at least once every twelve (12) months from the date on which the agreement is executed. The applicant is required to 1 wil Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 14 (Newport Coast) (PA2011 -030) October 25, 2011 Page 2 demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement; and should the City Council find that the applicant has not complied in good faith with the agreement; the City Council may terminate or modify the agreement. Background On May 23, 1988, a Development Agreement between the County of Orange (County) and the Irvine Company (Attachment A) was approved for development of the Newport (Irvine) Coast Planned Community. The Development Agreement became part of a lengthy planning process that involved review of numerous planning and environmental documents including the County of Orange /Newport Coast Local Coastal Program and Master Coastal Development Permit for that portion of the property within the Coastal Zone. Actual development of the area did not begin until after the County approved and the Coastal Commission certified the 2 "d Amendment to the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program in 1996. The Development Agreement required that the Irvine Company prepare an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). The first AMR for Newport Coast was prepared for the year 1997 and was submitted to the County in April of 1998. The last AMR for Newport Coast was submitted to the County in March 2005, for the year 2004. In March 2006, the County informed the Irvine Company that no further AMRs would be required, because all of the obligations required in the Development Agreement had been satisfied. On August 23, 2001 (effective date), the City of Newport Beach (City), the Irvine Company, and Irvine Community Development Company (Owners) entered into an Annexation and Development Agreement, DA No. 14 (ADA), to allow for the annexation and continued development of the Newport Coast Planned Community (Attachment B). The duration of the ADA (15 years) allows for the timely and orderly integration of the area into the City. At the time of the effective date of the agreement, the majority of the property to be annexed had previously received development approvals from the County and the California Coastal Commission, and the subdivision and development of the area had commenced under jurisdiction of the County. The agreement between the City and the Owners allowed the City to annex the greater part of the Newport Coast Planned Community area, while still providing for the continued development of the area consistent with the previously approved environmental documents, development plan, and obligations specified in the Development Agreement between the County and the Irvine Company. The City agreed to adopt and maintain, during the term of the agreement, General Plan and zoning designations for the area essentially identical to those adopted by the County and in effect as of the effective date of the agreement. The City also agreed that changes and amendments to the Development Plan could be made, if the changes would not materially: 1) reduce the amount of open space intended for dedication to the public; 2) alter the cost of providing municipal services to the area subsequent to annexation; 3) reduce the amount of property tax or other revenue available to the City after 3 Fil Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 14 (Newport Coast) (PA2011 -030) October 25, 2011 Page 3 annexation; or 4) increase the density or intensity of development allowed in the area as a whole, resulting in unacceptable intersection impacts outside of the area that couldn't be mitigated pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the General Provisions of the agreement, the City was required to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the County that allowed the County to retain all municipal land use authority (including issuance of building and grading permits) and all responsibility for processing development approvals until such time as development was complete within a Planning Area. The Cooperative Agreement (Attachment C), approved October 9, 2001, provided that, immediately upon annexation, the City would provide the entire area with police, fire, and refuse collection as well as other municipal services except those transferred to the County pursuant to the agreement. As Planning Areas became fully improved, the County would transfer all records for that area to the City, and the City would assume the processing of building permits for those areas. Since the County adopted and the California Coastal Commission certified a Local Coastal Program (LCP), a Master Coastal Development Permit (MCDP), and other documents governing development of the portion of the area within the Coastal Zone Area, the County would retain jurisdiction to issue coastal development permits subsequent to the City's annexation of those areas. Annual Monitoring Review Section 6.1 (Review For Compliance Following Annexation, Periodic Review) of the Annexation and Development Agreement between the City, the Irvine Company, and Irvine Community Development Company states that, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by the Owners with the terms of the agreement, an annual review be completed by the City Council. As part of that review, the Owners are required to submit an Annual Monitoring Review (AMR) statement describing its actions in compliance with the agreement. This year, the City requested and received a comprehensive report covering the period January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2010 (Attachment D). Although the County approved numerous discretionary approvals for the time period 2002 -2010, there have not been any substantive changes to the development density or intensity originally approved by the County. All Development Agreement Obligations established in the County /Irvine Company Development Agreement have been met (Attachment E). Transfer of the fully improved Planning Areas within the Newport Coast Planned Community continues consistent with the Cooperative Agreement (Attachment F). Although the Newport Coast Planned Community is virtually built -out, there is some residential and tourist commercial entitlement allowed which has not been developed. Until those Planning Areas are built out and transferred, the County will retain jurisdiction for all discretionary and ministerial permits processed. J Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 14 (Newport Coast) (PA2011 -030) October 25, 2011 Page 4 After reviewing the Annual Monitoring Report and applicable related documents, staff believes that the Irvine Company and Irvine Community Development Company have complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement related to the annexation and development of the Newport Coast Planned Community and adjacent properties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Section 15321 (Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. This section exempts actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted, or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Submitted by: Kimberly Brandt, atp Director Attachments: A. Development Agreement: Orange County and the Irvine Company (Newport Coast Planned Community) (pages 11 -180 available at City Clerk's Office and on City website) B. Development Agreement No. 14: City, the Irvine Company, and Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 14 (Newport Coast) (PA2011 -030) October 25, 2011 Page 5 Irvine Community Development Company C. Cooperative Agreement: City and County of Orange (pages 227 -247 available at City Clerk's Office and on City website) D. Newport Coast Planned Community Annual Monitoring Report (2002 - 2010) E. List of Obligations Satisfied: Orange County and the Irvine Company Development Agreement F. Planning Areas transferred to City ON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 14, NEWPORT COAST (PA2011 -030) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.45.080 of the Municipal Code to review the status of Development Agreement No. 14, executed in 2001, between the City, the Irvine Company, and Irvine Development Company for the purpose of annexation and development of the Newport Coast and adjacent properties. The City Council will review the Irvine Company and Irvine Development Company's good faith compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the review of this Development Agreement and any potential actions related thereto is not defined as a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore actions are not subject to environmental review. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 25. 2011 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please call (949) 644 -3200 Leilani Brow , City Clerk, City of Newport Beach CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2011 Annual Review of Development Agreement No. 14 (Newport Coast) Development Agreement No. 14 lrA1ugust 23, 2001 —August 2016) - Agreement - City /Irvine Co. /Irvine Development Co. - Allowed City annexation - Newport Coast /Newport Ridge - Continued development — per County /Irvine Co. Agreement - Required Cooperative Agreement — between City /County - land use authority /transfer - public services - Annual Monitoring Review Annual Monitoring Review - County /Irvine Co. agreement - no substantive changes - all Obligations completed (as of 2004) - Transfer of Planning Areas to City continues I I NEWPORT COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — COUNTY OF ORANGE EXHIBIT D OBLIGATIONS OBLIGATIONS STATUS DATE FUNDING CFD 88 -1 CFD 92 -1 Fire Station - Newport Coast Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR Cash Payment - $250.000 Library Obligation met Reported 1997 AMR Cash Payment - $422,500 Parks — Irvine Coast Wilderness Open Space Obligation met Reported 1997 AMR 2.666 Acres Transportation - Road Fee Programs CARITSfTraffic Signal Fees Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR SJHTC Fees Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR CFD 88 -1 SJHTC Offer of Dedication Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR CFD 01 -1 San Joaquin Hills Road Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR - Other Roads Pacific Coast Highway Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR Newport Coast Drive Obligation me I Re orted 2003 AMR Child Care Obligation met I Reported 2003 AMR I Cash Payment - $52,000 Sheriff Substation Obligation met I Reported 1997 AMR I Cash Pa yment - $392.310 (CFD = Community Facilities District) �11;. a?:; i n `�1 1 a.maoacdslr weelee:remAR � _ _ MeI i I I 1 I r I rf I I � I I I i I I I I � I X114 UU VdIN.LLYfT NP.gR184{Ri1t .- - c �,' � R�a$erc [1� fietwrcaa 4�Y x 0.r[n CUrt ]e 1 C. en l +merle A e a + es.ema A rrutrow. m i T.... 9 Mvm � _- w - Ye110B�Y11Y1R f e c..oam: �� CgYtrs� Yl� IPN/X MLL WITN_a5C � Y e eueotr I i nrm A qa P6toM 1fILA WMb WgmiCalYr rn[Advrss nae. �/ Rar..w MUI ia, v m01GUnIL t J/ . cnTC xne 'i!r[ti yl4i;R a�R�. RLCaV IILL .. UVC ^YRl � I I I I drrte.tG[ `�1 1 a.maoacdslr weelee:remAR � _ _ MeI i I I 1 I r I rf I I � I I I i I I I I � I X114 UU ta�u.aet meA Snl xemeua naouM R�a$erc [1� fietwrcaa ebM x 0.r[n CUrt ]e 1 C. en l +merle A e a + es.ema A rrutrow. m i T.... 9 Mvm � w e c..oam: �� CgYtrs� Yl� e eueotr e i nrm A P6toM 1fILA WMb WgmiCalYr ix, vq Rar..w MUI ia, v ar1i , NEWPORT COAST ? COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED CAA PLANNING TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2003 -May 2009 LEGEND Caay Flae FaR>tRm OrC�'a6NnyN= ea:t. meA Snl xemeua naouM R�a$erc ® fietwrcaa ar1i , NEWPORT COAST ? COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED CAA PLANNING TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2003 -May 2009 �z CAA ITANNINO �d to m d ncrrrunr MW%M COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2003 - February 2(169 u n.m RX 2M9tl � x.wdp de t xRy.Rl�1LY ;R X�PMRq}A�Y „ t l!•.X wi,�tR SIL` xrwxnpsi RYRs Pl XwFWx�xl Xflf R�y�lr4 �z CAA ITANNINO �d to m d ncrrrunr MW%M COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2003 - February 2(169 F''U�LICATIOOf� STATIC OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH /COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Saturday, October 15, 2011 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 18, 2011 at Los Angeles, California Signature RECEIVED 2 03 8-r=, H City Council Attachment A Development Agreement: Orange County and the Irvine Company (Newport Coast Planned Community) (pages 11 -180 available at City Clerk's Office and City's website) r wool o*nvr ra< >aaue^s,ru 7ER OJY"T GL'`OE E109 `_` ORIGINAL �� 880272901 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS Clerk of the Board of Supervisors OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA " of Orange County, Callfornla ? _. .... ..; }� -122 PM JUN - 9'88' I.= EXEMPT O Q. ° deu�c, wumrf C 1 2 RECORDER (Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use) o r yom ` " 'o c• = tTl •T ..7.1�T. C IRVINE � v COAST a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE 'D,9 Rv9. T7 -16 6dall i- IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DATE AND PARTIES . . . . . . II. RECITALS . . . . . . . . . . 88 ®272903 Paoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. SECTIONS: DEFINITIONS AND'EXHIBITS . 1:1 Sections and Paragraphs . . . . . 1 5 . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 De in1 Ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Annual Monitoring Review. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Build -out Phasing Plan. . . . . 1.2.3 Building and Improvement Standards. . . . . 1.2.4 CFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2.5 COUNTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.6 County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.7 COUNTY Development Agreement Resolution . . . . 1.2.8 Development . . . . . . 1.2.9 Development Agreement Legislation . 1.2.10 Development Approval(s) -. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2:11 Development Exactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.12 Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.13 Economic Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.14 Effective Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.15 Existing Land Use Ordinances: . . . . . . . 1.2.16 Existing Land Use Regulations . . . . . . . . . 1.2.17 General Plan. . . . . . . . 1.2.18 General Plan Review . . 1.2.19 Governing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.20 Land Use Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.21 Land Use Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.22 MPAH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.23 Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee.Program . . . 1.2.24 Mortgage. . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 1.2.25 Mortgagee . . . 1.2.26 1982 Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.27 1988 Local Coastal Program. . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.28 OWNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 1.2.29 OWNER's Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.30 Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLMTOC.023 /110 (i) 04/20/88 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7. 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 80 -2290 Pacre 4.1.3 Maximum Height and Size-of Buildings. . . . . 29 4.1.4 Reservations and Dedications of Lands for Public Purposes and Undertaking to Participate in Completion of Regional Road Network and Major Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.1.5 Density Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.1.6 Timing of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 "0 4.1.7 Moratoria; Phasing of Development . . . . . . . 31 4.1.8 Development Exactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.9 COUNTY's Environmental Review . . . . . .. . . . 33 _ 4.2 Regulation of Development ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.1 In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Vested Rights P . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.3 Limitations,- Reservations and Exceptions.... 35 4.3.1 Future Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 4.3.2 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. 35 4.3.3 Public Health and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3.4 Building and Improvement Standards. . . . . . . 36 4.3.5. Processing Fees and Charges . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3.6 Full Extent of Law. . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - 4.4 Further Assurances to Owner Regarding Exercise of Reservations of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.4.1 Adoption of General Plan and Development Plan 37 4.4:2 Assurances to OWNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 4.4.3 Judicial Review . . . . . . . .•.. . . . . . . . 38 (a) Burdens of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - (b) Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 SLMTOC.023 /110 (iv) _ 04/20/88 is Wiu 880272903 Pave (c) Administrative Findings and Exhaustion . . . 41 (i) COUNTY Findings and Determinations. . . 41 (ii) Exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.5 Regulation by Other Public Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 42 5. PERIODIC REVIEWS _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 42 5.1 Annual Review . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.2 Five -Year General Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS. . . . . . . . . . 43 - 6.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant . . . . . . . . . ... 43 6.2 Allocation of Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.3 Subject to Terms of Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.4 Release of OWNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 7. ANNEXATION AND INCORPORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 - 8. TERM OF AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ' S 8.1 Stated Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 8.2 Rights and Duties Following Termination . . . . . . . . 47 8.3 Option to Terminate Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . 8.3.1 Failure to Form CFD or Assessment District. 47 - 8. 3.2 Application of Conflicting Provisions. . . . 47 9. AMENDMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 10. PROCESSING OF REQUESTS AND APPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . 48 11. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 11.1 Remedies in General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - 11.2 Termination of Agreement for Default of OWNER. . . . . 49 11.3 Termination of Agreement for Default of COUNTY . . . . 50 11.4 Specific Performance . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 50 _ 11.5 Appointment of Referee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 SLMTOC.023 /110 (v) 04/20/88 Wiu - 2 (a) Enhanced open Space Dedication Program . . . . . . . 16 (b) Significant Visitor - Serving Facilities. . . . 17 (c) Traffic Implications of Change In Land Uses . 18 (d) Protection of Coastal Viewshed. . . . . . . . 19 2.3.4 Enhancement of Development Plan . . . . . . 19 2.3.5 Additional Public Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.4 Uncertainties and Commitments That Require the Company to Have Assurances of Vested Entitlements to Complete the Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4.1 Cost of Pelican Hill Road Construction . . . . . 20 2.4.2 Early Dedication of Land For Public Uses . . . . 21 2.4.3 Further Limitation of Income Producing Uses. . . 21 2.5 Summary of Benefits to the Company From This Agreement. 22 SLMTOC.023 /110 04/20/88 (ii) 0'> 88-212903 1.2.31 Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.32 Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.33, Regulations . . . . . 1.2.34 Reservations of- Authority.. . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 . 2 . 3 5 SJHTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3 Exhibits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 MUTUAL BENEFITS AND ASSURANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Purposes of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Consistency with County's General Plan and Certified Local Coastal Program . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3 Summary of Major Public Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1 Transportation Improvements . . . 12 (a) Pelican Hill Road . . . . . . . . . 12 (b) Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan . . . . 13 (c) San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 14 2.3.2 Habitat Area Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2'.3.3 Major Public Benefits In Excess.of Those Provided For In Prior Plans . . . . . . . . . . 15 (a) Enhanced open Space Dedication Program . . . . . . . 16 (b) Significant Visitor - Serving Facilities. . . . 17 (c) Traffic Implications of Change In Land Uses . 18 (d) Protection of Coastal Viewshed. . . . . . . . 19 2.3.4 Enhancement of Development Plan . . . . . . 19 2.3.5 Additional Public Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.4 Uncertainties and Commitments That Require the Company to Have Assurances of Vested Entitlements to Complete the Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4.1 Cost of Pelican Hill Road Construction . . . . . 20 2.4.2 Early Dedication of Land For Public Uses . . . . 21 2.4.3 Further Limitation of Income Producing Uses. . . 21 2.5 Summary of Benefits to the Company From This Agreement. 22 SLMTOC.023 /110 04/20/88 (ii) 88 ®272903 Pace f - Undertakings and Assurances Contemplated and Promoted ,2.6 by Development Agreement Legislation. . . . . . . . . . 22 - 2.7 Bargained For Reliance by Parties . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS: PROVISION OF PUBLIC BENEFITS. . .'. . . 22 3.1 In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2 Dedication, Construction and Conveyance of Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 23 a. In General. . .. . . . . . . . . . 23 b. Public Facilities; Subdivision Requirements . . . . 24 3.3 Relationship of Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4 Public Works. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . 24 3.5 Obligations of COUNTY Regarding Public Facilities 24• 3.5.1 Cooperation by COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . 24 _ (a) Obtaining of Additional Funding . . . . . . . 24 (b) Cooperation in the Performance of OWNER's Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.5.2 Provision of Rights and Interests by COUNTY 25 3.6 Financing. and Provision of Other Public Facilities. 25 3.6.1 Public Financing of Other Public Facilities 25 - 3. 6.2 OWNER's Participation in Future Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6.3 Replacement, Repair, Maintenance and Operation. 27 3.6.4 No Limitations on Objections. . . . . . . . . . 28 - 3.6.5 CEQA Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 29 4.1 Governing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 _ 4.1.1 Permitted Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.1.2 Number of Units, Density and Intensity. . . 29 - SLMTOC.023 /110 04/20/88 - cz 88 ®272903 Page 12. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . 52 •12.1 Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 12.2 Revision of General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 12.3 Suspension of Obligations. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . 53 12.4 Litigation Regarding Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 13. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 14. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON TITLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 14.1 Covenants Run With The Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 14.2 No Dedication, or Lien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 14.3 Termination Upon Final Sale . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 15. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION;.CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE . . . . . . . 56 15.1 Mortgagee Protection . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . 56 _ 15.2, Mortgagee Not Obligated. ... . . . . . . . . . . 57 15.3 Notice of'Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee toCure. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 57 15.4 Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 16. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16.1 Recordation of Agreement. 58 16.2 Entire Agreement. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16.3 Severability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. . . . . . . . . . . 58 - 16.5 Section Headings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16.6 Singular and Plural . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 59 16.7 Joint and Several Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 16.8 Time of Essence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 16.9 Waiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 16.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. . . . . . . .. . . . 59 SLMTOC.023 /110 (vi) - 04/20/88 SLMTOC.023 /110 04/20/88 �g Kra ®272903 Pace -16.11 Force Maj eure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 16.12 Attorneys Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . 60 16.13 Mutual Covenants. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 60 16.14 Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..60 16.15 Successors and - Assigns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 16.16 Counterparts . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . SIGNATORIES . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 EXHIBITS SLMTOC.023 /110 04/20/88 �g n 88®212903 - IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Govt. Code Sections 65864- 65869.5) THIS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into this day of m,¢� , 1988, by and between THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation ( "OWNER ") , and the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ( "COUNTY "). RECITALS This Agreement is.entered into based upon the following facts: A. When used in these Recitals, each of the terms defined in Section 1 of this Agreement shall have the - meaning given to it therein. B. Government Code Sections 65864 °65869.5 authorize COUNTY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, in order to, among other things: encourage and provide for the development of public facilities in order-to support the development of new housing ;,provide certainty in the approval of development projects in order to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer and encourage investment in and commitment. to comprehensive planning which will make maximum efficient utilization. of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and, to provide assurance to developers {1) that they may proceed with their.projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to their conditions of approval and (2) in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs of development. C. OWNER is the holder of a legal or equitable interest in the Property and desires and intends to develop the Property as a planned community development for the uses and purposes set forth in the Development Plan. The Development of the Property requires substantial early and major capital expenditures and investments with respect to dedication'of land and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities, both 6n-site and off - site, as described in Section 2 below, of more than sufficient capacity to serve the residents and others using the Property as anticipated by the General Plan and this Agreement. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -1- 04/20/88 19. 88- 272903 D. COUNTY has determined -that the Development Plan implements the goals and policies of COUNTY's General Plan and of all specific plans (as referenced in Government Code Sections 65450 et sue.) applicable to the Project and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage so as to maintain the overall - quality of life and of the environment within the County. E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, COUNTY has adopted the COUNTY Development Agreement Resolution, establishing procedures and requirements for the consideration of, proposed. development agreements. F. OWNER has applied for, and COUNTY has granted approval of the Development Plan in order to protect the interests of COUNTY's existing and anticipated citizens and the quality of their community and environment through the planned development process. As part of the process of approving the Development Plan COUNTY has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the required analyses of the environmental effects which would be caused by the Project. In addition to other matters which COUNTY took into consideration in its analyses of the environmental effects which would be caused by the Project, COUNTY scrutinized with particular care the adverse impacts associated with vehicular traffic conditions within the County and the availability of adequate levels of public services and. facilities within the County, including, without limitation, library, sheriff, fire protection, flood control improvements, open space and community parks. .COUNTY has imposed a series of mitigation measures in connection with the development of the Project to eliminate the anticipated adverse impacts on the County traffic conditions and on levels of public services and facilities within the County, as summarized, in part, in Section 2 and Exhibit D of this Agreement. G. In accordance with State law, COUNTY has adopted the General Plan which considers and provides for residential,. commercial, industrial and public facilities which are necessary to meet the future needs of the population. However, over the past several years, COUNTY has become increasingly concerned regarding (i) the need for regional road and traffic improvements; (ii) the lack of general funding for such improvements from the customary sources; and (iii) the past practices of public agencies of developing road and traffic improvements in a fragmented manner and in a relatively inefficient and uneconomic manner in conjunction with specific development projects. In response, COUNTY has focused on the development of improved approaches to finance and develop a regional system of roads and traffic facilities in an accelerated, SLMOCDA.023 /110 -2- 04/20/88 20 - '8-272903 efficient and economic manner in order to provide for the anticipated population of the County. More specifically in order to address these concerns and objectives, the COUNTY Board of Supervisors has adopted and.updated from time to time the MPAH as part of the General Plan, designating commuter, secondary, primary and major arterial highways and transportation corridors within the County and has ..adopted the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. H. As contemplated by the Development Agreement Legislation, this Agreement will permit the COUNTY to proceed to achieve significant, regional roadway improvements and open space dedications in an accelerated, coordinated, systematic, efficient and economic manner. Moreover, the Property which is subject to this Agreement lies wi-thin'the California Coastal Zone, and is subject to the policies of the State,of California as expressed through the California Coastal Act. COUNTY and the Coastal Commission have determined that the Development Plan meets-the various objectives of the California Coastal Act, including, -for example, preservation of significant coastal resources, creation of visitor - serving facilities, and provision of new public access opportunities, in a manner that has been found to be most protective, overall, of the public values expressed through the policies of the California Coastal Act. This Agreement, in turn, will provide the necessary assurances and predictability to achieve these benefits in the coordinated manner contemplated by the Development Plan. 1. The Public Facilities to be provided by OWNER, while serving the Project, are also needed to serve the ultimate development of the County as well as adjacent areas within 'the region. Given the regional significance of these improvements and facilities and the excess capacity they provide, COUNTY desires to obtain, and OWNER is willing to assist in providing, them'as part of the early phases of the Development of the Property prior to the time that they would otherwise be required to serve the completed phases of the Project and, therefore, prior to the time when OWNER would otherwise be required to provide them under the Existing Land Use Ordinances and prior to the time that their expense would be justified economically by the.phasing for the Development of the Property. J. OWNER is willing to assist in providing the Public Facilities earlier than otherwise required for its private development of the Property only with the assurances regarding the regulations which will apply to the Development of the Property as provided in this Agreement. Such assurances are particularly important, both to OWNER and COUNTY, in that it is anticipated that a SLMOCDA.023 /110 -3- 04/20/88- 2- ®L( Ljuj substantial portion of the Public Facilities may. be financed through the formation of an assessment' district or districts and /or CFD, and the issuance of bonds or other debt instruments secured by the levy of assessments or special taxes on the Property. Any such assessment district and /or CFD is formed upon the reasonable ,expectation of both the landowner and the forming agency that the Property may be developed in accordance with the -Existing Land Use Ordinances, and that the value of the property as security will be enhanced by such development. Protection of these reasonable expectations is a matter of concern to both OWNER and COUNTY, since a failure of these expectations could result in an injury to the purchasers of the bonds or other debt instruments and adversely affect the COUNTY's credit and the credit of the OWNER. In this respect, the .public improvements and dedications provided for herein, together with,the development contemplated by the Development. Plan, are interdependent and together comprise an indivisible project. K. The cooperation of the OWNER in the financing of a substantial portion of the Public Facilities through the formation of an assessment district or districts and /or CFD, and the issuance of bonds or other debt instruments secured by the levy of' assessments or special taxes on the Property, is likewise an additional benefit to the COUNTY and the public generally._•. The use of financing provides the COUNTY with additional assurances f that the Public Facilities so financed.will be provided with reasonable diligence and under the direction of the COUNTY. L: The COUNTY Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have found and determined that-this Agreement: (i) is consistent with COUNTY's General Plan; (ii) is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of COUNTY; its residents and the public; (iii) is entered into pursuant to and constitutes a present exercise of the police power by COUNTY; and (iv) is entered into pursuant to and complies with the requirements of Section 65867 of the. Development Agreement Legislation and the COUNTY Development Agreement Resolution. COUNTY Board of Supervisors has adopted an ordinance authorizing the execution of this Agreement.. M. COUNTY desires to be assured that if the Property is annexed to, or included within the boundaries of, another Local Agency that the work to complete the Public Facilities and OWNER's Obligations will continue expeditiously and efficiently and that the transfer of authority'to such Local Agency will be provided for as contemplated by the Development Agreement. Legislation and SLMOCDA.023 /110 -4- 04/20/88 22 <._ 88-272903 OWNER desires to be assured that thereupon this Agreement will continue in full force and effect to the extent permitted by law. N. Based on the foregoing, OWNER and COUNTY desire to enter into this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW,. THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, the mutual covenants contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as . follows: 1. SECTIONS; DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Sections and Paragraphs. Any reference in this Agreement to a "Section" is a reference to the indicated numbered section or sub- section of this Agreement and a reference-to a "Paragraph" is a reference to the indicated paragraph of a Section. 1.2 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows': 1.2.1 "Annual Monitoring Review" means the annual review required pursuant to Section 5 hereinbelow: 1.2.2 "Build -out Pha'sina Plan" means an advisory, non - binding plan to be prepared by OWNER pursuant.to Section 5 hereinbelow showing the intended schedule for the completion of the Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan and this Agreement, together with such other information regarding the anticipated Development as shall be reasonably requested by COUNTY. 1.2.3 "Building and Improvement Standards" means Regulations of COUNTY which are of general application which 'establish regulations and standards for the building, construction and .installation of structures and associated improvements such as and including, without SLMOCDA.023 /110 -5- 04/20/88 23 88- 272903 limitation, COUNTY's building, plumbing, mechanical, grading, swimming pool, sign and fire codes. 1.2.4 "" means a community facilities district formed pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 53311 et sea. as amended). 1.2.5 "COUNTY" means the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California. 1.2.6 "County" means the geographical area within the boundaries of COUNTY. 1.2.7 "COUNTY Development Agreement Resolution" means resolution number 87 -473 adopted.by the Board of Supervisors of COUNTY on April 15, 1987, as amended from time to time prior to the date on which this Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors of COUNTY, establishing a procedure for the consideration and approval of development agreements pursuant to the.Development Agreement Legislation. 1.2.8 "Development ",means the improvement of the Property for purposes of effecting the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, without limitation: grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of structures and buildings;-and the installation of landscaping; but not including the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any structures, improvements or facilities after the construction and completion thereof. 1.2.9 "Development Agreement Legislation" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Effective Date. _ 1.2.10 "Development Approval(s)" means site specific plans, maps, permits and other entitlements to use of every kind and nature approved or granted by COUNTY in connection with the Development of- the Property, including but not limited to: site plans, tentative and final subdivision tract maps, vesting tentative maps, SLMOCDA.023 /110 -6- 04/20/88 24 !'� 88®22=`903 coastal development permits, conditional and special use permits and grading, building and other similar permits. 1.2.11 "Development Exactions" means requirements of COUNTY in connection with or pursuant.to any Land Use Ordinance or Development Approval for the dedication of land or property,. the payment of.fees or money or the construction or improvement.of public facilities in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the adverse impacts of the Project.on environmental or other public concerns or interests or for the improvement, construction or acquisition of any public infrastructure, facilities or property. Said term ,shall not include assessments and taxes unless exacted as a condition of development under.a Development Approval nor shall it include any requirements for the purpose. of or with respect to the replacement, repair, maintenance or operation of public. infrastructure, facilities and property or the.- provision of public services. 1.2.12 "Development Plan" means the 1988 Local Coastal Program, comprising the Land Use Plan and the Implementing Actions Program, including, among other things, the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Map. 1.2.13 "Economic Expectations" means economic expectations with respect to the completion of the Project in accordance with the Governing Policies taking' into: consideration technical, financing, market and other factors. 1.2.14 "Effective Date" means the date first set forth hereinabove. 1.2.15 "Existing Land Use Ordinances" means those certain Land Use Ordinances in effect on the Effective Date. 1.2.16 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means those certain Land Use Regulations in effect on the Effective Date. 1.2.17 "General Plan" means the General Plan of COUNTY. SLM0CDA.023 /110 -7- 04/20/88 215 8u ®272903 1.2.18 "General Plan Review" means the review of the General Plan conducted by COUNTY referred to in Section 5.2. 1.2.19 "Governing Policies" means (i) the ,policies specified in Section 4.1; and '(ii) the Existing Land Use Ordinances. 1.2.20 "Land Use Ordinances" means the ordinances adopted by'COUNTY which govern the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use, and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of Property, including, but not limited to: the General Plan, the Development Plan, specific plans, zoning ordinances, planned community district ordinances, development moratoria and growth management and phased development programs, ordinances establishing Development Exactions, subdivision and park codes and Building and Improvement Standards. 1.2.21 "Land Use Regulations" means Regulations of COUNTY governing the permitted uses of-land, density and intensity of use and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to.the. Development of the Property,'including, but not limited to, mitigation measures required in order to lessen or compensate for the adverse impacts of the Project on the environment and other public interests and concerns. Land Use Regulations include, but are not limited to, Land'Use ordinances .'Development Approvals and Development Exactions. The term Land Use Regulations-does . not include, however, Regulations relating to the conduct of business, professions and occupations generally; taxes and assessments other than Development Exactions; Regulations for the control and abatement of nuisances; encroachment and other permits and the conveyances of rights and interests which provide for the use of or entry upon public property; and, any exercise of the power of eminent domain. 1. 2.22 "MPAH" means the Master .Plan of Arterial Highways component of the Circulation Element of the General Plan (the "MPAH"), which designates routes for commuter, secondary, primary and major arterial highways, and transportation corridors within the County .of-orange. SLMOCDA.023 /13.0 -8- 04/20/88 20 �f 88- 272903 1.2.13 "Maior Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program" means the program adopted by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors on October 14, 1987, by Resolution 87 -1396 requiring the payment of fees to a joint powers authority for the completion of certain road and bridge improvements. 1.2.24 "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust or sale and leaseback arrangement or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or.an interest therein, is pledged as security, contracted for in .good faith and for fair value: 1.2.25 "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or the owner of the Property, or interest, therein, under a Mortgage. 1.2.26 111982 Land Use Plan" means that Land Use Plan for the Property approved by the COUNTY on October 21, 1981, and certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 19, 1982'. 1.2.27 111988 Local Coastal Program" means the First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program, approved by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors on December 2, 1987 (of which the land use plan was adopted by the COUNTY-Board of Supervisors by Resolution Number 87 -1606 and the implementing actions program was adopted by COUNTY Board of Supervisors by Ordinance-Number 3674) and certified by.the California Coastal Commission on January 14, 1988. 1.2.28 "OWNER" means THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation. 1.2.29 "OWNER's Obligations" means the obligations of OWNER to pay the sums, build and construct the improvements, dedicate the lands and improvements and undertake and perform the other actions described in Section 3. 1.2.30 "Project" means the development project contemplated by the Development Plan with respect to the Property, including.but not limited to on- site and off -site improvements, as such development project is-further defined, enhanced SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 27 r 88 ®272903 or modified pursuant to the ,provisions of this Agreement. 1.2.31 "Ptooerty" means the lands described in Exhibit A hereto. 1.2.32 "Public Facilities" means those certain public lands and facilities- to be improved, con - structed and dedicated or conveyed to the public pursuant to Section 3.1,' as described in Exhibit D. 1.2.33 "Reculations" means laws, statutes, ordinances, and codes (including the Building and Improvement Standards), resolutions, rules, regulations and'orders; approvals, denials and conditional apprbvals in connection with tentative, vesting tentative and final subdivision maps, parcel maps, conditional and special use permits.and other permits of every kind and character; programs; and official policies and actions of COUNTY; together with amendments to all of the foregoing. 1.2.34 . "Reservations of 'Authority" means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER in Section 4.2 and reserved to COUNTY therein and'in Section 4.3. 1.2.35 "STHTC" means the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, as defined in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. 1.3 Exhibits. The reference to a specified "Exhibit" in this Agreement is a reference to a certain one of the exhibits listed below, as determined by the accompanying letter designation, which exhibits are attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Exhibit Designation A B C D SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 Description Description of Property Planning History. Findings OWNER's Obligatons;.Public Benefits -10- �g �^ t ag�Z72903 2. MUTUAL BENEFITS AND ASSURANCES. . 2.1 Purposes of Agreement. The 'Development Plan is the result of years of planning effort by the OWNER and COUNTY. The planning history for the Property is summarized on the attached Exhibit B. Because of this extraordinary planning effort, the Development Plan includes a number of features which will significantly benefit the public directly and indirectly by enabling the COUNTY to accompli °sh regional land use and public policy objectives contained in its General Plan. To secure these benefits the COUNTY and the OWNER.have mutually agreed to enter into this Agreement in response to a provision contained in the 1988 Local Coastal Program and pursuant to suggestions of the California Coastal Commission and others that a development agreement is the most appropriate means of enabling the OWNER to proceed with, and assuring the COUNTY's realization of the extensive public benefits to be realized from, the Development Plan., 2.2 COUNTY found in approving.the 1988 Local Coastal Program that the Development Plan (i) implements the goals and policies of the COUNTY's General Plan and... the California Coastal Act of 1976; (ii) provides balanced and diversified land uses in order to protect and enhance-COUNTY and State coastal resources, maintain the overall quality of life and of the environment within the COUNTY,. and protect the State's resources; and (iii) imposes appropriate standards and _ requirements with respect to land development and usage of the Property. 2.3 Summary of Major Public Benefits. The following subsections of this Section 2 describe some of the.more significant public benefits from the Project. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of carrying out the Development Plan for the Project in a manner that will ensure these anticipated benefits to both COUNTY (including, without limitation, the existing and future residents and populations of COUNTY) and OWNER. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -11- 04/20/88 29 0 88- 272903 2.3.1 Transportation Improvements. (a) Pelican Hill Road. The COUNTY desires to encourage the earliest possible construction of Pelican Hill Road because, in the time period prior to the construction of the SJHTC, Pelican Hill Road is the only regional transportation facility capable of contributing to the achievement of certain regional traffic objectives established by the COUNTY. Under the 1988 Local Coastal Program, Pelican Hill Road will be constructed initially at four lanes instead of the two lanes provided for under the 1982 Land Use Plan. The COUNTY will thus achieve all of the<benefits'set forth in Section 2.3.1(a) in advance of both.the Project needs and'the time at which they would have: been achieved under the 1982 Land Use Plan. In conjunction with the Board of Supervisors Resolution of Certification of -EZR 460 and approval of.the Proposed Route Alignment for Pelican Hill Road,' adopted on September 15, 1987, the COUNTY has determined that the early construction of Pelican Hill'Road will provide the following significant public benefits: (i) Relieves congestion on and allows for a significant diversion of traffic from Pacific Coast Highway and sections of MacArthur Boulevard by providing a bypass route around Corona del Mar in Newport Beach, with the attendant commute and recreational access benefits discussed in EIR 460 and noted in the Irvine Coast Area Traffic Analysis. The analysis indicates that approximately twice as much traffic could be diverted from Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach onto Pelican Hill Road as may be added to Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the Project. This diversion of traffic will provide a substantial benefit for Corona del Mar residents and businesses SLMOCDA.023 /110 °12- 04/20/88 30 i SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 bb- & CUU.S and will substantially benefit other users of Pacific Coast Highway living elsewhere in the region. (ii) Improves access from inland areas to visitor- serving and public recreation facilities such as Crystal Cove State Park. (iii) Establishes a route compatible with existing and ultimate regional circulation needs in accordance with the MPAH and all adopted plans of the COUNTY. (iv) Enables a highway design ,compatible with the terrain. (v) Establishes a the Universit y Irvine campus, to experience growth. major new access to of California at which is expected significant future (vi) Creates a regional air quality benefit by reducing driving .distances for users of the new roadway, thereby increasing the overall system efficiency. (vii). Contributes to-implementation of Development Plan land uses and corresponding benefits. (b) Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan. A detailed program for the phasing" of circulation improvements with land use entitlements is provided in the Development Plan (See Chapter-4, Policy 2 and Exhibit Q of the 1988 Local Coastal Program). This roadway phasing program is intended to assure both that Project generated circulation needs will be met and that additional capacity to serve local and regional transportation needs will be provided above and beyond the Project's needs. As is specifically provided in the 1988 Local Coastal Program, Chapter 3, Section-E, Transportation Policy 22: -13- 3- 88- 272503 "The highway improvements and phasing as defined'in this Section E and on Exhibit Q, which are required by this LCP, have been _ determined to be of "significance beyond ; - normal project requirements so as to meet the objectives of the COUNTY'S Growth Management Policy.. Consistent with this _ LCP, highway improvements and implementation of the Growth Management Program identified above will be incorporated into subsequent agreements, if any, between the landowner and the COUNTY." This Agreement is intended to carry out the policy direction set forth in the Development Plan in relation to the objectives of the COUNTY's Growth Management Program. The term "Growth Management Program means the program under the same name in the COUNTY General Plan as of the date of the approval of this Agreement and shall be synonomous with the term "Growth Management Policy." (c) San Joaouin Hills Transportation Corridor. Because of the assurances regarding the regulations: which will. apply ,to the Development of the,Property provided to OWNER by COUNTY under this Agreement, OWNER is able to make an early offer to dedicate a major portion of the right -of -way as provided.in Exhibit D., This dedication of right -of -way will provide land for a significant portion of the SJHTC, thereby permitting COUNTY to expedite the implementation of the SJHTC. Thus, an early commitment to dedication of the right -of- way.provides a significant public benefit to COUNTY and its present and future populations. In conjunction with a similar right -of -way dedication required of the contiguous Laguna /Laurel Planned Community and COUNTY's acquisition of a right -of -way through Sycamore Hills, the COUNTY will have obtained commitments for more than 50% of the SJHTC right -of -way. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -14- 04/20/88 •^ 32 88- 272903 2.3.2 Habitat Area Protection. The Development'Plan provides for the dedication of fee title ownership to the COUNTY of major riparian areas on the Property. In addition to the 2,666 acre open space dedication area, these areas include the approximately 1,100 acres of large scale canyon habitats in Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon and Muddy Canyon. Residential areas have been pulled back from the frontal slopes of Pelican-Hill and along the ridges to further protect the coastal viewshed and to increase setbacks from Los Trancos Canyon nd Buck Gully habitat area Specific habitat protection benefits resulting from this residential clustering and from road re- alignments include: (i) Tfie realignment of Sand Canyon Avenue out of Muddy Canyon. (ii) The realignment.of Pelican Hill Road away from the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon. (iii) The conversion of portions of Planning Area 6 from development to open space in areas adjoining Moro Canyon and Muddy Canyon. (iv) The reduction of development areas bordering Los Trancos.Canyon. 2.3.3 The Property has been the subject of - cooperative planning efforts by OWNER, COUNTY, environmental groups and other interested parties for a number of years. The Development Plan contains significant - modifications to the earlier approved 1982.Land Use Plan. The modifications were made as the result of significant cooperation among OWNER, the County and the Coastal Commission staffs and local environmental groups. They are contained in an amended Land Use Plan which is included in the 1988 Local Coastal Program. COUNTY has found that the modifications achieve significant public benefits and further both COUNTY and Coastal Act Policy _. Objectives. COUNTY is therefore desirous of entering into this Agreement as -a means of SLMOCDA.023 /110 -15- 04/20/88 33 88 ®272903 inducing OWNER to proceed under the 1988 Local Coastal Program (by the terms of the Local Coastal Program itself, the recording of the Offer.of Dedication•for the 2666 acre open space dedication program is conditioned on a development agreement or equivalent mechanism). The significant public benefits in the 1988.Local Coastal Program above and beyond those in the 1982 Land Use Plan are summarized below. (a) Enhanced Open Space Dedication Program. The significant benefits over the Open Space program approved in the 1982 Local Coastal Program include: (i) The 1988 Local Coastal Program will provide an additional approximate 1,100 acres of public open space (for a total of approximately 5,500 acres of - contiguous open space area), increasing total plan area open space from 61% under the 1982 Local.Coastal Program to - 76% under the 1988 Local Coastal Program. Approximately 1,100 acres of new special use parklands, comprised _ primarily of parklands in Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully and Muddy Canyon, -which were designated as private ". recreation areas under the 1982 Land Use Plan, and 16 acres of land near Laurel Canyon previously designated for development will be added to the approximate 2;650 -acres of public recreation area required under the 1982 Land Use Plan. Dedicating this land as _ special use park recreation areas provides opportunities to link them with Crystal Cove State Park trails. COUNTY has found that the opportunity for linking these land areas with state park trails enhances the potential for public recreational experiences. Muddy - .Canyon, which would have been significantly altered under -the 1982 Land Use Plan, will also be _ preserved. (ii) The 1988 Local Coastal Program requires an offer of dedication for the entire approximate 2,666 acre dedication area to be recorded prior to initial SLMOCDA.023 /110 -16- 04/20/88 S4 '88- 272903 development grading (other than grading for Pelican Hill Road). The Offer may be accepted in four phases, constituting four large management units, as contrasted with the twenty or more management units /phased dedications and complex access and utility easement reservations provided for in the 1982 Land Use Plan. (iii) The 1988 Local. Coastal. Program provides for acceptance of the remaining phases of the dedication program to occur in 'clearly defined increments in advance of completion of the Project and has been simplified to facilitate COUNTY. management. (iv) The 1988 Local Coastal Program provides for completion of all phases of the open space dedication program after fifteen years (as contrasted with twenty -seven years under the 1982 Land Use Plan) even if the Project is not completed within that time so'long as the Project has not been delayed in obtaining entitlements. (v) The 1988 Local Coastal Program enables. significant early public access both tc the coastal ridges and to the Laurel Canyon dedication (contiguous with Management Unit I of the Irvine Coast Dedication Area) required pursuant to COUNTY approval of the Laguna /Laurel Planned Community (see Exhibit D of the 1988 Local Coastal Program). This early public access results from the triggering of the first.phase .acceptance at initial development grading (other than grading for Pelican Hill Road). (b) Sianificant'visitor- Serving Facilities. One of the focal points of the 1988 Local Coastal Program is a series of land use plan modifications intended to foster the development of a future destination resort providing a variety of public benefits. The frontal slopes of Pelican Hill have been redesigned to permit the SLM0CDA.023 /110 -17- 04/20/88 35 ,-> e 88 ®272993 development of two 18 -hole golf courses in .an area that was designated for residential development under the 1982 Land Use Plan. _ Related commercial uses and extensive recreational amenities have been added for use in conjunction with a broad array of overnight accommodations. office uses allowed under the 1982 Land Use Plan have been deleted.. This increased emphasis on visitor - serving facilities carries out strong Coastal Act priority policies for the provision of day use and overnight facilities to accommodate coastal visitors who do not live in close proximity to the ocean.. The golf course is an intregal part of the destination resort. In addition to the increase in open space, the COUNTY will also-benefit from the additional overnight accommodations and day -u$e retail uses provided for in the 1988. Local Coastal Program. Likewise, the' creation of a destination resort will enhance the overall level of economic activity in the COUNTY both as it complements major inland tourist attractions and as it adds to the COUNTY's increasing reputation as a major coastal visitor destination (for example, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, -the Laguna Niguel area, Dana Point /Lantern Bay, Bolsa Chica area, Huntington State Beach, Crystal Cove State Park and Doheny State Park). (c) Traffic Implications of Change In Land Uses. There are significant beneficial, traffic implications of the change in land uses between the '1982 Land'Use Plan and 1988 Local Coastal Program. These benefits are summarized below and substantiated by the Irvine Coastal Area and Resort Traffic Study set forth in Appendices C -3 and C -4 of the 1988 Local Coastal Program: (i)- The 1988 Local Coastal. Program represents a decrease in average daily trips from that which would result from the 1982 Land Use Plan. (ii) The 1988 Local Coastal Program represents -a.significant decrease in peak hour traffic allowed in the 1982 SLMOCDA.023 /110 -18- 04/20/88 so i. UU —LI LJUJ Land Use Plan, primarily due to the deletion of commercial office "uses. (iii) The emphasis in the 1988 Local Coastal Program on a destination resort further decreases both peak hour and overall traffic intensity. (d) Protection of Coastal Viewshed. The reduction in building heights from that permitted in the 1982 Land Use Plan and the addition of the two golf courses will create a greenbelt along Pacific Coast Highway, thereby contributing to a- landscaped foreground for the visitor serving'areas. 2.3.4 Enhancement of Development Plan. In addition to obtaining the public benefits summarized in this Section, the COUNTY desires to further strengthen the Development Plan as it carries out and fulfills the policy requirements of the California Coastal Act. These.policy requirements are 'enumerated. in Exhibit. "A" of the COUNTY Approval Resolution. They are also enumerated in the Coastal Commission findings of approval for the 1988 Local Coastal Program. said findings are set forth in'-Exhibit C to this Agreement. The COUNTY, as the local agency with land use jurisdiction under the California Coastal Act of 1976, desires to. provide the OWNER with the assurances which are necessary in order to obtain the extensive public benefits provided for in the Development Plan, including, but not limited to those articulated in Exhibit D with respect to transportation, habitat protection,. open space, recreation and visitor - serving facilities. 2.3.5 Additional Public Benefits. In addition to the public benefits set forth above in this Section 2.3, other significant public benefits provided by OWNER after . certification of the 1988 Local Coastal Program have been secured by the COUNTY under this Agreement and are set forth in Exhibit D. SLMOCDA.O23 /110 -19- 04/20/88 37 2.4 Complete the Project. 88 ®272903 Development of the Project'requires major investment by the OWNER in public facilities and the commitment of private lands to public use at an early stage in the development process. The COUNTY recognizes that in-most instances these investments and commitments have to be made far in advance of the development of the private income producing components of the Development Plan. Some of the development risks and uncertainties that would, in the absence of this Agreement, deter, and discourage the OWNER from making a long term commitment to the implementation of the Development Plan are set forth below, 2.4.1 Cost of Pelican Hill Road Construction. The requirements for the early completion of four lanes of Pelican Hill'Road by the OWNER necessitates major construction activities with ultimate costs of approximately $40 million (which amount includes the cost of certain related infrastructure) at a point in the development process where only.a small percentage of the development will be vested. This timing requirement creates a risk that non - project traffic could'utilize and effectively preempt road capacity that would be required to serve Project•generated circulation needs at a later time. Because major utilities are installed at the time of large -scale arterial: road improvements,.the OWNER will incur "substantial associated drainage, sewer, water, electrical, gas and telephone backbone installation costs as a result of the timing requirements for the .first phase of Pelican Hill Road. Accordingly., assurances that development will not be halted so long as the provisions of the Development Plan are complied with are-required to offset uncertainty respecting the ability to complete the Project. This uncertainty, if unaddressed, would cause the 'OWNER to halt or delay the provision of a vitally needed arterial road f'or which there is presently no public funding. 'As the COUNTY found in adopting the 1988 Local Coastal Program (at page 23 of the Findings. of Approval and'Supporting Documentation in Exhibit A to the 1988 Local Coastal Program), public benefits flowing from the combination of the early construction of Pelican hill Road and SLMOCDA.023 /110 -20- 04/20/88 S2 88 ®272903 overall increase in net circulation system capacity will result from-the implementation of Development'Plan land uses.. 2.4.2 Early Dedication of Land For Public Uses. With respect to the dedication of land for public uses, commitments of private lands to eventual public ownership will be made early.in the.development process. For example, the offer of dedication of the right -of -way for the SJHTC is being required significantly-before the. development of the property. Further, development cannot commence until an offer of dedication is recorded for the entire approximate 2,666 acre open space dedication area. The first increment bf the open space dedication program must be available for acceptance by COUNTY at the time of issuance of the first. - grading permit for any development other than Pelican'Hill Road. Final subdivision development maps for.areas adjoining Buck Gully, Los Trancos - Canyon and Muddy Canyon will also trigger dedications before any development,of residential uses in the respective adjoining areas has commenced. 2.4.3 Further Limitation of Income - Producing Uses. The increased dedications and land use modifications identified 'as significant public benefits from the 1988 Local Coastal Program have the effect of further limiting the lands available io OWNER for the construction of income - producing residential and commercial units. These increased dedications and land use modifications include the reduced size of land areas available for residential development due to the clustering of residential areas near Los Trancos Canyon and the replacement of residential uses on the foreslopes of Pelican Hill with the two golf courses. This increases the importance to OWNER of the asstrances provided hereunder regarding the Regulations which will.apply to such lands. SLM0CDA.023 /110 -21- 04/20/88 39 88- 272903 2.5 Summary of Benefits to The Company From This Agreement. The significant and material bargained for benefits to OWNER under this Agreement include the assurances that the Regulations which will apply to the development of the Property will be in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. COUNTY's inducement of OWNER to provide the major public. benefits required of OWNER under this Agreement, which benefits COUNTY would be unable otherwise to achieve either at the time of or to the extent provided for by this Agreement, or. both, justifies OWNER's reliance on the assurances contained in this Agreement. 2_6 Undertakings and Assurances Contemplated and Promoted by Development Agreement Legislation. The mutual undertakings and assurances' described above and provided for in this Agreement are for the benefit of COUNTY and OWNER.and promote the comprehensive planning, private and public cooperation and participation in the provision of public facilities, and the effective and efficient development of infra- structure and facilities supporting development which was' contemplated and promoted by the Development Agreement Legislation. 2.7 Bargained For Reliance by Parties.' The assurances provided to OWNER in Section 4 are provided pursuant to and as contemplated by the Development Agreement Legislation, are bargained and in consideration for the undertakings of OWNER set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, and are intended by COUNTY to be and have been relied upon by OWNER to its detriment in undertaking the obligations and covenanting as provided in Section 3 hereinbelow and in this Agreement generally and in expending monies - and making improvements and, dedications pursuant to this Agreement. 3. OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS: PROVISION OF PUBLIC BENEFITS. 3.1 In General It is acknowledged that a primary purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the accelerated and coordinated completion of the 'Public Facilities and other public benefits described in Exhibit D. Accordingly, OWNER shall promptly (to the extent that a time for performance is specified heretnder) and SLMOCDA.023 /110 -7.2- 04/20/88 4 0 88- 272903 fully perform OWNER's Obligations as set forth in and subject to the.terms and conditions of Exhibit D, and this Agreement. OWNER shall continue to be obligated to, and shall, perform all of the duties and obligations provided for or required by any provisions of the-Existing Land Use Ordinances, including, but not limited to, those in the Development Plan in connection with the Development of the Property (including and subject to the provisions of LCP Policy 22 referred to in Section 3.6.2). 3.2 a. In General. The Public Facilities to be dedicated (in the. case of lands) or constructed by OWNER and dedicated or conveyed. to COUNTY as described in Exhibit D and the Development Plan, shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit D, the Development Plan, specifica- tions and standards promulgated by COUNTY in accordance with Regulations which are applicable thereto in accordance with this Agreement, and dedicated and conveyed to COUNTY in fee (unless otherwise provided therein to the contrary), free of all liens and monetary encumbrances of every kind and nature and other'rights and interests which rights..and interests interfere with the uses for which the dedication and conveyance is intended and which are reasonably approved by COUNTY, except as expressly set forth in Exhibit D, the Development Plan, or otherwise agreed-in writing by COUNTY. - OWNER and COUNTY shall expeditiously enter into agreements ( "Implementation Agreements ") in a form customarily utilized by COUNTY, providing for the construction and completion of the Public Facilities, their conveyance to COUNTY .in accordance with the provisions of . Exhibit D and this Agreement. OWNER may seek the formation of an assessment district or CFD or arrangement with an assessment district or CFD whereby such assessment district or CFD shall fund and reimburse OWNER for the portion of the costs of any such Public Facilities to be paid and borne by OWNER (exclusive of the value of the lands acquired, unless expressly provided to the contrary in Exhibit D or the Development Plan) with the proceeds of bonds, repayment of which is from special taxes, fees or payments from or with respect to the development of the Property or the improvements comprising the Project. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -23- 04/20/88 4-T 88- 272903 b. Rublic Facilities; subdivision- Requirements. With respect to any such Public Facilities as to which only a preliminary phase is required to be completed under this Agreement as provided in Exhibit D, such Public Facilities shall be completed in connection with the Development of Property as required by the Regulations applicable thereto in accordance with this Agreement. 3.3 Relationship-of Parties. In performing OWNER's obligations, OWNER is acting under this Agreement -as an independent contractor and is not acting as the agent or employee of COUNTY nor shall anything in.this Agreement be construed. as creating between OWNER and COUNTY a partnership or joint venture for any purpose. 3.4 Public works. If OWNER is required by this Agreement to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to COUNTY or any other public agency upon completion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, OWNER shall. perform . such work in the .same manner and subject to the same requirements as would be applicable to COUNTY or such other public agency should it. have undertaken such construction. 3.5 Obligations of COUNTY Regarding Public Facilities. . 3.5.1 Cooperation by COUNTY. (a) Obtaining of Additional Funding.. It is acknowledged by the parties that. the participation of landowners in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program is intended to be supplementary to the normal sources of funding of the regional road network improvements of the MPAH. (b) -Cooperation in the Performance of OWNER's Obligations. COUNTY shall reasonably cooperate in good faith with OWNER in OWNER's performance of OWNER's Obligations and, with respect to Public Facilities that are to be completed with funds provided SIMOCDA.023 /110 -24- 04/20/88 42 Y `�z 88 ®272903 to COUNTY pursuant to•this Agreement by an assessment district, CFD, or by OWNER, upon receipt of such funds, COUNTY shall proceed in good faith to expeditiously construct said improvements, to the extent of such available funds. 3.5.2 Provision of Riahts'and Interests by COUNTY. In any instance where OWNER is required tc construct any Public Facilities on lands not owned by OWNER, as a condition precedent to the performance'of such obligation, COUNTY shall provide or cause to be provided, the real property rights and interests necessary for the construction of such Public Facilities. OWNER shall have no obligation to pay for such rights or interests except that OWNER shall pay all reasonable administrative costs of COUNTY (including but not limited to the costs of condemnation) related to the acquisition and transfer of said rights and interests. 3.6 Financina and Provision of Other Public _ Facilitie's. 3.6.1 Public Financinc"of Other Public Facilities. Upon the request of OWNER, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of CFDs, special assessment districts and other similar Project - related public procedures and institutions for the financing of the construction, improvement or _ acquisition of public infrastructure, facilities, lands and improvements to serve.the Project and its residents, whether located within or outside the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring COUNTY or the COUNTY Board of Supervisors to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds. 3.6.2 OWNER's Participation in Future Public Facilities. This Sectio _ facilities that adequately serve and populations SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 n 3 provides for certain public will be required in order to existing and future residents of the Property and the -25- 4S 88- 272903 surrounding area, and the COUNTY. In addition to the provisions of Section.3.1 and subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, OWNER'shall . participate in the following fee and other programs set forth in this Section 3.6. (A) It is acknowledged by the parties that the Development of the Property in acco =dance with the Governing Policies and Existing band Use Regulations provides for orderly growth in accordance with the policies and goals set forth in the COUNTY General Plan, including its Growth Management Program. Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs (B.), (C.) and (D) below, OWNER shall participate, on a pro rata basis as provided for in COUNTY ordinance'Number 3570, in any future fee programs-which are-adopted by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Growth Management Program which include the Project as a portion of the respective area of benefit and which are not in conflict with the express terms of the Development Plan. (B) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (A) above, COUNTY acknowledges that.-.OWNER has dedicated, or agreed to dedicate pursuant to this Agreement, to COUNTY lands to be used for open space and park purposes in an amount in excess of that required to satisfy COUNTY's current and anticipated standards for open space. Therefore, except as provided for in or contemplated by the Governing Policies and this Agreement, OWNER shall be. exempt from any further Development Exactions for open space or park purposes. (C) As set forth in Exhibit D hereto, OWNER has agreed to constructor pay fees to COUNTY to partially fund the construction of fire, sheriff and library facilities. in certain instances, the obligations of OWNER in providing such facilities are in excess of OWNER's pro rata share (and may include, in effect, amounts reflecting benefits to existing development or development anticipated in the distant future) of the costs of such facilities as determined pursuant to COUNTY Ordinance Number 3570. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -26- 04/20/88 44 . 88- 272903 In accordance with Paragraph (A) above, COUNTY may require additional Development Exactions to provide for fire, sheriff and library facilities to service the future residents and populations of the Property; provided, however, that such further Development Exactions with respect to any such facility with respect to the Property shall not exceed in the aggregate more than ten percent (10$) of OWNER's total pro rata share for such facility, as determined in a manner consistent with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3570 and as set forth in Exhibit D, of the amounts specified in Exhibit D as the anticipated cost for such each such facility. (D) The.traffic improvements to be made by or in coordination with the Project exceed what would otherwise be the fair share obligation of the OWNER for such public improvements. More capacity is added to the regional circulation system than required to _ serve the Project's currently anticipated incremental needs. Moreover,the COUNTY has found that this Agreement is a "subsequent. agreement" as that term is used in the portion of Chapter 3., Section E, Transportation Policy 22.of the 1988 'Local Coastal Program and is consistent with the - Implementation Actions Program of the' Development Plan. For traffic impact purposes, said Growth-Management Program is - applied to the Coastal Area as set forth in said Policy 22. 3.6.3 Replacement, Repair, Maintenance and Operation. Except as expressly provided in Section 3.1 to the contrary, the replacement, repair, and maintenance of any of the Public Facilities after the completion'and acceptance thereof by COUNTY and during the term of this Agreement shall not be the subject of a fee with respect to, or a condition of, any Development Approval regarding, and no fee, tax or assessment shall be levied by COUNTY on, any undeveloped lands within the SLMOCDA.023 /110 -27- 04/20/88 45 88 ®272903 Property for any such purposes with respect to such completed and accepted Public Facilities which does not include similarly situated and benefitted developed lands. 3.6.4 No Limitations on Objections. Nothing in this Section 3.6.shall be construed as limiting-OWNER's right to object before the COUNTY Board of Supervisors or judicially to the adoption of the future fee and other programs referred to in Section 3.6.2 or to otherwise take'any action in opposition to the adoption of.any.such programs. 3.6.5 CEOA Compliance. COUNTY has .previously prepared studies, analyses, reports or documents, as required by CEQA regarding the environmental impacts of the MPAH, the Existing Land Use Ordinances, the Existing Development Approvals and this Agreement, including.but. not limited to 'environmental impact reports for Pelican Hill Road, this Agreement and the presently pending .Irvine Coast Master Development permit ' ' .application. Further, COUNTY participated in the CEQA review process of the Irvine. Coast 1988.' Local Coastal Program conducted by the California Coastal Commission. The patties'Acknowledge that further environmental studies, analyses, reports and documents may be required.in connection with future approvals in connection with the Project, regional road network . improvements and the Public. Facilities and that while this Agreement provides assurances to OWNER with respect to the Land Use Regulations. which will. apply to the Development of the Property, this Agreement does not assure,OWNER that it has the right or.that it will be able to construct or develop any portions of the Project or any of the Public Facilities, or that the. COUNTY wily construct or complete the regional road network improvements as currently contemplated or any specific improvements in connection therewith. Further to the foregoing, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, prior to and as a condition precedent to the final decision to construct or develop any of the Public Facilities, any of the regional road network improvements or any portions of the Project, all government permits and approvals SLMOCDA.023 /110 -28- 04/20/88 40 �:'g8�272903 shall be obtained as required by the applicable Regulations,' in accordance with and as provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 (including but not limited to State and federal Regulations), and all environmental studies, analyses, reports and other documents shall be prepared and completed therefor in full and strict compliance with CEQA and other applicable regulations. . 4. REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 4.1 Governing Policies. The following policies set 'forth in this Section 4.1 are consistent with and are provided for in or contemplated by the Existing Land Use ordinances, including the General Plan and the Development Plan. 4.1.1 Permitted Uses. The uses permitted hereunder in accordance with the Existing Land Use Ordinances are as set forth in the Development Plan and include, without limitation, residential uses (including single - family attached and detached and duplex and multiple - family housing), golf course, recreation and parks,.conservation, and tourist commercial uses (including, in addition to hotels and other'overnight'accommodations, the uses described in Chapter 4 of the 1988 Local Coastal Program). 4.1.2 Number of Units. Density and Intensity. The total number of residential dwelling units permitted under this Agreement and the Development Plan is 2,600 and the total number of overnight accommodations is 2150. The intensity and density of development, residential and non- residential, for the various planning areas within the Property are set forth in the Development Plan. Exhibit 2 of the 1988 Local Coastal Program is a Planned Community Statistical Table summarizing the intensity and density of development of the Property by planning area. 4.1.3 Maximum Height and Size of Buildings. The maximum height and size of the buildings Ieithin the Property permitted hereunder in accordance with the Existing Land Use ordinances SLMOCDA.023 /110 -29- 04/20/88 4:F 8 °272903 are as set forth in Chapter 4 of the 1988 Local Coastal Program and said maximum size of any building shall not exceed that permitted under the 1988 Local Coastal Program and the maximum height shall not exceed 105 feet. 4.1.4 As provided in Section 3, OWNER has underta- ken-to dedicate certain lands and fund the construction and conveyance of the Public Facilities to the COUNTY, as well as .participate in the completion of the SJHTC and to provide certain other public benefits as provided in Exhibit D. 4.1.5 Density Increases. COUNTY has expressed interest in ensuring the provision of regional and community level infrastructure, and is pursuing the use of development agreements-as a method whereby a level of assurance can be achieved concerning the service demands within planned communities so that adequate long -range plans for needed infrastructure can be developed and implemented. COUNTY and OWNER acknowledge that the "balancing" of uses within the Project under the-Coastal Act' contemplated that OWNER would have flexibility to establish in the Development Plan.the density of development within the restricted and limited areas available for'development, subject to certain development impact standards being_ observed consistent with the Development Plan. OWNER presently does not intend.•.to apply for any increases in the density or number of residential units within the Property, nor'does OWNER intend to apply for any intensification of uses within the Property which would be inconsistent with or unduly burden existing and planned public facilities and services. 4.1.6 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that the most efficient and economic Development of the Property depends upon numerous factors such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, competition and similar 'factors and that SLMOCDA.023 /110 -30- 04/20/88 42 8P� 272903 generally it will be most economically beneficial to the ultimate purchasers to have the rate of Development determined by OWNER. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984) that the failure of the parties to a development agreement to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative prevailing over those parties' agreement, it is the COUNTY's and the OWNER's desire to avoid any deficiency in this Agreement by acknowledging that, subject to the requirements of the Development Plan and this Agreement, the OWNER shall have the right to develop the Project in any order at any rate and at any times as the OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject to specific phasing requirements for infrastructure provided for in the Existing Land Use Ordinances. Accordingly, the timing, sequencing and phasing of Development shall be as determined by OWNER in its sole subjective business judgment and discretion, provided that said discretion as to rate of development shall be subject to the phasing provisions expressly set forth in the Development Plan, the other Existing Land Use Ordinances (including the Growth Management Program referred to in Section 3.6.2(A)) and the Reservations of Authority, which adequately meet the substantive timing issue addressed by the court in-Camarillo and requirements for correlation of land use and circulation improvements. 4.1.7 Moratoria; Phasing of Development. The parties acknowledge and agree that except as expressly provided in this Section 4, no moratorium, ordinance, resolution, or other Land Use Regulation or limitation on the conditioning, rate, timing or sequencing of the Development of the Property or any portion thereof, however imposed, (including, without limitation, any initiated Land Use Regulation purporting to regulate the rate of development based upon levels of service on roadways, roadway capacities, capacities of draining facilities, capacities of sewer facilities, provision of emergency service, or similar measure) shall apply to or govern the Development of the Property during'the term hereof whether affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, SLMOCDA.023 %110 -31- 04/20/88 49 8' 272903 vesting tentative, or final), building permits, occupancy permits or other entitlements to use issued or granted by COUNTY. In the event of any such subsequent action, OWNER may continue to apply for and receive Development Approvals in accordance with the Existing Land Use _ Regulations, subject only to the exercise of the Reservation of Authority set forth in'Section 4.3 and the terms of this Agreement. Further, the parties acknowledge and agree that as set forth in the recitals of fact above and in-Section 4.4, underlying the balancing of the future uses of the Property accomplished under and pursuant to Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act were the policy determinations that: _ (i)-the open space and other coastal= related resources and benefits obtained under the Development Plan were,, and could only be, obtained by not constraining OWNER further than provided by the 1988 Local Coastal Program and other Governing Policies in the timing of the Development of the Property; (ii) among other - things, such increased coastal - related resources and, benefits, including the construction of major roadway circulation facilities were "traded -off" _ for defined limits regarding certain future transportation requirements; and (,iii) with respect to the phasing of'development, such "balancing" or. "trade- offs" adequately provided for the public health and safety, subject to further changes in circumstances. 4.1.8 Development-txactions. In addition to and not in limitation of the foregoing,' or the provisions of Section 4.2, except and subject to the Reservations of Authority, COUNTY shall not levy or require any further Development Exactions in connection with the Development of the. Property except those provided for in Section 3 or which are provided for, required by or pursuant to the Existing Land Use Regulations (including, but not limited to the existing General Plan and the Development Plan) which include, but are not limited-to, Development Exactions which may be required by COUNTY in accordance with its current subdivision standards and policies (including, without limitation, as to the amount, time and method of payment), subject to the Reservations of Authority. SL240CDA. 023 /110 -32- 04/20/88 150 �.� ()Q t<-! LJVJ COUNTY shall not include the performance of this Agreement or any of OWNER's Obligations hereunder as an express condition of any future approval under applicable Regulations except to the extent that such conditions could be imposed under such Regulations notwithstanding this Agreement. 4.1.9 COUNTY's Environmental Review. In exercising its legislative discretion to enter into this Agreement, COUNTY has reviewed and considered various potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures of the Development Plan including, but not limited.to, the "potential adverse environmental impacts related to future 'grading and land form modification, and the future infrastructure and utility needs of the Project. These needs are exemplified by the potential demands the Project will make on local and regional streets, highways, water capacity and water lines, sewer capacity and sewer lines, storm drainage systems, and related energy conservation, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. The COUNTY has scrutinized with particular care adverse impacts associated with vehicular traffic conditions existing and projected to occur within the COUNTY, and the traffic mitigations and beneficial impacts that will be achieved by the Project. As contained in EIR 486 and in prior - CEQA reviews referenced in EIR 486, the COUNTY has reviewed and considered, making a variety of assumptions, projected future regional and cumulative infrastructure and utility demands that will compete with the Project for available capacities and cumulatively add to potential adverse impacts. In so doing, the COUNTY has considered, among .other things, the possibilities that (i) local, regional, and State plans for provision of new infrastructure systems or expansion of existing infrastructure systems, may be delayed, modified or abandoned; and.(ii) regional, non - Project generated, demands on infrastructure and utility 'improvements to be constructed as a part of the Project may exceed, in the short run or ultimately, the allocated capacities for such demands. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -33- 04/20/88 51 88 2903 After assessing these and other potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the Development Plan, the COUNTY has imposed extensive exactions as a part of the Development Plan. These measures include, among other - things, requiring the OWNER to commit to early and extensive open space dedications and protection programs, 4nd to contribute to more than the Project's fair share of the costs.and dedications for providing infrastructure and utility capacities prior to full completion and occupancy of the Project. In many instances, particularly with respect to recreational uses, open space dedications and-traffic improvements and mitigations, requirements have been imposed on the OWNER substantially in excess of demands generated by the Project itself. In so doing, the COUNTY understands and acknowledges that the open space dedications and infrastructure and utility improvements-are significant and justify the assurances provided to OWNER by this Agreement. The COUNTY has also determined that full completion of the Project will itself constitute, or is needed to contribute to, mitigation of short-term potential adverse environmental impacts and that the public benefits of the Project.oveiride the anticipated adverse environmental impacts of the Project. These determinations have been made based in part upon the paramount values, policies and concerns of the California'Coastal Act. Policies-related to the phased provision of roads, drainage facilities., open space dedication, and public service facilities'-have been considered and, to the extent consistent with achieving the Coastal Act policies advanced by the Development Plan, incorporated into the Project. It is acknowledged that a growth management plan, program or requirement beyond those in the Existing Land Use Ordinances, therefore, may be inconsistent with the achievement of the Coastal Act policies and benefits embodied in the Development Plan. The COUNTY's determination is set forth in the separate environmental findings and statement of overriding benefits made in conjunction with the approval of.Development Plan, EIR 486 and this Agreement. SLMOCDA:023 /110 -34- 04/20/88 52 4.2 REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT. 4.2.1 zn General. Notwithstanding any future action of COUNTY, whether by ordinance, resolution, . initiative or otherwise, during the term of this Agreement, the rules, regulations and official policies applicable to and governing the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations together with amendments and additions adopted pursuant to Section 4.3 or the Reservations of Authority of COUNTY provided in Section 4.3. 4.2.2 Vested Rights. In developing the Property, OWNER is provided and assured the. vested right to require that the Land Use Regulations-of COUNTY applicable to and governing the Development of the Property during the term hereof shall be as provided in this Section 4.2. 4.3 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 4.2 above, in addition to the Existing Land Use Regulations, only the following Land Use Regulations adopted by COUNTY hereafter shall apply to and govern the Development of the Property ( "Reservations of Authority")': 4.3.1 Future Regulations. Future COUNTY Land Use Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan or which are in conflict with the Development Plan and the application of which to the Development of the Project has been consented to in writing by OWNER; 4.3.2 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Existing and future State and federal laws and regulations, together with any COUNTY Land Use Regulations, programs and actions, or inaction, which are reasonably (taking into consideration, among other things, the factors set forth in Paragraph 4.4.3(b)) adopted or undertaken by COUNTY in order to comply with State and federal laws and regulations; provided, SLMOCDA.023/110 -35- 04/20/88 15S. r� 8- 272903 8 that in the event that State or federal "laws and regulations prevent or preclude compliance with _ one or more provisions of this'Agreement, such provisions shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply'with'such State and federal laws-and regulations, in which event this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent that it is not inconsistent with such laws and regulations and that performance of the remaining provisions would not be inconsistent with-the intent and purposes of this Agreement; _ 4.3.3 Public Health and Safety. Land Use Regulations which are adopted by COUNTY, which may be in conflict with the. Governing Policies and which are reasonably necessary, taking into consideration,'among other things, the factors set forth in Paragraph 4.4.3(b), in order to protect the public health and safety; 4.3.4 Building and Improvement Standards. Present and future Building and._Improvement Standards, except that (taking into consideration the assurances to OWNER in this Section 4) any future amendment thereto which significantly reduces the amount of land within the Property which can be-utilized for structures and improvements or significantly increases the amount of open space within the Project under the Development Plan shall not-be considered a. provision of-any of the Building and Improvement Standards included within the exception provided by this Paragraph 4.3.4. and shall not apply to and govern the Development of the Project unless it complies with another exception under this Section 4.3 (such as, for example, Paragraph 4.3.3.); 4.3.5 Processing Fees and Charges. Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed or required by COUNTY under current or future Regulations covering the actual costs of COUNTY in (i) processing applications and requests for permits, approvals and other_ - actions and (ii) monitoring compliance with any permits issued or approvals granted or the performance of any conditions with respect _ SLMOCDA.023 /110 -36- 04/20/88 15 Q thereto or any performance required of OWNER hereunder; and, 4.3.6 Full Extent of Law. The parties acknowledge and agree that COUNTY is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract ,and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and _ exceptions are intended to reserve to COUNTY all of its police power which cannot be so limited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall be construed, contrary to.its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to COUNTY all such power and authority which cannot be restricted -by contract-. 4.4 4.4.-1 Adoption of General Plan and Development Plan• in preparing and adopting the General Plan and the Development Plan, COUNTY considered the health, safety and welfare of the existing and future residents and populations of the COUNTY and prepared in this regard extensive environmental documents and other studies. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in preparing and adopting the-General Plan and Development Plan, the COUNTY Board of Supervisors carefully considered-and determined the projected needs (taking into consideration the planned development of the Project, the region, the COUNTY and adjacent areas) for sheriff,-fire, library, and similar facilities and services within the Project, the region, the COUNTY and adjacent areas, and the projected needs within the .Project and such areas for flood control. measures, the general carrying capacity of the Property, the needs of the residents for open space and parks and the appropriateness of the number. of units to be developed and the density and intensity of the development comprising the Project. The parties acknowledge that the allocation of development within the Property as part of future Development Approvals is subject to various considerations pursuant to the Existing Land Use Regulations such as the earthquake faults discovery, cultural resources or other site specific considerations. SLM0CDA.023 /110 -37- 04/20/88 55 666®272903 4.4:2 Assurances. to OWNER. - The parties further acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, the participation by OWNER in the accelerated and coordinated completion of the Public Facilities, the regional road improve- ments and the financing and construction thereof are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations (subject to the terms of this Agreement). Accordingly, while recognizing that the Development of the Property may be affected by exercise of the Reservations of Authority and the requirement that OWNER participate in future public facilities as set forth in Section 3.6.2, OWNER is concerned that normally the Courts extend to local agencies significant deference in the adoption of Land Use Regulations which might permit COUNTY to attempt to apply inconsistent Land Use Regulations in the future under the guise of the Reservations of Authority or the COUNTY's authority.to require OWNER's participation under Section 3.6.2. Accordingly, OWNER desires assurances that COUNTY will not attempt to further restrict or limit the Development of the Property in conflict with the provisions of Section 4.1 and 4.2 except in strict accordance.with the Reservations of Authority or Section 3.6.2.' 4.4.3 Judicial Review. (a) Burdens of Proof. Based on the foregoing, in the event OWNER judicially challenges (including the procedure pursuant to- Section 11.5) the application of a future Land Use. Regulation as (A) being in conflict with "Section 4.2 and as (B) exceeding or violating the Reservations of Authority or Section 3.6.2, OWNER shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that such Regulation was applied in conflict with the- Governing Policies. In the event that OWNER bears its burden of proof and establishes that such Regulation is in conflict with the Governing Policies, COUNTY shall thereafter bear the SLMOCDA.-023 /110 -38- 04/20/88 150 burden'of proof in establishing that such Regulation was adopted pursuant to and in _ accordance with Section 3.6.2 or the Reservations of Authority. (b) Considerations. Considerations, among others, in determining whether any such future COUNTY Land Use Regulation was properly applied pursuant to the Reservations of Authority shall include: (i) with respect to any future Land Use Regulations adopted by COUNTY pursuant to paragraphs 4.3.3 (with respect to the protection of public health and'safety) or 4.3.2 (with respect to federal and state regulation), the extent to which such regulation substantially impairs the rights of OWNER under Section 4.2, and is (A) to be unreasonably borne only by OWNER and the Project (taking into consideration the obligations of OWNER under this Agreement) rather than being also borne by other lands and interests, or (B) unreasonable taking into . consideration other reasonable and practicable alternatives; and (ii) with respect to any future Land Use Regulations adopted pursuant to Paragraph 4.3.2.(with respect to the protection of public health and safety): (A) Whether, and the extent to which, the concerns which are the subject of the proposed Land Use.Regulation were considered and /or provided for in the 'adoption of the Existing Land Use Regulations or this Agreement; and (B) The greater the severity of the adverse impact of the Land Use Regulation on the reasonable Economic SLMOCDA.023 /'110; -39- 04/20/88 57 ®272903 Expectations of OWNER (taking into consideration the extent of any mitigation of such impacts provided by COUNTY in connection with such Regulation, for example, by the transfer of development density), the greater the showing required of COUNTY that the 'concerns addressed are legitimate and that such Regulation is reasonable taking into consideration such concerns. it is acknowledged by the parties that in balancing the uses-to be provided for in the Development Plan under the Coastal Act, COUNTY and the Coastal Commission favored _ and promoted those .uses. which are expressly addressed and required to be provided for in the Coastal Act' including, but not limited to, coastal access, open.space, wildlife resources and the environment and were relatively restrictive with respect to other. uses, such as, for example, lands available - for residential, non tourist, commercial and local active park purposes. Further, in some -cases, standards and requirements for - roads were restricted and minimized in favor of providing for certain coastal - related uses and benefits. Accordingly, in _ exercising the Reservations of Authority, COUNTY shall take into consideration such balancing under-the Coastal Act and that in certain instances it was anticipated that a - lower level of satisfaction of certain non- coastal related health and safety, concerns was acceptable. - The parties. believe that the foregoing considerations are appropriate under the law _ and are not intended to, and shall not, limit the authority of COUNTY with respect to public health aspects of the police power which. cannot be limited by contract. - Further, said considerations shall be interpreted, supplemented and revised to reflect subsequent judicial determinations and State legislative enactments further defining the extent and nature of the authority of local agencies which must be _ SLMOCDA.023 /110 -40- 04/20/88 152 - PQ17272903 reserved and cannot be limited by contracts such as this Agreement. (c) Administrative Findings and Exhaustion. (i) COUNTY Findings and Determinations. As a condition precedent to applying any Land Use Regulation to the Development of the Property which is in conflict with the Governing Policies, after providing OWNER with reasonable notice and an opportunity'to be heard, COUNTY shall make specific findings and _ determinations as to the basis for applying such Land Use Regulation to the Development of the Property in accordance with Section 4.3. COUNTY shall provide OWNER an opportunity to be heard concerning the application of any Land Use Regulation to the Property which is in conflict with the Governing Policies in addition to any opportunity to be heard provided.under Existing Land Use Regulations concerning adoption of such Land Use Regulation and any.appearance or presentation by OWNER in connection with the adoption thereof shall not be deemed without the written consent of OWNER, to be a waiver or exercise of any rights of- OWNER under this Section 4.4.3(a), (b) or (c) . SIMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 (ii) Exhaustion. As a condition precedent to any claim by OWNER that a proposed land Use Regulation does not comply with the Reservations of Authority and, therefore, cannot be applied to and govern the Development of the Property (whether in a judicial proceeding or otherwise), OWNER shall raise the claim no later than the time at which the proposed Land Use Regulation is considered for application to the development of the Property and shall present all information then in its possession upon which it shall rely or present in any judicial proceeding, ' -41- 159 8 ZT2903 including, but not limited to, information regarding OWNER's Economic _ Expectations, and, in addition, shall provide at such time any further information regarding OWNER's Economic Expectations reasonably requested by - COUNTY. In the event that the proposed Land Use Regulation is of a kind that is not heard by or appealable to the - COUNTY Board of Supervisors and provided that OWNER is given reasonable prior written notice, as a condition precedent to any .such claim, OWNER shall raise the claim and provide the above information as a protest to the agent or representative of COUNTY - promulgating or applying the proposed Regulation.. 4.5 Regulation by Other public'Aaencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of COUNTY possess authority to regulate'aspects of the Development of the Property separately from or jointly with COUNTY and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. For example., pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(i), in the event that an agency such as, for example, a community services district, provides park and recreational services or facilities, it is permitted, and therefore shall be permitted by the parties,-to participate jointly with.COUNTY to determine the location of land to be dedicated or in lieu fees to be paid for local park purposes, provided that COUNTY shall exercise its authority subject to this Agreement. 5. PERIODIC REVIEWS. 5.1 Annual Review. COUNTY and OWNER shall review the performance of this Agreement, and the Development of the Project, at least once -every 12-month period -from the Effective Date. As part of such Annual Monitoring Review, within 30 days after each anniversary of this Agreement, OWNER shall deliver to COUNTY: a. a then current Build -out. Phasing Plan for the Project; and SLMOCDA.023 /110 •-42° ; 04/20/88 -" 00 b. all information reasonably requested by COUNTY (i) regarding OWNER's performance under this Agreement demonstrating that OWNER has complied in good faith with terms of this Agreement and (ii) as required by the Existing Land Use Ordinances. If as a result of such periodic review, COUNTY finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with any of the. terms or conditions of this Agreement, COUNTY may terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 11.2. 5.2 Five -Year General Plan Review. Every five years following the Effective Date, COUNTY intends to conduct a review of the General Plan as it-applies to the Project. OWNER shall cooperate with.COUNTY in.the conducting of this review and in developing mutually acceptable revisions to the General Plan and the Development'Plan pursuant thereto; provided, however, that neither COUNTY nor OWNER shall have any obligation to agree to such changes. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS. 6.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant. The rights and interests conveyed and provided . herein to OWNER benefit and are appurtenant to the .Property. OWNER has the right to -sell, assign and transfer any and all of its_ rights and interests and t:o del-egate any and all of its duties and obligations hereunder; provided, however,_ that such rights and interests may not be transferred or assigned except in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (i) Said rights and interests may be transferred or assigned only together with and as an incident of the transfer and assignment of the portions of the Property to which they relate; and (ii) Concurrent with any such assignment or transfer or within five (5) business days thereafter, OWNER shall notify COUNTY in writing of such assignment or transfer, the portions of _ the Property to. which the assignment or transfer is appurtenant,.and the name and address (for purposes of notices hereunder) of the transferee SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 -43- 0- r : ,x,:.88- 27'2903 or assignee, together with the corresponding number of .dwelling units which are included ; -- within such transfer and OWNER and the assignee or transferee shall notify COUNTY whether the assignee or transferee has assumed any of OWNER's Obligations under this Agreement and which of OWNER's Obligations have been assumed. A failure of OWNER to strictly comply with subsection 6.1(ii) shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement. COUNTY shall have no duty or obligation of any kind or nature to maintain a record of such transfers or assignments of portions of the Property or numbers and allocations of units involved or to notify.or advise prospective or actual assignees or transferees or others of such assignments or the resulting allocation of units woith respect to the Property or under this Agreement. 6.2 Allocation of Densitv. It is acknowledged that the density of development provided by the Governing Policies may be distributed by OWNER disproportionately throughout the Property in accordance with and subject to the Existing Land Use Regulations. COUNTY shall not be obligated to the successors of OWNER to advise or ?` notify any such successor or any other person as to the density of development allowed under this Agreement or any of the Land Use Regulations with respect to any particular portion. of the'Property; - provided, however, that COUNTY shall upon the request of OWNER enter into further agreements in accordance with the then applicable Land Use Regulations in a _ recordable form allocating to the various portions of the Property the then allowable density of units pursuant-to the Governing Policies. ' Such an Agreement may, with the mutual agreement of the parties, provide for the assumption of certain of OWNER's obligations hereunder and the allocation of the benefits and burdens of this Agreement. The costs and expenses of - COUNTY in considering and responding to any such request shall be borne, paid and reimbursed to COUNTY by OWNER forthwith upon the request of COUNTY. _ 6.3 Subiect to Terms of Agreement. Following any such assignment or transfer of any of the rights and interests.of OWNER under this Agreement, the exercise, use and enjoyment thereof shall continue to be subject to the terms of this - SLMOCDA.023 /110 -44- 04/20/88 02 !r Agreement to the same extent as transferee were OWNER. Without generality of the foregoing, �;� 22903 if.the assignee or limiting the. (i) in order to.claim or benefit from any right or interest hereunder or provision hereof (including but not limited to the rights of OWNER under Section 11), any subsequent assignee or transferee shall have no right, and shall be obligated not, to claim damages from or against COUNTY under Section 11; (ii) the further assignment or transfer of any. of the rights or interests under this Agreement shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms.of this Section 6; and (iii) The rights and interests assigned or transferred are subject to termination in' accordance with this.Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the assignee or transferee of any of the rights and interests of OWNER shall take said rights and interests subject'to this Agreement and shall have no'duty or obligation to perform OWNER's Obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER .under this Agreement unless such obligations and-covenants are expressly assumed-in connection with the conveyance of said rights and interests. 6.4 Release of OWNER. Notwithstanding the.assignment or transfer of portions or all of the Property or rights or interests under this Agreement, OWNER shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless released or partially released by COUNTY with respect to OWNER's Obligations and the other duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement, pursuant to. this Paragraph 6.4, which release or partial release shall be provided by COUNTY upon the full satisfaction by OWNER of the following conditions: (i) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement; OWNER has provided COUNTY with the written notice required under paragraph 6'.1.; and (iii) Such assignee or transferee-has assumed such duties and obligations as to which OWNER is SLMOCDA.023 /110 -45- 04/20/88 o3 88 ®272903 requesting to be released and has .provided COUNTY with security'and other assurances equivalent to those which were provided by OWNER assuring COUNTY that OWNER's Obligations and the other duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement for which OWNER is being released will be fully and strictly performed as provided in this Agreement. - 7. ANNEXATION AND INCORPORATION. Upon the incorporation or annexation of the Property in or to any city or other.county (the "Local Agency "), such Local Agency, as contemplated by and provided in Section 65865.3 (a) of the Development Agreement Legislation (iaith respect �_o incorporation) shall succeed to the benefits and rights and be bound by the obligations and duties of COUNTY hereunder to the same extent as if the - Local Agency were a signatory hereof, including but not limited to the obligation to issue necessary permits and approvals in accordance herewith; provided, however, and _ except that COUNTY'shall continue to be a beneficiary with respect to the OWNER's Obligations, other than with respect to the improvement San Joaquin Hills Road west of Pelican Hill Road in excess of four lanes, under this Agreement and may enforce the provisions hereof with respect thereto. Notwithstanding.the foregoing:-(i)'upon any such annexation or incorporation, this Agreement shall not be terminated; amended, modified or cancelled with respect to OWNER's Obligations without the prior written approval and consent of COUNTY and any attempt to do so _ shall be null and void and of no force and. effect; and (ii) if OWNER's rights pursuant to this Agreement are terminated or suspended as a result of such incorporation or annexation, OWNER's Obligations shall be terminated or' - suspended, as applicable. TERM OF AGREEMENT. 8.1 Stated Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall continue in effect until December 31, 2008. In the event that the parties determine that a longer period is necessary to achieve the foregoing purpose, the term of the Agreement may be extended by the further written - agreement of the parties in accordance with Section 9. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -46- 04/20/88 04 8.2 Riahts and Duties Following Termination: Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder. except with respect to any obligations to have been performed prior to said termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to said termination. 8.3. Option to Terminate Agreement. _ Notwithstanding the term of this Agreement as provided in this.Section 8, OWNER shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with and subject to the provisions of and conditions precedent set forth in this Section 8.3. 8.3.1' Failure to Form CFD or Assessment District. In the event that OWNER has delivered to COUNTY and recorded the irrevocable offer to dedicate the right -of -way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as provided in Exhibit D hereto and has fully and in good faith cooperated with COUNTY (including providing'its consent thereto or affirmative vote in . connection therewith).and COUNTY has not by January 1, 1989 formed a CFD and /or one or more special assessment districts which are authorized to'issue bonds sufficient in amount to fund the Owner's Obligations described in Exhibit D hereto with respect to the construction of Pelican Hill Road, Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, and the sheriff, fire.and library facilities, which are repayable from special taxes or benefit assessments on all or portions of the Property, OWNER may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement by written notice to COUNTY delivered prior to February 1, 1989. Notwithstanding any such termination, said irrevocable offer of dedication shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. COUNTY shall not be required, to include lands other than lands owned by the OWNER in the CFD or special assessment district. 8.3.2. Application of Conflicting Provisions. In the event that OWNER has delivered to COUNTY and recorded the irrevocable offer to dedicate the right -of -way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as provided in Exhibit D hereto and COUNTY applies within seven (7) years of the Effective Date SLMOCDA.023 /110 -4.7- 04/20/88 0S any Land Use Regulation to the development of the Property which is in conflict with the Governing Policies and which would effect a moratorium on or would significantly slow the development of.the Property, OWNER may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement by written notice to COUNTY delivered - within sixty'(60) days of the date of said application. 'Notwithstanding any such termination,' said irrevocable offer of dedication shall remain'in - full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 9. AMENDMENT Subject to the provisions of Section 7 and Section 11, this Agreement may be amended or cancelled. only by the mutual agreement of the parties in accordance with Government Code Section 65868, in' a writing executed by the parties and recorded in the official records of COUNTY. 10. PROCESSING OF REQUESTS AND APPLICATIONS. COUNTY shall process any and all applications for action pursuant to.this Agreement,•and for any and all permits (including without limitation building permits) or approvals for Development of the Property requested by OWNER or any successor or assignee, including any building /developer, under the procedures for the processing of applications. for. such applications which are then in effect;' provided, however, as provided in Section 4, no subsequently adopted Regulation (including, without limitation, any moratorium or other phasing of development) shall be applicable and delay the acceptance or processing of any such application, except as. adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the Reservations of Authority. As provided above, the standards applied in approving or disapproving such applications shall be as set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations, subject to the Reservations of Authority. 11. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.' 11.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that COUNTY would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect to this - Agreement or the application thereof. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue _ any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision. of this Agreement; except that COUNTY shall not be liable in damages to OWNER, or to any SLMOCDA.023 /110 °48- 04/20/88 - assignee, transferee OWNER covenants not for: '88 °272903 of OWNER or any other person, and to sue for-or claim any damages, (A) any breach of, or which arise out of, this Agreement; (B) the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided hereunder.or pursuant hereto; or (C) arising out of or connected with any 'dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement; _ provided, however, that the foregoing does not, limit the liability of COUNTY, if any, for damages which: (A) are not for a breach of this.Agreement or which do not arise under this Agreement; (B)' are not with respect to any right or interest conveyed or provided..hereunder or pursuant hereto, and . (C) do not arise out of or which are not connected with any dispute-, controversy or issue regarding the application, . interpretation or effect of the provisions of this - Agreement -to, on -or the application .of any Regulation of COUNTY. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and as an example, in the event that COUNTY refuses to issue building permits under and in accordance with a Vesting Tentative Map issued by COUNTY, OWNER would be entitled to whatever remedies at law or in equity which are available, including, if available under law, the right to monetary damages. 11.2 Termination of Aareement for Default of OWNER. COUNTY in its discretion may terminate this Agreement for any failure of OWNER.to perform'any material duty or obligation of OWNER under, or to comply in good faith with the terms of, this Agreement (hereinafter. referred to as "default ") * provided, however, COUNTY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after providing written notice to OWNER of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if 'any, required by OWNER to SLMOCDA.023 /110 -49- 04/20/88 07 g8m272903 cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently.proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 11.3 Termination of Agreement for Default of COUNTY. OWNER in its discretion may terminate this Agreement by written notice to COUNTY only after the default by COUNTY in the performance of a material term of this-Agreement and written notice by OWNER thereof to COUNTY andq where the default can be cured, the failure of COUNTY to cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30'day period, the failure of COUNTY to commence to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and to 'cure such default. 11.4 Snecific Performance. The parties acknowledge that money.damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance is a particularly appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available: to both parties based on the following reasons and facts: (i) the unavailability of money damages against COUNTY provided in Section 11.1 hereinabove; (ii) OWNER's obligations provided for in Section 3 were bargained for by COUNTY and given in return for assurances by COUNTY to 'OWNER regarding the Regulations that would be applicable to the Development of the Property, which assurances were in turn relied upon by OWNER in undertaking OWNER's Obligations; (iii) due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun; after such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from SLMOCDA.023 /110 ^-50- 04/20/88 02 88- 272903 other choices it may.have had to utilize the Property, or portions thereof, and provide other benefits; OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and.processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sums of money -which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts; (iv) the inability of OWNER to recover and receive back its capitai. investment in.the Regional Road Network Improvements and Public Facilities to be provided to COUNTY as part of OWNER's Obligations and to replan and provide for different uses of the Property once such facilities and infrastructure have been completed; (v) the use of the Property for the purposes and uses described in the Development Plan is unique; and (v.i) the critical public need and concern for the Regional Road Network Improvements and other major facilities and infrastructure to be provided by OWNER as part of OWNER's Obligations as well as for the benefits that can be obtained from the long -term and comprehensive planning and stability contemplated by the Development Agreement Legislation. Further, the parties acknowledge that for the reasons set forth above (particularly because of the lack of money damages available to OWNER), in connection with any judicial proceeding regarding the performance of this Agreement, rights, or the interests and duties of the parties hereunder, including a proceeding pursuant to Section 11. 5, it is appropriate for, and the parties shall cooperate in requesting '(whether by stipulations or otherwise) , the court with jurisdiction, to proceed expeditiously and to retain jurisdiction until the underlying conflict or dispute has been fully resolved'. SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 -51- 09 11.5 Appointment of Referee. 8U ®272803 As an alternative procedure hereunder, a party initiating legal action hereunder may request that the action be heard by a reference from the Orange County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638 &t sea. OWNER and COUNTY, in such case, shall use their best efforts to agree upon a-single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable . relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before him. If OWNER and COUNTY are unable to agree upon a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either party, either party may seek to have a referee appointed pursuant to Section 640 of the Code of Civil Procedure., The cost pf such proceeding (exclusive of the attorneys fees and cost of the parties) shall be' borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected. pursuant to this -Section .11.5 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. In the event that an alternative method of resolving disputes concerning the application, enforcement or interpretation of development agreements is provided by legislative or judicial action after the Effective Date, the parties may, by mutual agreement, select such alternative method. 12. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. 12.1 Litigation. As set forth above, COUNTY has determined that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and that the General Plan meets all of the legal requirements of State law. OWNER has reviewed the General Plan and concurs with COUNTY's determination. The parties acknowledge that: (i) presently there is litigation challenging the legality, validity and adequacy of certain provisions of the General Plan; (ii) in the future there may be other similar challenge's to such provisions of the General Plan as well as others; and (iii) if successful, such challenges could delay or prevent the performance of this Agreement and the Development of the Property. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -52- 04/20/88 70 r 88- 272903 In addition to the other provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of Section 11, COUNTY shall not be liable for damages under this Agreement caused by.the failure of COUNTY to perform under this Agreement or the inability of OWNER to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan or this Agreement as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or-at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are-invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law. 12.2 Revision of General Plan. If for any reason the General Plan or any part thereof it- hereafter judicially determined as provided above to be invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with the State or federal Constitutions, laws or. regulations, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and upon the adoption or amendment of any General'Plan provision which is necessary in order to comply with State or federal Constitutions, laws or regulations to cure such invalidity or inadequacy, together with any amendments of the Development Plan and the Land Use Regulations which'are necessary in order to comply with such'new or revised General Plan, the reference in Section 4 to the'General Plan shall thereafter mean and refer to such new or amended General Plan, Development Plan and Land Use Regulations. 12.3 Suspension of Obligations. In the event that Development of the Property is enjoined or prevented from proceeding by any judicial order or determination in connection with the determinations regarding the General Plan referred to above and the subsequent proceedings with respect thereto, the time for performance of the obligations of the parties hereunder shall be extended as provided in Section 16.11. 12.4 Litigation Regarding Agreement. In the event that adoption of this Agreement or the validity thereof or any aspect of the implementation thereof is subjected to legal challenge by any person not a party to this Agreement, and COUNTY elects to defend the Agreement, OWNER shall reimburse COUNTY for its reasonable litigation expenses, including, but not limited to attorneys SLMOCDA.023 /110 -53- 04/20/88 71 �88- 272903 fees, court costs and staff time, incurred in connection with such defense. COUNTY shall provide - OWNER with a statement of its litigation expenses on a monthly or other regular basis and OWNER shall reimburse COUNTY -in full within sixty (60) days of receipt of each such statement.' In the.event that COUNTY is providing a similar defense for other development agreements, the cost of defense shall be allocated equitable, as reasonably determined by COUNTY in its sole discretion. 13. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. Either party may at any time, and from-time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this.Agreement'is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, and if-so amended, identifying the amendments, and (iii)' the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof. The Director of the Environmental Management Agency of COUNTY shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by OWNER S hereunder. COUNTY acknowledges that a certificate - hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. In accordance with Section 11, COUNTY shall have no liability for monetary damages to OWNER, any Transferee or _ Mortgagee, or any other person in connection with, resulting from or based upon the issuance of any certificate hereunder. 14. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON TITLE.. 14.1 Covenants Run With The Land. Subject to the provisions of sections 6 and 15: (i) All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their-respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, - administrators, representatives, lessees, and all other.persons acquiring any rights or interests in - SLMOCDA.023 /110 -54- 04/20/88 72 s ^J 88 ®272903 the Property, or'any portion thereof, whether by operation of laws or in any manner whatsoever and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger,. consolidation or otherwise) and assigns; (.ii) All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to' applicable law; (iii) Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property, hereunder (A) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property,.(B),runs with such lands and (C) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any ,portion thereof, and each 'person having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such lands, or any portion thereof; and shall benefit each party and its lands hereunder, and each other person succeeding to' an interest in such lands. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing or in this Agreement to the contrary, any assignee or- transferee or Mortgagee which acquires any right or interest in or with respect to the.Property or any portion thereof shall take and hold such rights and interests subject to this "Agreement and shall not have been deemed- to'have assumed the OWNER's Obligations of the other affirmative duties and obligations of OWNER hereunder except: (i) to the extent that any of such assignees, transferees or mortgagees have expressly assumed any of the duties or obligations of OWNER hereunder; (ii) if any such assignee, transferee or mortgagee accepts, holds, or attempts to exercise or enjoy the rights or interests of OWNER hereunder, it shall have assumed the obligations of OWNER under Sections 3.2 and 11; and SLMOCDA.023 /110 -55- 04/20/88 88 °272903 to the extent that the performance of _ any.duty or obligation-by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performances of a covenant by COUNTY, it shall continue to be a condition to COUNTY's performance hereunder. 14:2 No Dedication. or Lie Nothing herein shall be construed as a dedication or transfer of any right or interest in, or as creating a lien with respect to, the title to the Property. 14.3 Termination Upon Final Sale. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of this Agreement shall _ terminate as to any lot which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk ") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to.the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from and no- longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall" continue.to run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall terminate as to such lot. 15. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE. 15.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion _ thereof, .including the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect'to the Property or any portion thereof, by a Mortgagee (whether under or - pursuant to a Mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise) , shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. STMOCDA.023 /110 -56-• 04/20/88 74 - 88 ®272903 15.2 .Mortgagee Not Obligated., Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform Owner's Obligations or other affirmative-covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; except that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition to the performance of a covenant by COUNTY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to COUNTY's performance hereunder. 15.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If COUNTY receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given OWNER hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, and records a copy of each request in the official records of COUNTY in the manner required under.Civil Code Section 2924b with respect.to Requests for Notices of Default, then COUNTY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to OWNER, any notice given to OWNER with respect to any claim-by COUNTY that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement or has dommitted an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from COUNTY to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the claim to default or noncompliance set forth in the COUNTY's' notice. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall'seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through fore- closure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or noncompliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession.. If any such default or noncompliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as -may be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such default or noncompliance if such Mortgagee commences cure during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure. 15.4 Bankruntcv. Notwithstanding.the foregoing provisions of Section 15, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 -57- 715 N 88m272903 appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof by any processor injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving OWNER, the times specified in Section 15.3 for ,commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 16. MISCELIM SOUS PROVISIONS. 16.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation hereof shall be recorded in the Official Records of COUNTY by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. 16.2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein-and no testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 16.3 Severability. If any term, provision,'covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of. this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into 'consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 16.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 16.5 Section Headings. All section headings and - subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. SLMOCDA.023 /110 -58- 04/20/88 70 - 88- 272903 16.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 16.7 Joint and Several Obligations. if any obligation of OWNER hereunder.to COUNTY is the obligation of more than one person, such obligation and any liability with respect thereto shall be joint and several among the obligees. 16.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the. essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.. 16.9 Waiver. Failure by a party, to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's _ right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other -party with. the terms of this Agreement . thereafter. 16.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The only parties to this Agreement are OWNER and COUNTY. There are no third party beneficiaries and this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to benefit or be enforceable by any other person whatsoever. 16.11 Force Maieure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond such party's control, government regulations, court actions-(such as restraining orders or injunctions) or other causes beyond such party's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of _ this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder shall -be extended by the period. of time that such events SLMOCDA.023 /110 _59- 04/20/88 R1. 88 °272903 prevented such performance provided that the-term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any - circumstances for more than five (5) years nor for a period which `could violate the rule against perpetuities. 16.12 Attorneys Fees. In any action or undertaking to enforce the provisions of this'Agreement, each of the parties hereto shall bear its own attorneys fees. 0 16.13 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the - concurrent or subsequent performance'by the party benefitted thereby the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefitted. party. _ 16.14 Notices. All notices required or'provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent certified mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: - If to COUNTY: Orange COUNTY Board.of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Attn: Clerk If to OWNER: The Irvine Company 500 Newport Center Drive' P. O. Box 1 Newport Beach, California 92658 Attn: Peter D. Zeughauser, Esq. with a copy to: Latham & Watkins 650 Town Center Drive Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attn: Robert K. Break, Esq. Any notice given as required herein shall be deemed given seventy -two (72) hours after deposit in SLMOCDA.023 /110 -60- 04/20/88 72 the United States mail or upon receipt. A party may change its address for notices'by, giving notice in writing to the other party as required herein and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 16.15 Successors and Assicm s. The-terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure-to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. 16.16 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts which counterparts shall be construed . - together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the•same.instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first set forth above. AMID) THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigjn corporat By: i r V ce President, rc Entitlement - By: \- APP Pe D ughau er, v Assistant Secr ary. n SLMOCDA.023 /110 -61- 04/20/88 79 : 88` 2903 COUNTY: . THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision of the State of California- _ ' m By: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Attet: SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN _ DELIVERED TO'THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. By: LINDA D. ROBERTS o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of - Orange, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ADRIAN KUYPER, County Counsel ORANGE COU TY, 1X0 IA - By: i Jo rTL,.AZRSEN R. Griset, Depu y SIEMC., & , Special Counsel By: SLMOCDA.023 /11.0 -62- 04/20/88 _ g� f; .L� 8641272903 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this � day of May, 1988, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said. State, personally appeared Gary Hunt and Peter D. Zeughauser, personally known to me, or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the persons who executed the within instrument'as Senior Vice President, Resource Entitlement and Assistant Secretary,- respectively, on behalf of THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, the corporation named therein, and acknowledged to rE that said corporation executed the within. instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. WITNESS my'hand and official seal. SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 � �4 �� Notary Public- in and for said'County and State -63- R- OFFICIAL SEAL "���• MICHAELA KAY HERRELL NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNLA ORANGE COUNTY W MY Comm. Expirua May 11. 1990 SLMOCDA.023 /110 04/20/88 � �4 �� Notary Public- in and for said'County and State -63- R- r' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 88 '4272903 On this 3AA day of 17?2A , 1988, before me, Louise Schulz, personally appeaLINDA D. ROBERTS, known to me to be the Clerk of Board of Supervisors of the County of orange and known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of the County of Orange pursuant to government Code Section 25103, and acknowledged to me that such political subdivision executed the same by use of an authoirzed .facsimile signature. WITNESS my hand and official seal. N� Notary Public in and for said'County and State Authorized Signature osition Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California OFFiC1Al SEA 25?!'My MOa tary PuhGc . Cali(ama p4 -. g� MhIT 'A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 88-272903 RS 88272903 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRD?'TION Those portions of Blocks 95', 97, 128 through 134, 161 through 167, 180 through 183 and 185, Irvine's Subdivision, in the County of Orange, State of California„ as per map filed in Book 1, page 88, Miscellaneous Record Maps, records of said County', described as follows: PARCEL 1: - Beginning at the most Southerly corner of the "Cameo Highland Annex" to the City of Newport Beach, said corner being the Northeast right -of -way line of Pacific Coast Highway as described in a deed to the State of California recorded May 20, 1931 in'Book 487, page 1, Official Records of said County; thence along the boundary of said City of Newport Beach the following 'described courses: 12' 20" - 1. N. 40 30' 20" E. ' 364.00 feet; 2. N. 26- 47' 20" E. 465.00 feet; 3. N. 2- 12' 20" E. 387.00 feet; 4. 'N. 85 00' 40" W. 190.00 feet; S. N. 71- 34' 40" W. 174.00 feet; 6. N. 56- 17" 40" W. 53.96 feet; - 7. N. 18- 25' 20" E. 109.15 feet; S. N. 49- 27' 44" W. 225.00 feet; 9. S. 33- 42' 20" W. 132.05.feet; 1.0. N. 56- 17' 40" W. 540.87 feet; 11. N. 59 47' 40" W. 410.00 feet; 12. N. 70- 35' 10" W. 271.93 feet; 13. N. 2 . W 00" W. 239.20 feet; - 14. N. 12 45' 00 ". W. 194.77 feet; 15. N. 22- 15' 00" W. 406.53 feet; _ 16. N. 0 45' 00" E. 365.18 feet; gJ� �. � �� 88 ®272903 ' • .. .. 17. Leaving said boundary N. 6" 52' 40" E. 460.72 feet to an angle point in the boundary of said City of Newport Beach; 18. N. 89- 57' 20" E. 660.00 feet along said boundary; 19. N. 40 57' 20" E. 1320.00 feet; 20. N. 24- 57' 20" E. 1680.00 feet; 21. S. 89- 02' 40" E. 1050.00 feet; 22. N. 7 57' 20" E. 460.11 feet; 23. Leaving said boundary S. 53- 56' 31" E. 739.57 feet; 24. S. 64 41' 46" E. 558.75 feet; 25. S. 77" 20' 6" E. 435.44 feet; 26. N. 87 24' 44" E . ;47.07 feet; 27'. N. 75-.49' 12" E. 943.68 feet; 28. N. 63- 01' 07" E. 644.43 feet; 29. S. 86" 27' 21" E. 465.31 feet; 30. N. 79- 17' 39" E. 1036.87 feet; 31. N. 87 09' 43" E. 1338.73 feet; 32. N. 76-05' 30" E: 328.20 feet; 33. N. 57-. 17' 54" E. , 446.57 feet; 34. N. 65 01' 42" E. 434.01 feet; ' 35. N. 86- 59' 37" E. 553.17 feet; 36. N. 88- 54' 48" E. 863.22 feet: 37. S. 76" 08' 53" E. 668.82 feet; 38. S. 78 53' 11" E. 404.48 feet; 39. S. 88 34' 10" E. 1138.24 feet; 40. S. 81- 27' 33" E. 968.88 feet; 41. S. 89 21' 53" E. 1984.12 feet; 42. N. 89- 07' 46" E. 1316.15 feet; 43. S. 71" 07' 11" E. 244.14 feet; 44. S. 46" 31' 00" E. 848.19 feet; 45. S. 41 41' 40" E. 538.97 feet; 46. S. 22 14' 31" E. 315.36 feet; 47. S. 38- 33' 52" E. 489.32 feet; 48. S. 24 22' 42" E. 331.27 feet; 49. S. 12 44' 41" W. 337.73 feet; 50. S. 34- 26' 47" E. 410.92 feet; gJ� 88- 272903 51. S. 54 32' 56" E. 526.14 feet; 52. S. 39 06' 59" E. 465.65 feet; 53. S. 66- 44' 19" E. 658.40 feet; 54. N. 83- 28' 38" E. 326.82 feet; 55. S. 60 08' 12" E. 785.39 feet; 56. S. 68- 21' 36" E. 560.20 feet; 57. S. 34 56' 14" E. 457.86 feet; 58. S. 24- 59' 11" E. 227.27 feet; 59. S. 62- 51' 54" E. 1752.88 feet; 60. S. 64- 52' 34" E. 1493.44 feet; 61. S. 60- 59' 36" E. 540f25- feet; 62. S. 49- 25' 35" E. 871.18 feet; 63. S. 66- 26' 24" E. 84.08 feet; 64. S. 64- 24' 04" E. ' 711.68 feet; 65. S. 60- 00' 22" E. 513.59 feet; 66. S. 60- 24' 52 ". E. 1287.83 feet to a point in the boundary of the City of Laguna Beach, said point being in a 425.00 foot radius curve that is concave Easterly, a radial to said point bears N. 89- 291-46" W; thence along said boundary; 67. Southerly 47.30 feet along said curve through a central angle of 6- 22' 38 "; 68. S. 6- 52' 52" E. 264.82 feet; 69. S. 83- 111' 34" W. 228.16 feet; 70. S. 6- 48' 26" E. 443.29, feet; 71. Southerly 149:93 feet along a 345.00 foot radius curve that is concave Westerly through a central angle of 24 54' 00"; 72. S. 18- 05' 34" W. 323.31 feet; 73. Southerly 142.19 feet along•a 1255.00 foot radius curve that is concave Easterly through a central angle of 6- 29' 30"; 74. S. 11- 36' 4" W. 909.28 feet; 75. S. 11- 17' 49" W. 1113.97 feet; 76. S. 12- 52' 49" W. 385.94 feet; 77. Southerly 258.36 feet along a 655.00 foot radius curve that is concave Easterly through a central angle of 22- 36' 00 "; 78. S. 9 43' 11" E. 462.58 feet; goo 79. Southerly 47.78 feet along a 145.00 foot radius curve that is concave Westerly, through a central angle of 18- 52' 45 "; 80. S. 9- 09' 34" W. 1981.77 feet; 81. Southerly 255.54 feet along a 1255.00 foot radius curve that is concave Easterly through a central angle of 11 40' 00 "; 82. S. 2 30' 26" E. 532.31 feet; 83. Southwesterly 261.21 feet along a 195.00 foot radius curve that is concave Northwesterly through a central angle of 76- 45' 00 "; 84. S. 74 14' 34" W. 215.79 feet; 85. Westerly 132.05 feet 'along a 195.00 foot radius curve that is concave Northerly through a central angel of 38- 48' 00"; 86. N. 66' 57' •26" W. 248.29 feet; 87. Westerly 715.71 feet along a 1155.00 foot radius curve that.is concave Southerly through a central angle of 35- 30' 15 "; 88. S. 77- 32' 19" W. 198.05 feet; 89. Southwesterly 227.88 feet along a 555.00 foot radius curve that is concave Southeasterly through a central angle of 23- 31' 30"; 90. S. 54- 00' 49" W. '350.12 feet; 91. Southwesterly 212.42 feet along a 555.00 foot radius curve that is concave Southeasterly through a central angle of 21- 55' 4511;' 92. S. 32- 05' 04" W. 238.45 feet; 93. N. 57" 54' 56" W. 85.00 feet; 94. S. 32 05' 04" W. 400.00 feet; 95. S. 57" 54' 56" E. 85.00 feet; 96. S. 32- 05' 04" W. 274.68 feet; 97. S. 57- 54' 56" E. 230.00 feet; 98. S. 32-'05' 04" W. 346.27 feet; 99. Southerly 374.73 feet along a 925.00 foot radius curve that is concave Easterly through a central angle of 23- 12' 41 "; 100. S. 8- 52' 23" W. 583.75 feet; 101. Southerly 184.42 feet along a 875.00 foot radius 'curve that is concave Westerly through a central angle of 12 04' 34 "; 102. S. 20- 56' 57" W. 68.73 feet; 103. N. 69- 03' 03" W. 60.00 feet; 104. S. 20- 56' 57" W. 300.28 feet; 105. Southwesterly 20.00 feet along a 2945.00 foot radius curve that is concave - Northwesterly through a central angle of 0- 23' 21"; 106. N. 68- 39' 42" W. 70.00 feet along a radial of said curve; g� IPI ` f 88 ®272903 107. S. 35` 58' 04" W. 129.75 feet; 108. S. 66" 07' 57" E. 100.00 feet along a radial of last mentioned curve to the Southwesterly prolongation of said curve; 109. Southwesterly 144.78 feet along said curve through a central angel of 2- 49' 00 "; 110. S. 37" 58' 01" W. 681.41 feet; 111. S. 39" 22' 40" W. 384.76 feet; 112. S. 47- 37' 27" W. 803.58 feet; 113. S. 55 •35' 41" W. 252.44 feet; - 114. S. 42" 47' 6" W. 395.44 feet; 115. S..36- 16' 46" W. 395.53 feet; _ 116. N. 59- 13' 57" W. 90.00 feet; a 117. Westerly 83.78 feet along a 120.00 foot radius curve that is concave Southerly through a central angle of 40" 00' 00 "; - 118. S. 80" 46' 03" W. 106.00 feet; 119. Southwesterly 48.87 feet along a 105.00 foot radius curve that is _ concave Southeasterly through a central angle of 26" 40' 00 "; 120. Northwesterly 255.16 feet along a 110.00 foot radius reverse curve through a central angle of 132 54' 19 "; _ 121: Nontangent N. 12- 52' 23" E. 523.10 feet; 122. N. 0- 05' 03" E. 243.70 feet; 123. N. 25- 54' 57" W. 540.91 feet; 124. S. 56- 05' 03" W. 295.13.feet; 125. S. 89- 03' 33" W. 246.11 feet; - 126. S. 0- 31' 43" W. 160.00 feet; 127. S. 68.01' 27" E. 320.35 feet; _ 128. S. 5- 53' 57" E. 222.62 feet; 129.. S. 27 57' 43" W. 515.46 feet; 130. N. 49- 32' 17" W. 198.04 feet; 131. S. 40 31' 43" W. 543.84 feet; 132. N. 56- 21' 01" W. 148.13 feet; 133. N. 49- 28' 17" W. 264.40 feet; 134. S. 81- 20' 43" W. 131.76 feet; - 135. N. 49- 28' 17" W. 1480.30 feet; 136. S. 40- 46' 43" W. 1180.11 fee° 137. N, 53 23' 21" W. 22.86 feet; 138. N. 67- 03' 17" W. 36.00 feet to a point on a nontangent curve 0 SO r 88- 27290 1..., 179:88 foot radius curve that is concave Northwesterly, a radial to said point bears S. 67- 03' 17" E; 139. Southwesterly 57.32 feet along said curve through a central angle of 18- 15' 33" to a point on a nontangent 30.00 foot radius curve that is concave Southeasterly, a radial to said point bears N. 29- 50' 31"; 140. Southwesterly 73.84 feet along said curve through a central angle of 141- '01' 29" to the beginning of a 15.00 foot radius reverse curve that is concave Westerly; 141. Southerly 16.66 feet along said curve through a central angle of 63- 38' 11" to the Southwest line and said Block 183; 142. N. 49- 28' 17" W. 551.10 feet along said Southwest line and said boundary of the City of Laguna Beach; 143. Leaving said Southwest line N. 24 51' 03" W. 79:61 feet; 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149 150 N. 0- 55' 17" W. 40.00 feet; S. 89- 04' 43" W. 95.39 feet to said Southwest line; N. 49- 28117" W. 2133.40 feet along said Southwest line to the West' corner of said Block 183. Leaving said boundary N. '49- 28' 13" W. 2597.84 feet along the Northeast line of said Block 164, being in part the Northeast line of Tract No.. 3125 as per map filed in Book 98, pages 9 through 11, Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County, to the most Northerly corner of said Tract; S. 40- 30' 55" W. 1167.32 feet along the Northwest line of said Tract to an angle point in the boundary of the Cameo 'Cove Annexation to the City of Laguna Beach; Along said boundary, N. 53- 23' 40" W. 672.23 feet; N. 62- 03' 40" W. 1009.13 feet; 151. S. 27- 56' 20" W. 700.00 feet; to the Northeasterly right -of -way 29 line of said, Pacific Coast Highway; 152. Leaving said boundary and along said right -of -way line, N. 62- 03' 40" W. 88.01 feet; 153. Northwesterly 612.86 feet along a 1450.00 foot radius_ curve that is concave Northeasterly through a central angle of 24 13' 00 "; 154. N. 37- 50' 40" W. 445.69 feet: 155. Northwesterly 374.79 feet along a 2050.00 foot radius_ curve that is concave Southwesterly through a central angle of 10 28' 30 "; 156. N. 48- 19' 10" W. 1097.18 feet; 157. Northwesterly 383.83 feet along a 1450.00 foot radius curve that is concave Northeasterly through a central angle of 15 - 10' 00";- 158. N. 33- 09' 10" W. 119.30 feet; 159. Northwesterly 518.96 feet along a 1550.00 foot radius curve that is 29 PARCEL 2: That portion of said Blocks 131 and 164 that is bounded on the Southwest by the line of Ordinary high Tide of the Pacific Ocean, on the Southeast by the Northwesterly boundary of the land described in a deed to the Irvine Cove Co=unity'Association recorded July 5, 1974 in Book 11189, Page 1323 of Official Records of said Orange County and the Northerly line of Tract 4655, ' as per map filed in Book 192, Pages 1 through 3, - Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County, on the Northeast by the Southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway, 100.00 feet wide, as described in _ a deed to the State of California, recorded May 20, 1931 in Book 487, Page 1, said Official Records, and on the Northwest by the Northwest line of said Block 131. an g8m27�90�: - concave Southwesterly through a central angle of 19- 11' 10 "; 160. N. 52- 20' 10" W. 2498.67 feet; 161. Northwesterly 679.63 feet along a 4950.00 foot radius curve that is concave Northeasterly through a central angle of 7- 52' 00 "; 162. N. 44" 28' 10" W. 1966.20 feet; 163. Northwesterly 856.24 feet along a 1950.00 foot radius curve that is concave Northeasterly through a central angle of 25- 09' 30 "; 164. N. 19-.18' 40" W. 399.81 feet; _ 165. Northwesterly 1079.94 feet along a 2050.00 foot radius curve that is concave Southwesterly through a central angle of 30- 11' 00"; 166. N. 49 29' 40" W. 5467.56 feet to o the point of beginning. - PARCEL 2: That portion of said Blocks 131 and 164 that is bounded on the Southwest by the line of Ordinary high Tide of the Pacific Ocean, on the Southeast by the Northwesterly boundary of the land described in a deed to the Irvine Cove Co=unity'Association recorded July 5, 1974 in Book 11189, Page 1323 of Official Records of said Orange County and the Northerly line of Tract 4655, ' as per map filed in Book 192, Pages 1 through 3, - Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County, on the Northeast by the Southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway, 100.00 feet wide, as described in _ a deed to the State of California, recorded May 20, 1931 in Book 487, Page 1, said Official Records, and on the Northwest by the Northwest line of said Block 131. an 06-272901- =IBIT B PLANNING HISTORY 9-T . �8�272903 EXHIBIT B (Planning History) PROJECT HISTORY AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Three previous EIRs have addressed development of the Irvine Coast and related infrastructure. EIR #134, certified in August, 1976, analyzed a development with 12,000 residential units and local commercial, tourist recreation, open space, and recreation, open space, and recreation uses. EIR #237, certified in December, 1980, addressed a General Plan Amendment which significantly changed the project. The Land Use Plan in EIR #237 evaluated a maximum of 2,000 dwelling units an 3,528 acres, 160 acres of tourist recreation /commercial, and 5,709 acres of public and private recreation /open space. EIR #460, certified in September, 1987,' addressed Pelican Hill Road inside and outside the coastal zone (extending from Pacific-Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard). In addition to the previous EIRs, a Land Use Plan (LUP) was prepared for the Irvine Coast as part of the County's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The California Coastal Commission's certification of the, Irvine Coast LUP in January, 1982, constituted a formal CEQA review (per Section 21080.5, Public Resources Code). The "First Amendment" to the Certified LUP was approved by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors on September 14, 1987, and subsequently approved by the California Coastal Commission on November 19, 1987. The Land Use Plan was then adopted by Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 87 -1606, and the Implementing Actions Program was adopted by County Ordinance No. 3674 on December 2, 1987. The Local Coastal Program was certified by the Coastal Commission on January 14, 1988. Currently on file with the County is EIR #486 covering this Development Agreement and EIR #485 covering the Master Coastal Development Permit. 92 1 _ EXHIBIT C FINDINGS 88- 272903 93 �8 ®272903 EXHIBIT C IRVINE COAST LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FINDINGS OF APPROVAL AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 94 QQ Section I - INTRODUCTION! COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA 6U ®27 2903 Under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") , a plan or other written documentation prepared pursuant to a Certified Regulatory Program "may be submitted in lieu of, 'the environmental impact report required by" CEQA. (Public Resources Code § 21080.5(a).) The California Coastal Commission's regulatory program "involving the preparation, approval, and certification of local coastal programs" has been certified by the Secretary of the Resources Agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15251(f).) The California Coastal Commission has principal responsibility for approving local coastal programs and ensuring compliance with CEQA's equivalency requirements. Consequently, it is the Lead Agency for this project and the County may rely on the local coastal program as the environmental analysis document in approving the project. (CEQA Guidelines $15253.) The County of.Orange is responsible for submitting adequate information to the Coastal Commission to carry out the Commission's responsibilities pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 30510 °30514. Consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5,-30500 -30514 and the applicable CEQA and Coastal Commission guidelines, the County of Orange', in deciding on this project, has considered all the information contained in the First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program, the Appendix, all information and reports contained in the County files for this project, the Pelican Hill Road EIR certified by the Board on September 15., 1987, and all reports and studies submitted in conjunction with the 1982. approved LUP and the 1976 proposed Irvine Coast plan. These documents and the following_ sections describe the project, describe the setting, identify impacts, identify mitigation measures, and • present alternatives. Based on these materials, the Board finds that the program qualifies for certification under Public'Resources Code § 21080.5, and 30500 -30514 and recommends its certification by the California Coastal Commission. The following sections review: (a) Procedural Requirements (Section II); (b) Project Description (Section III); (c) Compliance with Regulatory Program Standards Findings of Consistency with The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Section IV) ; (d) Mitigation•Measures (Section V) ; (e) Alternatives (Section . VI) ; (f) Consultation with Public Agencies -and Citizens (Section VII); and (g) Written Responses to Significant Environmental Points Raised During the Review Process (Section VIII). Section II - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS A. A Draft First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Progra^ published in March 1987. Notice and copies of this document were sent to local and state government agencies affected by. the project, individuals, and interested community groups. The mailing list for this notice is contained in the County's files. 1 /5 88 ®272903` B. Several public meetings were held-to present and discuss the project at which time County staff received comments on the project _ from the public list in.the Response to Comments document. Extensive (. written comments were received from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, The California Department of Fish and Games, the City of Irvine, the City of Laguna Beach, the City. of Newport - Beach, the Friends of the Irvine Coast Coalition and numerous individuals. Written responses were prepared to these comments and published in a document entitled "Response to Comments on the Irvine _ Coast Local Coastal Program First Amendment, July 1987" which is referenced in Section VIII. C. In addition to extensive community briefings and . discussions, numerous meetings have been held involving the County and (1) the Friends of. the Irvine Coast; (2) the California. Coastal Commission staff; (3) the California Department of Parks and Recreation; *(4) the California Department of Fish and Game; and (5) the landowner to discuss and resolve issues and concerns raised by the project. Changes incorporated in the project since initial publication of the Draft First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program reflect the cooperative and mutual resolution of comments raised.by these interested parties (a copy of these plan modifications is set forth.in Section V). Section III — PROJECT DESCRIPTION The centerpiece of the land use plan is open space lands which. comprise over 76% of the entire Irvine Coast. Of the 9,432 acres j within the Irvine Coast, over 7,234 acres will-be devoted to per -' manent open space uses. Crystal Cove State Park is 2,807 acres which encompasses virtually the entire area of the-ocean side of 'Pacific Coast Highway and the watershed of Moro Canyon inland of-Pacific Coast Highway. This area is -now open to public use. As land is developed in the Irvine Coast, a program of phased dedications will transfer 2,666 acres of undeveloped land to the County. These areas - will remain in conservation and recreation uses. Extensive areas of land within the development zones, including. Buck Gully, Los Trancos and Muddy Canyons, and Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill areas of the site encompassing 1,338 acres will remain in open space use with limited development for recreational purposes. Two 18 -hole golf courses at.Pelican Hill comprising 367 acres will form the centerpiece of the destination resort and provide a green belt buffer between overnight accommodations and Pacific Coast Highway. Consistent with the .Coastal Act emphasis on visitor serving recreation, the lower slopes of Pelican Hill will be developed with a major destination resort.• The resort will consist of two 18 -hole golf courses, a maximum of 1,900 overnight accommodations, and recreational and commercial.facilities. At Pacific Coast Highway and Muddy Canyon,- adjacent to the inland portion of the state park, a hotel and small retail area will provide up to 250 additional visitor serving accommodations at the coast. Two small sites along Laguna Canyon. Road are intended for small scale visitor serving facilities. 90 8212903 Residential development will be limited to a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units., Residential development will include low density single family dwelling units on large lots as well as medium and high density clustered development. Residential development has been located primarily on the ridges, and more gentle slope areas away from sensitive habitat areas in the canyon bottoms, preserving open - spice, reducing grading impacts and enhancing the compatibility of private development with public open space. A hierarchy of roadways will serve the Irvine Coast, including regional freeway and highway networks, subregional arterial highway networks, and local collectors. Two arterial. highways are designated through the. Irvine. Coast in a general north /south direction: Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue. - Pelican Hill Road is designated as a major arterial (six'lanes), on the County of, Otange Master Plan of Arterial Highways, as is Pacific Coast Highway through portions of the Irvine Coast area. Sand Canyon is designated as a commuter arterial highway (two lanes) . Laguna Canyon Road, which runs along the easterly boundary of the Itvine Coast area, is designated as a primary arterial (four lanes) in the Master Plan. 97 88-272go3 .4_7 Section IV - FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA'COASTAL ACT OF 1976 r Factual and Policy Basis for the Proposed Findings The proposed Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program comprises an amendment to the Land Use Plan certified on January 19,1982 and an Implementing Actions. Program comprising the second major component of a local coastal program as defined in the California Coastal Act of 1976 (1982 LUP) . The First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program, as presently proposed, (LCP 1987) represents the culmination of a long planning process _ commencing with the first Irvine Coast LCP prepared in 1976. A substantial body of information relating to the. resources of the Irvine Coast has been assembled through the many studies and hearings held on X.vine Coast plans. Since the policy portion of -the proposed Irvine coast LCP is an amendment to an approved LUP, the factual basis for these findings incorporates by reference all materials previously submitted in conjunction with the review of the 1976 and 1982 Irvine Coast plans, the _ State Parks acquisition of Crystal Cove State Park, the Irvine Company donation of Moro Ridge and all other factual matters presented to the California Coastal Commission in conjunction with the review of the 1982 Irvine Coast LUP. Likewise, because a portion of the proposed Irvine Coast LCP is an amendment to an approved LUP, the Coastal Commission findings of approval for the 1982 LUP are incorporated by reference and are further reviewed to determine the extent to which the proposed plan _ (LCP 1987) *conforms with and further amplifies on those findings. These .prior materials have been supplemented with additional factual materials submitted during the course of the'County of Orange review of the proposed First Amendment to the Irvine Coast LCP, including but not limited to all materials set forth in the Appendix to the Draft LCP dated March 16,1987, The Irvine Coast Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment - Executive Summary dated March 1987, (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 16) the Irvine Coast 'Visual Analysis dated July, 1987, the marine life impact analysis prepared by Dr. Richard F. Ford - "Potential Ecological Influences of the Irvine Coast Planned Community on the Adjacent Marine Environment ", the Pelican Hill Road EIR and all other materials submitted in conjunction with the County of Orange review of the draft First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. _ A. PUBLIC ACCESS - (Public Resources Code Sections 30210 - 30214) 1. Public Resources Code Section 30212 The Irvine Coast LCP culminates•a planning and public facilities process that has assured public access along the entire 3 1/2 _ mile oceanfront and beach area of the Irvine Coast. The major ingredient in assuring public access to the - Irvine Coast was the cooperation of the landowner in the sale of all but a small portion of the lands between Pacific Coast Highway and the sea to the State of California for a public park. It is noted that other high priority acquisition areas in Change County. established for potential public purchase in the list adopted by the California Coastal Commission in 1975 were not subsequently s purchased and have been-precluded from public acquisition as a •v x88- 272903 result of these decisions not to purchase in combination with the approval of development projects on the proposed park sites by state agencies (e.g. the portions of the Lantern Bay project adjoining Doheny State Park were approved for purchase by the State Public Works-Board and were subsequently abandoned for purchase and the Ritz Carlton Hotel is built on another Coastal Commission priority acquisition site) . The 1981 Coastal Commission findings (at p. 25 of the LCP Appendix) specifically note the "cooperation (with) the State purchase of Crystal. Cove State Park" as one. of the factors strongly affecting the Coastal Commission's determination regarding compliance with the Coastal Act. This finding should be viewed in the context of State Parks policies in effect at the time of the Crystal Cove State Park purchase to pursue only those acquisitions involving the voluntary cooperation of the landowner, as contrasted with condemnation, because the State had experienced high condemnation awards in conjunction with involuntary purchases ien areas near Carmel (e.g. the Hudson property) as well as other areas of the coast. Thus, the evolution of the Irvine Coast plan led directly to the assurance of public access along the entire oceanfront and all but a small portion of the parallel blufftop areas. The Irvine Coast LCP and a separate Coastal Commission permit action, .taken together, provide for the final linkage in the blufftop trail system. The LCP requires the dedication to State Parks of a blufftop trail area fronting on the, ocean in Planning Area 9 (see LCP 1987, Chapter 4, Section D.3.d). Further, 'a prior Coastal Commission permit action on the Irvine Cove Nortl: project required the improvement of this trail as a permit condition. As a result, the trail system along the oceanfront bluffs in Planning Area-9 wi11 be both dedicated and improved. The oceanfront area of the Irvine Coast accessible to the public is the largest continuous public oceanfront area in Orange County and the only area of this scale-where continuous access from PCH to the coast is available in southern California. B. RECREATION - (Public Resouices Code Sections J0220 =30224) _ 1. Section 30221 - 'Oceanfront lands The State Parks purchase of Crystal Cove State Park assures the protection of oceanfront land suitable for recreational use and development (see LCP 1987. Exhibit G). 2. Sections 30222 and 30223 m Priority for Visitor - Serving Commercial Recreation and Upland Support Areas. a. Public Recreation Areas- The Irvine Coast LCP provides for major upland recreation areas to support and complement coastal recreation uses. Three primary inland recreation areas have been and will be made available to complement the oceanfront and Moro Canyon areas of Crystal Cove State Park: 99 � ®272903 : � - 1) Moro Ridge The Moro Ridge area, containing the high point in the Irvine Coast ridgelines running toward the ocean, was donated by the landowner to the State of California in 1980. This 500 acre ridge comprises a major hiking and - viewing area complementing the State Parks purchase of Moro Canyon (see State Parks Public Works Plan for Crystal Cove State Park, dated 1982). The significance of this area was cited as a major factor in the findings of approval for the 1981 LUP.(LCP 1987 Appendix I at P. 25): 2) Irvine Coast Dedication Area The Open Space Dedication Program provided for in section A of Chapter 3 of the LCP 1987 assures the dedication of 2,666 acres of open space land to the County of Orange for recreational use and habitat protection. These areas are significant for recreational use both.in their own right and with respect to other adjoining recreational use areas. The open Space Dedication Areas complement adjoining recreational use areas in several ways. First, the 2,666 acres of dedication lands are contiquous.with Crystal Cove State Park and allow for joint management and. - cooperation of a 5500 acre park, area comprising state and county lands (see LCP 1987 Exhibit G). This 5,500 acre area will allow Irvine Coast recreational users.to have experiences ranging from hiking on high ridge areas with exceptional coastal views to quiet - coastal canyons and finally to the sense of arrival at the ocean, all well within one day's hike: Second, the open space dedication - areas provide a direct link with the future Laurel Canyon' regional park in itself and as a linkage between Laurel Canyon and Crystal Cove'State Park (see'LCP 1987 _ Exhibit D). The findings of approval for the 1982 LUP identified the recreational characteristics and values of the open space Dedication Areas as follows: The area proposed for dedication includes the _ following major features: (1) Emerald Canyon . . . a 910 acre watershed . offers some potential for low intensity recreational use such as hiking,. viewing and picknicing. (2) Laguna Canyon Slopes - a 780 acre area traversed by several drainages to Laguna Canyon . . offers visual resources to persons hiking in the area or driving on Laguna _ Canyon Road and provides an open space connection to the remainder of the Laguna Greenbelt to the south and east. (3) Emerald Ridge East a major ridgeline of about 230 acres offers significant WON 88- 2T2903 potential for low and medium intensity recreational uses (including park 'staging areas, visitor centers, equestrian center, campsites, etc.); the ridge provides exceptional vistas of the rest of the Irvine Ranch and Laguna Greenbelt areas and is a crucial connection between Emerald Canyon; upper Crystal Cove State Park and Laurel Canyon outside the coastal zone to the east, proposed for includicn in the Greenbelt.- (4) Emerald Ridge Frontel (sic) Slopes, a 730 acre area which includes three major "shoulders," providing the visual back drop to northern Laguna Beach, and several drainages such as Boat Canyon; the area offers scenic views, potential _ for low and medium intensity recreational use on ridge.tops . (LCP 1987 Appendix 1, at p: 5) - Thus, the intrinsic recreational values of the open space dedication program have been identified both in themselves and in relation to other, portions of the _ Laguna Greenbelt area (see LCP 1987 Exhibit D) . Apart from the recreational values of the dedication area, the timing of the actual dedication of the open space areas has been modified significantly from that approved in the 1982 LUP. As a consequence, a large dedication increment will occur with the first phase of development. Similarly, later increments will likely occur more rapidly than would have been the case with the 1982 LUP dedication program. Additionally, the dedication program has been divided into far fewer increments so that future County management of the dedication areas has been enhanced. 3). Los Trancos /Buck Gully /Muddy Canyon Public Park Over 1,100 acres of open space lands shown as private recreation areas in the 1982 LUP have. been committed to public recreational use in the form of a trail and park system. The Los Trancos /Buck Gully park.system has the potential both to complement beach use and to connect directly between these park areas via public trails to the Crystal Cove State Park parking areas and beaches in furtherance of Coastal Act Sections:30212, 30213 and 30223 (see LCP 1987, Appendix 5). As a result, the public will be provided with a rich diversity of recreational experiences,- ranging from the pristine, secluded canyon setting of Los Trancos Canyon to a sense - of arrival at the ocean itself. Public views of the ocean can be provided from a possible park on a high knoll in Los Trancos, a public vista Burn -out off Pelican 7 101 b. 88 ®272903 Hill Road and from public trails. Finally, the new trail system can provide for linkages with trails leading to the vista point on the new trail to be dedicated along the oceanfront of Planning Area 9 (see LCP 1987, Appendix 5). The addition of Muddy Canyon to the park system will allow primarily for passive.recreational uses and a potential linkage to the inland portions of Crystal Cove State Park (see LCP 1987, Exhibit G). 4)' Conclusion —Public Recreational opportunities In furtherance of the policy objectives of Coastal Act Section 30212, 30213, 30221 and 30223, the present and future open'space recreation areas provided for in the Irvine Coast LCP comprise the - following: Crystal Cove,State Park Irvine Coast Dedication Los Trancos /Buck "Gully. Special Use Parks Muddy Canyon Special Use 2,807 acres Areas 2,666 acres 1,155 acres Park 352 acres 6,980 acres These recreational use areas are located within a 1 -2 hour drive of a population of 7 -8 million persons (see Attachment A -1, Open Space Cost /Benefit Analysis for Orange County, Williams- Kuebelbeck) who will be provided direct access in part via Pelican Hill Road and other Irvine Coast-LCP circulation improvements. visitor- servinv Commercial Recreational Facilities Under Coastal Act Section 30222, visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities 'have priority over all other types of development, but agricultural and coastal - dependent industrial activities. The commercial recreation facilities provided for in Planning Areas 13A through 13F and 14 (see Chapter 4, Section A of the LCP) fulfill both _the Section 30222 requirements and the strong policy in favor of upland support facilities expressed in Coastal Act Section 30223. The provision of a broad array of visitor accommodations in Planning Areas 13 and 14 (see Exhibit-11 of the Executive. Summary) will further the policy goals of these two sections of the Coastal Act by increasing access to the Irvine Coast park areas, thereby facilitating recreational use by visitors living outside the area.. As reflected in Coastal Act Sections 30222 and 30223, the C�»_''i1 Act recognizes the fact that the failure to provide upland support facilities with overnight accommodations would in effect limit beach usage of public parks, and in parti- cular state parks, to persons who live within day use proximity of the park areas. This would effectively inhibit, 102 T : �.:� 88 ®2.72903 and potentially in some cases deny, park access to visitors who live elsewhere in.the.state and to out -of -state visitors. Accordingly, the provision of commercial recreation facilities furthers strong Coastal Act policies whose priorities were reiterated in a recent Coastal Commission permit action in a comparable setting in the Laguna Niguel area of Orange County (Permit Application In terms of commitments to visitor - oriented uses, the Irvine Coast LCP devotes almost one -half of development intensity (45% - 2150 overnight accommodations and 2600 residential units) to visitor- serving uses, a percentage far above most LCPs. The areas devoted to visitor uses are sited in close proximity to major public recreational use areas (see Exhibits 3 and 5 of the Executive Summary) . In comparison with the uses approved in the 1982 LUP, the Irvine Coast LCP replaces non - priority residential uses approved in the 1982 LUP from the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill onto the ridges, thereby devoting almost the entire frontal areas of Pelican Hill to visitor- oriented uses (see Exhibits ,4 and 5, and 10 and 11 in the Executive Summary) . When the 685 acres of commercial recreation uses are added to the 6,609 acres of public recreation areas, the total LCP acreage devoted to recreational uses is 7,294 or 76% of the entire plan area. 1) Location of Visitor - serving Uses. The Coastal Act provides fox locating visitor - serving facilities at "selected points of attraction for visitors" (Section 30250 (c) ). In addition to day -use _ needs, projections of commercial recreation needs indicate significant demand for new overnight facilities (e.g the projections cited in the Dana Point Specific Plan). which will be fulfilled by the provision of overnight accommodations. On the entire Orange County' coastline, only one other undeveloped area remains with the.significant potential for accommodating _ visitor - serving uses (i.e. the Dana Point Headlands). Thus, the Irvine Coast is one of the few remaining areas where commercial recreation can be provided to support visitor uses and is the only site with the capability of providing abroad array of visitor - oriented facilities in close proximity to a state park. . 2) A Destination Resort - Section'30223. Much of the southern California coastline has been developed in such a way as to preclude the .provision of significant visitor - oriented commercial recreation. For example, so much of the Malibu coast has been T,",,iously committed to residential uses that no area comparable to the Irvine Coast remains with the potential for commercial recreation uses (see Coastal Commission staff reports on the Malibu /Santa Monica Mountains LCP) . Other areas such as Marina del Rey accommodate one type of visitor use (e.g. boating) to the extent that sites for 9 TILL r 68- 272903 . commercial recreation supportive of publi.c recreation activities are extremely limited. As noted above, on the Orange County coast, no'other area has the ability to provide visitor- oriented facilities in keeping with Sections 30250 (c). and 30222 of the Coastal Act, and in particular 30223. The need for major commercial . recreation activities to support beach and upland park uses and to provide a broad array of recreational opportunities was recognized in the 1982 LUP approval of 1,750 overnight accommodations. The 1987 LCP amendment provides an even stronger commitment to visitor - serving uses than those approved in the 1982 LUP and does so in a particular way. 'First the 1987 LCP deletes the 200,000 sq. ft. of office uses approved in the-1982 LUP and replaces such•uses. with 400 additional overnight accommodations. Second, the day -use oriented commercial recreation-uses have been increased from 50,000 to 75,O0O,sq. ft. Third, the 1987•LCP land uses include the provision for golf courses designed to enhance the feasibility of commercial recreation uses by providing needed recreational amenities to offset the inland location effects resulting from the shift of commercial, recreation from the coastal shelf to areas inland of PCH. As a consequence, almost the entire frontal slope area of Pelican Hill is devoted to visitor- oriented uses, replacing lower priority residential uses with commercial recreation uses. In furtherance of Coastal Act Sections 30222, 30223 and 30250(c), the 1987 Irvine Coast LCP is structured to' the he setting for a particular type of visitor-oriented-use, a destination resort. Unlike an individual hotel or lodge oriented to attract a particular type of.clientele, a destination resort is designed to provide a broad range of accommodations and recreational facilities which combine to create a relatively self- contained, self- sufficient center for visitor activities. By providing on -site recreational facilities, the destination resort will attract longer term visitors, as well as those staying only a few days. As a consequence, overnight accommodations may range from hotel rooms to "casitas" and other types of lodging containing kitchen facilities and room combinations to serve guests staying for a variety of time periods. Due•to its inland location;_the resort will depend heavily on providing its own-visitor-serving facilities including golf courses, swimming pools, day -use commercial, spas, tennis courts, and other amenities to attract lonao- -term visitors. Although the proximity to the beach una trail areas will serve. as an attraction to resort guests, the range of on -site recreational 10 104 8- 272903 amenities to be provided (consistent with Coastal Act Section 3'0252 (6)) and the location of most of the accommodations in'Planning Areas 13A through 13F at a distance from the beach, it is unlikely that-overnight visitors will generate significant recreational demands on the state park beaches. At the same time, day -users of the state and county park areas will be able to make use of shops and food services in the day -use commercial areas of the resort, thereby minimizing trips to other areas for such support facilities. 3) Day -use Commercial Recreation Facilities - Section 30223. Finally, the 1987 LCP tourist commercial areas not only fill long -term needs but also provide facilities that cannot be provided by the state park and the County parks. .Due to existing mobile homes and cottage leases in the Moro and Crystal Cove areas of the state park, recreational facilities required to support park use will be severely limited until those leases expire. Regarding the county parks in the open space dedication areas and 'the Los Trancos /Suck Gully /Muddy Canyon. Special Use Parks,. the LCP policies severely restrict the types of uses allowed in those areas to more of a,passive recreation support use (i.e. the open space dedication areas have been designated a "wilderness". park with all uses to be commensurate with that designation while Los Trancos /Buck Gully /Muddy Canyon have limitations on the amount of park area that can be developed for any purposes along with other limitations imposed by LCP habitat protection policies - see Chapter 3, Sections D, E, and F of the 1987 LCP) . By providing. substantial day -use services (e.g. restaurants, picnic supplies, etc.) within a short distance of these present and future park areas,.the need for the development of extensive - support services on visually sensitive state park lands seaward of Pacific Coast Highway will be substanti=ally reduced in furtherance of Coastal Act Section 30251. In - this way,.more of the coastal shelf area can be devoted to actual public recreational use pursuant to Section 30221 of the Coastal Act. Likewise, the provision of these commercial support facilities furthers the objectives of Coastal Act Section 30240 by reducing the need for support facilities in the sensitive State and County.parks areas. 4) Enhancement of Inland Views - Section 30251 The creation of a destination resort at Pelican Hill also serves as a means of enhancing inland views. The combination of Planning Areas 13A through 13F as an integral component of the golf course /visitor - serving complex provides the development basis for shifting residential areas off the Pelican Hill foreslopes and onto the Pelican Hill ridgetop. Thus, the shift in land use from estate residential uses approved in the 1982 LUP to a destination resort in the 1987 LCP makes it feasible 11 105 5) •0$ ®272903 - � to locate the golf course /greenbelt in the primary inland - viewshed area that previously would have been committed to individual homes (see Exhibits 4'and 5 in the Executive Summary). In carrying out the requirements of Coastal Act Sections 30250 (c) and 30254, the location of visitor- serving facilities in the Pelican Hill and Sand Canyon areas will decrease traffic impacts on local communities by _ providing convenient overnight facilities for users of Crystal Cove State Park. Locating significant overnight accommodations and day-use facilities at these "selected points of attraction for visitors "•(Coastal Act Section - 30250(c)) effectively clusters recreational uses in close proximity to one another, thereby facilitating access between such uses and minimizing impacts on coastal _ access roads with limited capacity (Coastal Act Section 30254). -In the absence of such facilities, visitors from outside the area would otherwise be forced to find accommodations in Laguna Beach or Newport Beach, thu''s - driving through those communities on their way to and from the State Park. The provision of extensive day -use facilities will also diminish automobile traffic movement _ by providing food and other services readily available to park users. By concentrating development at the Pelican Hill and Sand Canyon locations, the use of existing transit facilities operating between Laguna Beach and - Newport Beach along Pacific Coast Highway will be encouraged and enhanced. In conformance with Coastal Act Section 30252, the destination resort concept further reduces traffic impacts by providing a wide range of on -site recreational amenities. Traffic generation figures obtained from comparable destination resorts and set forth in the "Irvine Coastal Area Traffic Study" (February,. 1987, see LCP 1987 Appendix 4) indicate a much lower trip - generation profile than for individual hotels. Shuttle service, cansistent' with 'the.requirements of Chapter 4, Section 20 of the 1987 LCP Transportation policies, will _ also help to decrease new trips between John Wayne Airport and the site and to-other selected attractions in the area. Finally, in meeting the - policy objectives of Coastal Act Section 30254, the visitor- serving areas have- distinct characteristics that minimize traffic impacts on coastal _ access roads. First, traffic is.generally off-peak not only with respect to commute traffic but also with respect to day -use traffic (i.e. visitors staying in overnight_accommcdations have the ability to — 12 100 Y "1 Q uj adjust their park usage hours to avoid peak public recreational traffic periods and will be able to.obtain physical access to park areas via hotel and resort shuttles). Second, due to the predominant commute traffic flows (i.e. from south county to inland areas in the A.M. commute hours and reversed in P.M..commute hours), the visitor - serving areas tend to draw traffic in opposite directions•of the main traffic flows during those hours and to "intercept" some traffic moving in the predominant commute flows. C. MARINE ENVIRONMENT 1. Erosion and Runoff Controls to Protect the Marine Environment - Coastal Act Section 30231. During its review of the 1982 Irvine Coast LUP, the' California Coastal Commission found that grading, erosion ;and urban runoff controls in the LUP met'the requirements of the Coastal Act. Specifically, the Coastal Commission found that:- Policies in new material "Attachment 6" concerning grading added to the existing. erosion and urban runoff control policies in the county's submittal adequately ensure that runoff will not cause excessive silt to damage canyons and offshore marine preserve. (1987 LCP Appendix 1, at p. 31) With respect to grading and urban runoff control policies, the 1987 LCP has been further amplified to meet the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30231 in several ways. First, a Master Drainage and Urban Runoff Management Plan is required to be submitted early in the development process (Chapter-3, Section I of the 1987 LCP) in order to assure a comprehensive overview and assessment of direct and cumulative grading and runoff control concerns. Second, grading policies in Section L 1 of Chapter 3 further require the submittal of precise grading schedules and grading programs to allow for the direct application of LCP grading and erosion control policies to specific development projects. Third, the actual amount of development- area for residential purposes has been reduced from 38% to 23% of the - -total development area, thereby reducing the amount of areas to be disturbed by grading activities. As a result, there, has been an increase in preserved open space from 61% to 74% (i.e. the total open space area including Muddy Canyon but not the golf course] of the overall plan area, with a• corresponding decrease in graded areas. Regarding potential golf course runoff into the marine environment, the study prepared by Dr. Richard F. Ford (1987 LCP Appendix 8)' concludes that the combination of diffusing golf course discharges through several drainage. channels (rather than concentrating discharges at one point) and the natural mixing qualities of the ocean currents eliminates any concern over potential significant impacts.on the marine environment. 13 10� 88 ®272903. The high cost of water and the desire to minimize the loss of irrigation water also create practical incentives to limit -_ severely the actual volume of golf course discharge off -site. LCP policies (Chapter 3, Section E of the 1987 LCP) requiring adherence to fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide specifications established by state and federal licensing.procedures provide - further safeguards to reinforce the practical impact of economic incentives on minimizing any potential discharges.from the golf course. However, to assure that no potential for significant _ adverse impact exists, the 1987 LCP further requires that a water quality monitoring program be established with regular reporting to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County_of Orange (Chapter 3, Section E of the 1987 LCP) , the agencies with - authority over water quality matters. These agencies have the authority to take appropriate corrective action established'by state law and local ordinance should the monitoring reports _ indicate that corrective action is required. Restoration of BioloaicaV Productivity Coastal Act Section 30231 Coastal Act Section 30231 encourages the restoration of biological productivity of coastal streams "where feasible." The introduction of golf course uses (made possible and necessary by the destination 'resort provided for in Planning Area 13) makes feasible the creation of a new riparian corridor where none presently exists. The report contained in Section 2 of the 1987 LCP Appendix 2, titled "Pelican Hill. Drainage Habitats,". analyzes the existing conditions of the Category "D" Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) on'the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill and concludes that none of`these presently existing drainages contains significant riparian habitat and that much of these areas is characterized by severe erosion conditions., The erosion problems are indicative of the fact that the steep slopes of the present configuration of these drainages, in combination with the absence 'of a regular source of water during the dry season, prevents the establishment of true riparian vegetation. The "Riparian Habitat Creation Program" set forth in Section 1IG11 of Chapter 3 of the 1987 LCP provides -for the creation of a riparian corridor through the golf-course area. In this way, a high priority type of habitat identified in Coastal Act Section 30231 will be established and maintained. I). LAND RESOURCES 1. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat . Coastal Act Section 30240(2) The findings adopted by the California Coastal Commission in approving the 1982 LUP contain a. detailed analysis of Coastal act consistency regarding the manner in which tt wren space _ dedication area mitigates the development impacts of 1982 LUP land uses.. These findings are set forth in 1987 LCP Appendix 1, Section 1 at pp. 3 -6, 1622, and 3228 and are incorporated by reference. Rather than replicate these detailed findings, the following discussion summarizes the main policy considerations and Coastal Act consistency rationale of those findings. 14 1OR 8�' `'72903 Among the primary goals of the Coastal Act are the protection of coastal resources and provision of public access to the coast. The Legislature also recognized that conflicts might occur when carrying out all of the Act's policies. The Legislature, therefore, established a "balancing" test. This test allows the Commission to approve a plan which, although it may cause some damage to an individual resource, on balance is more protective of the environment as a whole (Coastal Act Section 30007.5). Public acquisition of large, continuous open.space areas, as specifically determined in the findings of approval for-the 1982 LUP, is recognized' as a superior. means to. guarantee mitigation o? development impacts through the preservation of coastal resources such as vegetation,'wildlife, and natural landforms, and to create new public access and recreation opportunities rather than. preserving small pockets of open space surrounded by development. This approach is consistent with County /Coastal Commission actions both prior to the 1982 LUP for the Aliso Greenbelt (see Exhibit D in the 1987 LCP) and'subsequent to the 1982 LUP approval in conjunction with the approval of the Bolsa Chica LCP. ' . The Irvine Coast Plan (1987 LCP) strikes a balance in two ways which are consistent with Coastal Act requirements. First, in carrying out Coastal Act Section 30240 (a), a substantial portion of the plan area is designated for preservation in its nat::.al state'(see Exhibit 14 in the Executive Summary). These are=as include: (a) the habitat areas included within the 2,666 acre open space dedication area; (b) the habitat areas included within the 1,155 acre park areas in Los Trancos Canyon, Buck.Gully and Muddy Canyon. that will be conveyed into public management under the 1987 LCP as contrasted with the private ownership and management approved in the 1982 LUP; (c) the habitat areas in Muddy Canyon that would have been severely impacted by the Sand Canyon Avenue alignment allowed in the 1982 LUP and that will now be preserved by the re- alignment of Sand Canyon Avenue out of Muddy Canyon and up onto Wishbone Ridge along with dedication of the Canyon to the County, in conjunction with strengthened ESF.A "A" and "B" policies in Chapter 3 of the 1987 LCP. Second, specific policies have been incorporated into the 1987 LCP to mitigate potential development impacts on habitat areas., visual resources and access. These policies are reviewed in Sections "2" and 113" under DEVELOPMENT. Transportation mitigation requirements are reviewed in Section 1 b) DEVELOPMENT. Taken together, the open space dedication program and the 1987' LCP mitigation requirements offset the level of development impacts allowed under the 1987 LCP. As. was stated in the. 1982 Coastal Commission findings, -the purpose of the Open Space Dedication Program is to protect certain specified resources located in the dedication area and to offset adverse environmental impacts from LCP development which will not otherwise be mitigated. Permanent protection and preservation -of major canyon watersheds, visually significant ridgelines, stream courses, archaeological and paleontological sites, riparian vegetation, coastal chaparral and wildlife 15 log 88= 272903 habitat is provided by dedication of 2,666 acres' of contiguous open space lands to the .County of Orange or its designee. it Environmental impacts to be mitigated by the Open Space Dedication Program include habitat and archaeological impacts caused by residential development and road improvements on Pelican Hill, habitat impacts on Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully. and Muddy Canyon caused by the construction of.Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon.Avenue, public view and use impacts .caused by residential construction in the Cameo Shores area, and scenic - resource impacts caused by golf course and tourist commercial- development on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill and Wishbone. A number of potential significant impacts identified in the 1982 LUP findings have been either eliminated or reduced. As noted above, the realignment of Sand Canyon Avenue, in conjunction with the application of 1987 LCP ESHA policies will now protect the - resource values of Muddy Canyon that would have been significantly altered'. under the 1982 LUP alignment for Sand Canyon Avenue. A development area located along a knoll _ descending into Los Trancos Canyon has been eliminated and converted into part of the Los Trancos Canyon dedication area. Pelican Hill Road has been pulled -back from the edges of Los Trancos Canyon, thereby' significantly reducing potential. grading impacts on the'canyon. scenic resource impacts of development on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill have been overcome and offset in significant measure by the introduction of golf 'course uses _ and site design criteria reviewed in more detail in the findings under visual resources. Thus, in comparison with the approved plan,.ove "r,1,100 more acres of lands with significant natural resources are being conveyed into public ownership than was the - case with the.1982 LUP. As a consequence, all the major canyons in-the Irvine Coast Plan area will be permanently preserved ,(see Exhibit G of the LCP).. _ - Large -scale master planning and dedication of open space lands for the Irvine Coast enables the permanent protection of large, contiguous open space areas . rather than'the protection of smaller, discontinuous habitat areas that might result from a project -by- project. site mitigation approach. A much greater degree of habitat and open space protection can be achieved by a - dedication program that assembles large blocks of habitat area contiguous with.the'major-canyons and ridges of the inland areas of Crystal Cove 'State Park than would be possible with project -by- project mitigation measures (see Coastal Commission .Appeal No 326 -80, Broadmoor, page eighteen for a further elaboration of the policy precedent established by the Coastal Commission in that permit action). Prior County /Coastal - Commission actions in applying this - policy determination have resulted in the preservation of over 12,000 acres of open space /natural reso V! urce lands in a greenbelt area around of Laguna Beach as depicted in Exhibit D in the 1987 LCP.' These actions.are far more protective of coastal resources than would be the preservation of isolated or remnant habitat areas within residential and commercial development areas. Thus, in - accordance with Coastal Act Section 30.007.5, the public acquisition of the open space areas made possible by' the Open Space Dedication Program creates the required overall balance _ 16 110 2. between concentrating development allows mitigation of the'--kinds and provided for in the 1987 LCP. 88q72903 and resource protection which location of development The totality of the significance of open space /habitat values preserved through the implementation of the Irvine Coast LCP was clearly identified in the 1982 Coastal Commission LUP findings: Because of the previous dedication of Moro Ridge, the cooperation (with] the State's purchase of Crystal Cove State Park, the weighting of the dedications which accurately balance resource impacts and mitigation in each development phase . . and the guarantee of ultimate dedication if the developer discontinues the project voluntarily, the Commission finds that overall, all impacts of the residential and commercial development (are] adequately mitigated by the dedication' program. (1987 LCP Appendix, Section 1, at p. 25) Thus, the significance of-the dedication area -is not merely the scale of the. area itself but is also the scale of the area in relation to over 2800 acres of public parkland contiguous with the dedication area and conveyed into public ownership through previous public /private cooperation and a private donation of Moro Ridge (1987 LCP Exhibit G). A number of major modifications to the Open Space Dedication Program have been made to assure'a more rapid and manageable series of dedication actions. First; the number of dedication increments has been reduced significantly from'.a potential of over 25 dedication increments to four, thereby: facilitating County management over these areas (Chapter 3, Section A and Exhibit I of the 1987 LCP).. Second, a major dedication -will be made at the outset of development in the residential or commercial recreation areas rather than occurring solely at a proportional' rate (.Chapter 3, Section A of the 1987 LCP) . Third, the timeframe fog ultimate dedication has been reduced from 27 to 15 years (Chapter 3, Section A. of the 1987 LCP) . Fourth, the pace of dedication will be accelerated as a .result of the dedication "triggers" defined in the revised program as compared with the LUP approved in 1982. The result of these extensive revisions to the Open Space Dedication Program is a vastly simplified and more rapid dedication of open space lands into public ownership and management. As was noted above, there is a second set of LCP policies that further protect habitat values, addressing primarily the concerns of Coastal Act Section .30240(b). Findings addressing this Coastal Act section are set forth immediately below. The 1982 Coastal Commission LUP findings determine that the plan policies for protecting environmentally sensitive. areas from development impacts met Coastal. Act requirements (see 1987 LCP Appendix 1, Section 1 at pp. 3D -31 'under "IV. Environmentally 17 . 111 r3, 88- 272903 Sensitive Area" and ''V. Grading "). A number of further refinements'to 1982 LUP policies have been made'in the 1987 LCP to further protect habitat areas from potential effects of development in adjoining areas (1987 LCP Chapter 3, . Sections 0, These strengthened plan refinements are set forth in several policy sections. First, the ESHA "A" and "B" policy standards have been further clarified and made more precise (Chapter 3, Section D of the 1987 LCP). Second, fuel modification standards consistent with recent Coastal Commission actions on the South Laguna LCP have been added to replace prior fuel modification policies.(Chapter 3, Section M of the 1987 LCP). Third, a comprehensive Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan is required prior to the approval of development draining into Buck Gully, Los Trances Canyon and Muddy`Canyon (Chapter 4, Section B, 11 of the 1987 LCP). Fourth, future recreational uses of the 2666 acre dedication area are required to be consistent with the protection of natural habitat values as the result of the designation by the County of Orange of the dedication area as a "wilderness park" with attendant policies supportive of wilderness concept of passive use and enjoyment. (Chapter 3, Section C.of the 1987 LCP). These refinements to plan policies complement the changes in the boundaries between open space and development areas effected by - the proposed amendment. First, the increase in open space in Los - Trances Canyon not only preserves habitat values directly but also reduces potential development edge impacts within the Canyon. Second, residential development areas along the ridges have been contracted, reflected partly in the reduction in - residential land area from 38% to'23% (see Executive Summary, Exhibit.3); the reduced development envelopes mean that development has been further pulled back from sensitive canyon - edges (id.). Third, protective policies have been defined specifically for development in Planning Area 6 along Muddy' Canyon (Chapter 4, Section D of the 1987 LCP). Fourth, the portion of Planning Area 6 bordering Moro Canyon and Laurel Canyon has been reduced in.size, further minimizing potential development edge impacts and improving wildlife movement in fhe area. - Thus, the LCP addressess Coastal Act Section 30240(b) both through (1) specific policy standards for development in Chapter 3 of the 1987 LCP: Section D (ESHA policies); Section I (Erosion policies); Section J (Sediment policies); Section K (Runoff policies); Section L (Grading policies); and Section M (Development/ open Space Edges /Fuel Modification policies) ; and - through (2) mcdifications'in actual land uses and development locations to further remove development areas from proximity to sensitive habitat areas. _ K. AGRICULTURE Non_ -Prime Aaricultural Lands -'Coastal Act Section 30242. The 1982 LUP findings set forth at P. 31 of the Appendix 1, Section 1, specifically address Coastal Act Section 30242 _ 18 requirements for non -prime agricultural lands. As noted in those findings, there are no significant areas of prime lands that would invoke a requirement.of findings under Section 30241 of the Coastal Act. 1. F. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL, RESOURCES 1'. Mitigation Measures for Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Coastal Act Section 30244. As determined in the 19x2 Coastal Commission findings, the open space dedication program mitigates archaeological and paleonto- logical resource impacts otherwise not mitigated by 1982 LUP -policies. The 1987 LCP further amplifies the archeological and paleontological policy sections' providing additional mitigation beyond that provided in the 1982 LUP (see Mitigation Measures, _ Section V of these findings for a detailed review of these mitigation measures) G. DEVELOPMENT 1. Location of Development and Supporting Infrastructure - Coastal Act - Sections 30250 and 30254. a. Location of Development Coastal Act Section 30250 requires that new development be "located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or . in other areas with adequate public services " As can be seen from the plan maps and from the photographs of the Irvine Coast plan model contained in the Visual Analysis, the Irvine Coast LCP area is concentrated "contiguous with" and "in close proximity to, existing developed areas . ". - The Plan development areas have been concentrated primarily on the Pelican Hill and Wishbone Ridge areas and on the . Pelican and Wishbone frontal slopes, with only two low density areas (in PA 6) outside these areas. .Similarly, plan open space areas have been concentrated to provide for over 5000 acres of contiguous open space areas "away from the plan development areas and contiguous with the Laurel Canyon open, - space area. Consistency of the commercial recreation uses with the provisions of Coastal. Act Section 30250 (c) is addressed in the review of the Coastal Act RECREATION - policies at B above. b. Supporting Infrastructure 1) Transportation (a) Substantive Tiaffic Analyses Coastal Act Sections 30250 and 30254 require that there be adequate public services to support development allowed under the 1987 LCP. The arterial road network to be provided through implementation of the 1987 LCP and the supporting regional transportation system are summarized at pp. 19 M C I -1.7 to I -1.8 of the 19987 LCP text.." The adequacy of the proposed circulation system to serve project - generated needs in relation to local andregional development patterns has been examined in three studies incorporated into these findings: (1) The "Resort Hotel Traffic Study," dated December 29,1986 and set forth in Section 3 of.the LCP Appendix; (2) The "Irvine Coastal Area Traffic Analysis" dated February 23,1987 and set forth in Section 4 of the LCP Appendix; and (3) The Pelican Hill Road Final Environmental Impact Report and associated studies dated September 15, 1987 which has been circulated.for public review and comment during the review period for the-Irvine Coast LCP. These three-studies examine both individual components of the development allowed by the 1987 LCP and regional cumulative impact concerns relating to weekday commute traffic and potential state park recreational'traffic; additionally, these studies show the significant portions' of road capacity allocated to public recreation, commercial recreation and 'visitor- serving land uses as required by Coastal Act Section 30254 .(e.g. see Section 4 of the 1987 LCP Appendix 1). Circulation Phasing Program and Transportation Management Policies The 1987 LCP contains specific road sizing and phasing requirements which are set forth in Section E of Chapter 4. The phasing requirements set forth in the 1987 LCP provide precise standards for assuring that sufficient circulation capacity will be constructed to serve traffic needs generated by plan development, as well as-considerable excess. capacity to serve regional traffic needs. In addition to the construction of circulation improvements required by the 1967 LCP, Section E of Chapter 4 of the program also requires a' series of transportation management policies directed toward complementing the physical improvements with a variety of transportation management programs.­'. Specific Traffic- Related Attributes of the Irvine Coast LC? In meeting the requirements of Section 30250 of the Coastal Act, several overall plan features have been incorporated into the LCP relating both to the traffic- generation characteristics of plan land uses and to regional access functions of the proposed circulation system with particular emphasis on Pelican Hill Road. These plan features are as follows: 1) Long -Range Planning Factors Several long -range planning incorporated into the Irvine the following: 2Q concerns have been Coast 1987 LCP, including 114 ^' "'88 - 272903 (a) The proposed LCP amendment represents a decrease in overall traffic intensity over that allowed in the 1982 LUP. (b) The proposed LCP represents a significant decrease in peak hour traffic over that allowed in the 1982 LUP, primarily due to the deletion of the commerci=al office uses allowed'in the 1982 plan. (c) The emphasis in the proposed LCP amendment on a destination resort further decreases peak hour and overall traffic intensity. 2) Circulation Improvements Provide Excess Capacity 3) As is -shown in the three referenced traffic studies, the above planning factors reflected in plan land uses combine to result in an overall reduction in total project traffid of between 101 and'17% (the higher figure results from affordable housing units being included in the 1982 LUP traffic generation figures) , with significant reductions in peak hour traffic generation. Overall, LCP circulation improvements will create traffic carrying capacity within the LCP area in excess of the traffic - generation created by 1987 LCP land uses under the traffic scenarios evaluated, at full buildout of 1987 LCP development. The 1987 LCP circulation improvements provide significar.z relief. to the most congested links of the adjacent arterial system (primarily Pacific'Coast Highway and MacArthur Blvd.), by ultimately diverting. approximately 30% of existing traffic around this area via Pelican Hill Road while only adding 15% of existing traffic back onto the system in these critical locations. The result is a substantial net increase in traffic capacity and a significant incremental improvement in levels of service on -both roadway links and intersections in this area. Without implementation of LCP land uses and attendant circulation improvements, regional commuting traffic is not offered alternate routes around capacity deficient areas, and levels of service in these areas will continue to deteriorate from traffic related regional growth in the area. In contrast, the construction of Pelican Hill Road as provided for in the 1987 Irvine Coast LCP in effect increases Pacific Coast Highway capacity through Corona del Mar by providing a direct link between down -coast residential areas "iid major inland destinations, including-employment centers and the UCI campus. In addition to relieving traffic on Pacific Coast Highway during peak commute hours, the construction of Pelican Hill Road in particular will provide significant 21 115 4) 88 ®2TZ9d recreational access capacity by connecting inland areas directly to Crystal Cove State Park (see'Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). Because recreational and commuter traffic generally flow in opposite directions in the morning and evening (e.g. morning commuter traffic flows toward the inland employment centers while morning _ recreational traffic flows toward the Coast, with reversed flow patterns in the evening), Pelican Hill ro2d will provide significant new recreational access capacity. In this way, the construction of Pelican Hill - Road not only meets the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30250 but also furthers the policy concerns of Coastal Act Section 30254 both by creating new _ recreational access capacity directly and by freeing up additional recreational access capacity on Pacific Coast Highway through the inland diversion effect. Until such time as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation. Corridor is constructed, no other major roadway can fulfill the-regional circulation functions of Pelican Hill Road. According to the traffic study set forth"in Section 4 of 1987 LCP Appendix 1, under a future scenario, project circulation impacts in the absence of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (the _ SJHTC),' Pelican Hill Road will divert 24,000 ADT from Pacific Coast Highway. Thus Pelican Hill Road is even more significant without the SJHTC than with, due to its regional service functions. - Although the, 1982 LUP required only two lanes of Pelican Hill' Road to be constructed initially, the County has _ determined that it is highly desirable to accelerate-the expansion of Pelican Hill Road to_four lanes initially in order to increase the regional traffic diversion capability of Pelican Hill Road: The regional traffic - benefits resulting from the early construction of four lanes of. Pelican Hill Road are substantial even though four lanes would not be required to-service the proposed Irvine Coast LCP development in its early phases. However, in the context of a requirement to build four rather than two lanes of Pelican Hill Road initially, the landowner is required to make circulation improvements - far in advance of project - generated traffic needs while at the same time risking the possibility that regional traffic could utilize road capacity that should have been- reserved for Irvine Coast LCP development in general and Coastal Act priority commercial recreation uses in particular. Accordingly, Policy 22 of Section E, Chapter 3'of the LCP, provides that the highway improvements and phasing required by the 1987 LCP have been determined to be of significant public benefit beyond normal project requirements as to meet the objectives of the County's growth management policy. i 22 110 88 ®272903 The major public-benefits flowing-from-the combination of early construction of Pelican Hill Road and overall net circulation system capacity will result from the imple- .mentation of LCP land uses. However, such benefits are contingent on.assurances that LCP land uses will be implemented. Thus, the 1987 LCP Transportation policies differentiate between project and non - project generated traffic and accordingly, the adequacy of LCP circulation improvements is assessed with respect to project generated traffic. (1987 LCP, Chapter 3, Section E, Policy E.) 5). Other Public Services Other required public services are assured as described in p. I -1.8 of the 1987 LCP. 6) Cumulative Effects Cumulative traffic effects have been addressed in the findings above under subsection "b) (1)" Transportation. Cumulative habitat issues have been.addressed in the prior sections titled "LAND RESOURCES" AND ",MARINE ENVIRONMENT." Cumulative visual issues are presented below under the subsection dealing with "Visual Resources." 2. Adeouate Commercial and Recreational Services - Coastal Act Section 30252. a. Commercial Facilities The 1987 LCP provides for one neighborhood commercial shopping area to serve the needs of local residents so that traffic on coastal access roads, in' particular Pacific. Coast Highway, will be minimized as required by Coastal Act Section 30252 (2). Similarly, the destination resort and 75,000 so. ft. of day -use commercial allowed in Planning' Area 13 and the 25,000 square feet of day -use commercial allowed in Planning Area"14 include uses which will encourage day- use'and overnight visitors to meet their needs within the LCP area rather than travel on Pacific Coast Highway to Newport Beach or Laguna Beach. b. Recreational Needs Because the destination resort in Planning Area 13 is designed to provide major on-site recreational amenities to offset its absence of an oceanfront location, the golf courses; swimming pools, retail commercial areas, spas, tennis courts and other amenities will be avai?abia to overnight visitors in addition to the recreational areas within the state park. Given the range of recreational amenities and the location of the accommodations in Planning 23 -17 Areas 13A through 13F at a distance from the beach, it is unlikely that beach usage will be comparable to oceanfront hotels. However, even if there were extensive beach use. -by overnight guests at the resort, Coastal Act Sections 30:222, 30223 and 30254 make clear that such visitors are entitled to make use of public recreation areas to the same extent as day users. With respect to potential recreational use needs of the LCP residential areas, the 1987 LCP itself provides for significant recreational' use facilities that more than offset any beach access needs of the new residents. First, the 1987 LCP open space dedication program will provide 2,666 acres of parkland linking with the Moro Canyon area of Crystal Cove State Park and with the new regional park being dedicated in Laurel Canyon as part of the Laguna Canyon project. Second, Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully and Muddy Canyon will be dedicated as a local park providing considerable recreational use potential and furgher serving state park .users by potentially connecting.with the state -park trail system. Third, active recreational needs will be met by the dedication and improvement of a 10 -acre site on Coyote Canyon, landfill or if infeasible, a combination of land and improvements totaling 10 acres will be dedicated within the plan development area. Thus, the various regional and local park dedications will total over 3400 acres of new parklands that both offset any recreational demands generated by the new residents -of the Irvine-Coast and enhance substantially the diversity of recreational experiences for all users of the Irvine Coast area. 3. Protection of Visual Resources - Coastal Act Section 30251 a. Viewshed protection - The Coastal Act requires that new development be sited -and designed in such a way as to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas-(Section 30251). The visually significant lands and primary public views in the Irvine Coast area are-depicted on Exhibit C of the 1987 LCP. The policies and land uses of the LCP reviewed in the following 'subsections, in association with the State Parks purchase of Crystal Cove State Park and the Irvine Company donation of Moro Ridge, address "visual quality" in a comprehensive manner and protect the visual features, of each of the major landforms shown on Exhibit C. Additionally, the creation of the golf course greenbelt enhances the visual qualities of the 'frontal slopes of Pelican Hill by providing year -round greenery and by providing a scenic foreground for the visitor- servinc areas. A "Viewshed Analysis" is presented in Section 6 - "..ae 1987 LCP Appendix and provides an assessment of how plan land uses carry out the provisions of section 30251 of the Coastal Act. 24 - 11g :'8- 272903 b. Views from Pacific Coast Highway toward th'e Ocean c. The original 1976 Irvine Coast LCP had proposed visitor- serving uses on the coastal shelf between Pacific Coatt-Highway'and the ocean. In order to accommodate the objectives of the California Department of Parks and Recreation and in response to community concerns voiced during the hearing process on the 1976 LCP, the proposed overnight and day -use commercial recreation facilities were relocated inland to the Pelican Hill area (PA 13 A and B). As a consequence, Crystal Cove State Park now comprises the most extensive area of open coastal shelf visible from Pacific Coast.Highway between Newport Beach and Camp Pendleton. Additionally, in fulfillment of a Coastal Commission permit condition, The Irvine Company is funding a landscape program under State Parks' direction-that will attempt to screen views of the State °Park parking lots from PCH while still preserving views of the ocean and enhancing the major entrance areas into Crystal Cove State Park at Pelican Point and Reef Point. Following the State Parks acquisition of the coastal shelf and Moro Canyon, The Irvine Company donated Moro Ridge to State Parks. This gift to the State of California preserved the dominant backdrop for inland views-from Pacific Coast Highway and from the coastal shelf (see Exhibit 16 in the Executive Summary). The preservation of the scenic qualities of -Moro Ridge will be complemented by the preservation of the scenic ridges and canyons contained in the 2,666 acre Open Space Dedication Area. As a result of the preservation of the dedication area lands, dramatic downcoast views from Moro Ridge in the state park and from these future County parklands will be permanently assured and made available to all visitors to the coast. Exhibit 3 in the Viewshed Analysis (1987 LCP Appendix 6) portrays the visual significance of the.open space dedication areas in relation to existing State'Parks lands, particularly Moro Ridge. d. The Pelican Hill Frontal Slopes = Views Inland from Pacific The Viewshed Analysis set forth in Section 6 of the 1987 LCP Appendix portrays several aspects of the frontal slope viewshed paralleling Pacific Coast Highway. The most significant change in viewshed land uses in the proposed LCP, as contrasted with the 1982 LUP, is the .creation of a destination resort at Pelican Hill which makes feasible the 2s 119 commitment of 367 acres on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill to a golf course greenbelt: With the introduction of the golf course greenbelt in the proposed LCP, residential development has been moved back primarily to the upper Pelican Hill area and thereby allowing fora number of plan features with major scenic quality benefits: 1) Golf Course Greenbelt. The golf courses on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill will play a central role in scenic protection. They will create a greenbelt, mirroring the open space area of the coastal shelf in the state park. Equally significant, the golf courses allow the preservation of the visual character of the intermediate knolls on the'frontal slopes of Pelican Hill (see Exhibit 5 in the Viewshed Analysis), the most visible landform and dominant feature of the hillside fgom Pacific Coast Highway and the coastal shelf. Not only are these intermediate knolls visually significant in themselves, but they also screen substantially the visitor - serving areas located'in Planning Areas 12C through 13F. The golf courses also provide a-scenic visual setting fer coastal visitors in three other ways. First, the golf courses provide a greenbelt setting for the visitor- serving uses. .Second, the golf courses provide a greenbelt setback area for commercial recreation areas in 13A -13F. -Third, the golf courses. will open views of the inland ridges between.Cameo Highlands and Pelican Hill Road and will enhance the sense of arrival at the coast for the visitor emerging onto the coastal shelf at Corona del Mar or turning down Pelican Hill road in the direction of Newport Say (see Pelican Hill Road EIR 460). 2) Hotel Siting and Design Under the 1982.LUP, the minimum building setback from Pacific Coast Highway is.100 feet. Additionally, buildings at the maximum 150 ft height under the 1982 LCP need only be set back 250 feet from Pacific Coast Highway. With the 1987 LCP, all buildings.will be set back at least 300 feet from Pacific Coast Highway and will be buffered by the golf course greenbelt. The proposed LCP further requires buildings at the maximum 105 ft height limit to be set back a minimum of 550 feet from Pacific Coast Highway. The differences in-these two different plan setback requirements is set forth in a destination resort overview analysis, dated 7/22/87, at page 3 (see EMA Rep- _ uated July 28, 1987). 3) Height Bones The 1982 LUP provides four separate areas'along Pacific Coast Highway, each of which could contain a 150 ft free- standing structure. In contrast, by limiting the 26 120 rte. .-.a 88- 272903 allowable site coverage of buildings over 85 feet to 2s of one planning area, the proposed 1987 LCP would per:it - only a maximum of two structures to reach the 105 foot limit in one.height zone in Planning Area 13A with no structure-over 65 feet in Planning Area 13B. As previously noted, structures in Planning Areas 13 C -F are effectively screened altogether,'or noticeably softened by the visual presence of the intermediate knolls on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill. The significant changes in height and siting are complemented.by specific LCP policies ensuring the terracing of buildings within the height zones to further blend the overall appearance of the resort into the frontal slope topography. (LCP Chapter 4, Section A.) 4) Landscape Screening To further reduce potential visual.impacts, required landscape elements along Pacific Coast Highway will soften the presence of buildings as viewed from the coast highway and the state park. The important role played by landscaping in screening and softening views of and over - visitor uses is depicted graphically -in the computer generated Exhibits 12 and 13 in the Viewshed Analysis. Landscaping screening will also be complemented by interior landscaping (reflecting the LUP's 15% landscape area requirements) and the.terracing requirement summarized.above. 5) Summary - the Frontal Slones Viewshed The results of assessing a computer graphics 'portrayal' of a prototype hotel plan for Planning Area 13A, as viewed from specific points along Pacific. Coast Highway and from the state park trail, are set forth in Exhibits 8 -13 in the Viewshed Analysis. Although the actual development plan may differ in its specific siting characteristics within the parameters defined in Chanter 4, Section A and Exhibit 7 of the 1987 LCP,' the Viewshed Analysis exhibits show that ridgeline views will be protected from several important sightlines and will not be significantly interrupted from other sightlines as viewed toward Planning Area 13A. e. The Frontal Slones.of Wishbone Hill - Views from Coast Y.iahwav and the State Park 1) Wishbone Frontal Slopes Residential Areas - PA 3A -33 As was provided for'in the 198.2 LUP, views of the frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill are respected by the low- density residential development requirements and limit of 85 units. 27 121 88- 272901 r 2) Wishbone Visitor - Serving Areas - PA 14A The height and intensity limits provided for in the 1957 LCP, assure a low profile development. Additionally, the LCP contains a landscape screening requirement along the Muddy Canyon side of the planning area to assure that visitor parking areas at PA 14A will be screened from state park views. 3) Re- alignment of Sand Canyon Ave. The re- alignment of Sand Canyon Avenue from the location in Muddy Canyon approved in the 1982 LUP to the area proposed'in the 1987 LCP moves a major urban visual presence away from the inland portions of Crystal Cove State Park. Views from Pelican Hill Road Views from Pelican Hill Road vary dramatically as the roadway begins to descent 'from 'the ridge toward the coast. As shown in of-the Pelican Hill Road EIR 460, the plan land uses help emphasize the following scenic views from Pelican Hill Road: (1) views of Los Trancos Canyon as the traveller moves from Pelican Ridge toward the front of Pelican Hill; (2) views of the ocean just as Pelican Hill Road begins to descend; .(3) views upcoast toward Newport Beach as the road descends; and (4) -the sense of• arrival first at the destination resort and then at the coast itself as Pelican Hill Road-traverses down to its intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. g. Views toward Planning Area 6 from Moro Canyon Specific LCP policies assure the creation-of a visual buffer between residential development in Planning Area 6 and views from the state park area below in the extension of Moro Canyon. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS The Coastal Commission 1982 LUP findings and certification included specific provisions to fulfill the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30213, as then in effect, regarding affordable housing.in, the coastal zone and, to carry out the Section 30213 requirements, further recruited an. "Agreement for the Continued Affordability of Housing in the Irvine Coast Planning Unit of the County of Orange Local Coastal Program ( "affordable housing agreement ") . On January 1, 1982, the Mello legislation, Senate Rill 626, became effective thereby removing the Coastal Commiss',.,-s authority under § 30213 to require housing policies in local coastal programs and vested authority for housing policies in local government agencies. Thus, the Coastal Commission is precluded from defining requirements for affordable housing in local coastal programs. 28 122 X38 °272903 The proposed LCP amendment changes the affordable housing provisions to conform with the Mello Hill (Government Code 65590) and local provisions. Consistent with the Melld bill, the 1987 LCP deletes the housing-provisions of the 1982 LUP that were the basis for the executed affordable housing agreement, rescinds any express or implied County commitment to._that agreement and substitutes in its stead the County affordable housing program requirement -(see 1987 LCP, Part II, Chapter 3,. Section 5.1.) through concurrent County action. 29 12S g ®272903 Section V - MITIGATION MEASURES I. CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES - RESPONSES TO COASTAL ACT POLICY STANDARDS A. Summary of Mitigation Measures in Relation to the 1982 LUP. The following analysis identifies the mitigation measures embodied in 1987 LCP provisions as set forth in the plan as - submitted, and as subsequently modified during review of the proposed 1987 LCP by the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. As initially submitted to the _ Planning Commission, the proposed Irvine Coast LCP contained a number of plan provisions intended to address policy concerns previously identified and to further strengthen the plan's responsiveness to Coastal Act priorities as contrasted - with the 1982 LUP, Even though the 1982 LUP was determined by the California Coastal' Commission to have fully met the requirements of The California Coastal Act and CEQA, the 1987 LCP is intended to provide additional mitigation for potential significant adverse environmental impacts. Above and beyond the significant plan modifications contained in the proposed 1987 LCP as submitted in March 1987 for Planning - commission review, the subsequent County review processes have resulted in further.plan modifications and refinements which constitute mitigation in Coastal Act and CEQA terms. The following is a-list of the major plan mitigations as contrasted with the approved 1982 LUP: 1. Contrast between the 1981 Irvine Coast LUP and the - Proposed Plan as Introduced in March 1987 a. Increase in open space from 61% to 76 %. - b. Increased public access - Los Trancos /Buck Gully public park and trail system. C. Major commitment to visitor - serving facilities. d. Creation of golf course greenbelt. e.. Increased viewshed protection due to: (1). golf course greenbelt; (2) preservation of the Pelican Hill intermediate knolls landform; (3) increased building setbacks; and (4) reduction in the maximum building heights slowed. f. Conversion of office space to visitor- serving uses. _ g. Reduction in area devoted to residential use. h. Reduction in both peak traffic imparts and overall development impacts due to deletion of office uses, change in residential housing types and creation of - destination resort. i. Increased habitat protection due to: (1) re- routi*q of Sand Canyon Avenue out of Muddy Canyon and .r onto _ Wishbone Ridge; (2) preservation of additional areas in.Los Trancos Canyon previously approved for development; (3) tighter development envelopes on the ridges; (4) re- alignment of Pelican Hill Road away from the edges of Los Trancos Canyon; and (5) creation of new riparian habitat on frontal slopes of Pelican Hill. 30 ��4 r x8 8- 272903 Process. a. simplified dedication program with up -front offer and four dedication increments including early dedication _ of the first increment to facilitate public access to Laurel Canyon and coastal - ridge. b. Wilderness park designation for dedication area to protect natural resources. - C. Early construction of Pelican Hill Road at four lanes adding .twice as much capacity as. the project develop - ment phasing requires. d. Arterial road phasing. program specifying all arterial phasing criteria in the LCP itself; transportation. systems management policies added; construction access road required from inland area. e. Resort intensities refined for: (1) total square footage allowedt (2) total meeting space allowed; and (3) total primary meeting space allowed. _ f. Resort siting criteria refined: .(1) area of maximum height reduced; (2) terracing criteria specified; and (3) landscape screening criteria specified. g. Policies added to further limit Planning Area 14 total allowable square footage and to provide for landscape screening along the Muddy Canyon area bordering the State Park. _ h. Addition of an active recreation park site over and above 1,155 acres of open space in Buck. Gully, Los Trancos Canyon; and Muddy Canyon to satisfy local park code requirements and community needs. i. Established requirements for a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan. J. water quality monitoring of the golf course and new riparian area. k. Sensitive habitat (ESHA) policies further refined. 1. New archaeological and paleontological policies. M. New fuel modification policies. n. Potential sites for neighborhood commercial specified along with definition of allowable square footage and a reduction from 15 to 10 acres. - o. Reduction of development area in PA 6, elimination of development. in a portion of Moro sliver; redesigna- tion of major portions of Muddy Canyon for recreation use - increasing open space in the plan to over 76;. p. Visual buffer criteria defined for PA 6 Muddy Canyon areas. q. Number and location of guest and caretaker units further refined. r. '_.etous refinements in zoning provisions'. 31 1215 88-272903 -° B. Mitigation Measures - Coastal Act Policv Standards.. The central element in the mitigation program established in the 1982 LUP was the phased dedication of 2,650 acres of open space to offset.development impacts that were not mitigated through specific mitigation measures. The 1982 LUP findings _ (see 1987 LCP, Appendix 1, pp. 4 -5) outlined 9 major impacts that were to be mitigated through the Open Space Dedication Program. Impact #4 in those findings relating to.the impacts .,of Sand Canyon Ave. on Muddy Canyon has been eliminated - through the re- alignment of Sand Canyon Ave. onto Wishbone Hill. Impact 05 relating to the visual impacts of the hotel development has been greatly reduced, if not entirely _ eliminated, through the use of the golf course greenbelt, protection of the intermediate knolls on the foreslopes of Pelican Hill and specific siting and landscaping criteria in Chapter 4, Section A of the LCP (see discussion below in subsection 7).' Impact. #6, has been significantly reduced as a result of modified archaeology policies (see subsection 6• below). Impact #9 has been eliminated through the _ significant increase in visitor serving uses and the conversion of formerly private recreation areas in Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully to public recreation areas. Thus, although the open Space Dedication Program, continues - to mitigate development impacts otherwise un- mitigated, the 1987 LCP as proposed significantly mitigates development impacts that would have occurred had the 1982 LUP been implemented. The following findings review the manner in which the proposed 1987' LCP mitigates potential development: impacts both in-relation to the potential impacts of land uses approved in the 1982 LUP and in relation to existing conditions. These findings summarize the mitigation measures as they apply to specific Coastal Act policy concerns. For ease of analysis, this review of mitigation measures parallels the ordering of the analysis contained' in Section. IV, titied "Findings of Consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976," but is directed more specifically toward the CEQA concept of "mitigation" rather than-the overall Coastal Act policy considerations reviewed in Section - IV. 1. Public Access The conversion of Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully from private recreation areas, as provided in the approved 1982 LUP, to public recreation areas will.significantly increase public access to the coast and thereby further mitigate any potential impacts on public access caused by residents of or visitors to plan land uses. The ways in which trails from these new public recreation areas can potentially link up with existing trails and parking areas in Crystal Cove State Park are contained in the 1987 LCP Appendix 5. 32 . 120 2. Recreation 06- 272903 a. Priority for Visitor- Servincf Commercial Recreation and Upland Support Areas. < A much larger area in the proposed plan is devoted to visitor- serving uses than is the case in the approved 1982 LUP. To assure a balance of land uses, Coastal Act visitor - serving priorities have been further addressed through the provision of a destination resort; with two golf courses providing essential recreational amenities to offset the inland location of the resort. Not only do the golf courses help mitigate the visual presence of the resort (see Subsection 7 below) but they'-also provide significant recreational use opportunities for coastal visitors. Additionally, to mitigate the potential adverse- impact of office uses allowed in the 1982 LUP, the office uses have been deleted and have been replaced by additional visitor accommodations and related retail facilities. b. Provision of Public Recreation Areas The proposed plan mitigates any recreational use impacts caused by plan area residents or visitors both by improving the open space dedication program set forth in the approved 1982 LUP and by providing for additional public recreational use areas as follows:. (1) The Open 'Space Dedication Program To help assure a more rapid and manageable open space dedication program and thereby offset both recreational and habitat impacts potentially caused by plan area residents and visitors, the open space dedication program has been simplified and the timing of the initial dedication accelerated. By simplifying the dedication program, the County will be provided with much more manageable dedication units in terms of size and in terms of numbers of units to be absorbed over time (i.e. the reduction of _ dedication units from over twenty to.four large units allows the County to better plan for and accept the dedication areas as they are made available for acceptance). Additionally, the dedication program in the proposed 1987 LCP provides for the dedication of, the first Managempnt '3uit prior to the occupancy of any development units, thereby assuring that potential recreational impacts caused by plan land uses will be mitigated before any impacts are generated. 33 127 Finally, the first Management Unit to '-be dedicated will assure a means of access to the Laurel Canyon park area (to be dedicated in the _ near future as part of the Laguna Canyon project) which will enhance recreational.use cf that area in conjunction with the dedication area. - (2) Los Trancos /Buck Gully /Muddy Canyon Local and Regional Park Area _ (3) To furt:_e assure that all recreational needs generated by plan area land uses are offset,othe proposed plan'provides for the dedication of - over 1100 acres of public park lands in Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully and Muddy.Canyon which under the'approved 1982 LUP, had _ previously been designated as private recreational areas. This-public dedication not only assures public operation and management of these areas but also provides the potential to connect these recreational areas to the State Park and in this way enhance public recreational use of both Los Trancos.Canyon, Buck Gully, _ Muddy Canyon and the coastal shelf area of Crystal .Cove State Park. Active recreational needs will be provided by the dedication of a 10 -acre improved local park on the Coyote Canyon landfill just outside the coastal boundary or by a combination of acreage and improvements equalling 10 acres on a site within the-1987 LCP development area. The proposed 1987 LCP provides for mitigation of - potential impacts on the State Park in several ways. First, as reviewed in. subsection "b" immediately above, the potential connection of _ Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully trails to the Stake Park helps offset any use impacts on the State Park by plan area residents and visitors. Second, the proposed 1987 LCP re- aligns Sand Canyon Avenue away from the Muddy Canyon and Ridge area of the State Park with the following benefits: (a) The realignment out of Muddy Canyon toward the center'of Wishbone Hill, precludes the necessity for any physical alterations of parkland to accommodate road grading requirements (the sale to State Parks had reserved construction easements on parkland to accommodate this grading). 34 122' �:,' -LI LJUJ (b) The re- alignment' of Sand Canyon out of Muddy Canyon and onto Wishbone Ridge also largely eliminates the visual and noise _ impacts that would have been engendered by the alignment approved in the 1982 LUP. Finally, changes in land use designation and development criteria for Planning Area 6 immediately adjacent to the inland portions of the State Park have mitigated potential development impacts on park users. First, the _ portion of Planning Area 6 commonly known as the "Moro Sliver" has been reduced. with the former development area added to the Open Space Dedication area, thereby mitigating development impacts on the adjoining areas of the State Park. Likewise, a significant portion of the seaward portion of Planning Area 6 bordering Muddy Canyon has been removed from a development designation and changed to an open space area to be dedicated to the County along with a new dedication of Muddy Canyon. As additional mitigation, specific viewshed development criteria have been included in the 1987 LCP in Chapter 4, Section 6 to provide special "edge" criteria for development potentially visible from the bottom of one of the side canyons of Moro Canyon. As a further mitigation measure, specific landscape requirements have been established for the Muddy Canyon tourist commercial 'site (PA 14) to. buffer parking areas visible to State Park users (Chapter 4, Section A of the LCP). 3. Marine Environment To assure that sediment generation will.be controlled and erosion minimized the proposed 1987 LCP policies 'require that direct and cumulative impact concerns be addressed by,means of a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan to be submitted and approved early in.the development process (see Part I., Chapter 3,. Section B, and Part II, . Chapter 3, Section B.11,-of the 1987 LCP). In this way the cumulative effects of subsequent tract level development can be addressed and provided for with appropriate facilities. ' Additionally, the plan contains assurances that runoff through the State Parks area of the coastal shelf will be specifically addressed and that through early consultation the State Parks will have an opportunity to review any such runoff plans as part of the County review process (Chapter 4, Section B,'ll of the LCP) . With regard to the potential for golf course impacts on the marine environment, Dr. Furd's report, titled - "Potential Ecological Influences of the Irvine Coast Planned Community on the Adjacent Marine Environment," indicates that the primary mitigation for any potential _ impacts is to assure that runoff is not concentrated at any single point. Accordingly, the runoff plan provides for four separate discharge points from the golf course 35 129 88- 272903 through State Parks lands. In addition, the 1987 LCP provides for the preparation and forwarding of monitoring -_ reports of golf course runoff quality to the County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for any corrective action that they might deem appropriate (LCP Chapter 3, Section E). - 4. Impacts on Class "A" ESHA's on the Frontal Slopes of Pelican Hill. Golf course grading and landscaping will alter several drainage channels on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill that have been classified as "D" ESHA's under the approved 1982 LUP. These areas are considered to have little habitat value and, according to the study contained in Section 2 of the 1987 LCP Appendix, contain virtually no riparian habitat areas. Any potential habitat impacts will be offset through the implementation of a Riparian Habitat Creation Program that will result in the creation and maintenance of at least 4000 feet of riparian habitat in one drainage area where none presently exists. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat The habitat protection benefits of a large - scale, contiguous habitat area as contrasted with isolated habitat. areas located within or in close proximity to .development areas has been reviewed extensively. in the Coastal Act Consistency Findings, Section IV. As a - result of the implementation of the open Space Dedication Program and plan design changes noted below, all the major riparian areas will be preserved. and transferred to public ownership as the LCP is implemented (see '1987 LCP Exhibit G and Appendix 2). The preservation of 76% of the LCP plan area. as open space. under public management offsets any .potential direct and cumulative effects of - development that has been concentrated away from sensitive habitat areas on the ridges and the frontal slope areas. To further assure that habitat impacts are mitigated, several provisions have been added to the policies governing "A" and "B" ESHA's above and beyond those - required in the approved 1982 LUP. (1987 LCP 'Chapter 3, Section E.) Additionally, changes in land use and infrastructure siting have resulted in removing potential _ development impacts from a portion of Los Trancos Canyon that had been designated for residential development in the approved plan and from all of Muddy Canyon as the result of the re-alignment. of Pelican Hill Road onto Wishbone Hill. 36 ISO �, U�- �lZyU3 Potential impacts from development areas have been mitigated through the Erosion Policies (1987 LCP, Chapter 3, Section I), Sediment Policies (1987 LCP Chapter 3, Section J) , Runoff Policies (1987 LCP Chapter 3, Section K), Grading Policies (1987 LCP Chapter 3, Section L) and the requirement for a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (1987 LCP,. Part II, Chapter 2, Section B, 11). 6. 'Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Coastal Act Section 30244 provides that where development would adversely impact, archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation - officer, reasonable mitigation measures must be required. The 1982 Coastal Commission LUP findings determined that the Plan provisions met the requirements of this section for protecting archaeological and paleontological resources. In particular, the dedication program was determined to mitigate and offset all otherwise unmitigated effects on coastal resources including the disturbance and elimination of archaeological sites in the development areas. The First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program expands and "strengthens archaeological and paleontological protection and mitigation measures. First, the 1987. LCP requires archaeological and paleontological records search and survey procedures prior to certain approvals. Based on the records research and field survey, mitigation measures may be required depending on the recommendations of the report. second, .prior to the issuance of grading permits, archaeological subsurface testing and surface collection must be performed. Final mitigation recommendations will be developed based on this information. Third, archaeological and paleontological salvage may be recommended and undertaken prior to issuance of a grading permit. Fourth, archaeological and paleontological resource surveillance may be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. A County- certified specialist will be retained to establish procedures for resource _sur veillance and procedures for temporary halting or redirecting work where necessary. These policies and mitigation measures, in conjunction with the open space dedication program, ensure compliance with ,Coastal Act Section 30244. 7. Mitiaation of Visual Imnacts The changes and.refinements in the proposed 1987 LCP ensure that visual impacts will be mitigated. 37 I3- 88- 27290 y> Golf Course Greenbelt: The creation of a destination resort at Pelican Hill includes 367 acres on the frontal slopes devoted to a golf course greenbelt. The golf courses serve as a landscaped setback for the visitor serving areas. in conjunction with the natural buffer of the Pelican Hill lower knolls, the golf courses reduce the visual presence of the resort. Thus, visitor serving areas located behind the golf course will be. substantially screened from view by the prominent landforms within the golf course (see Executive Summary, Exhibit 11). Building Setback: Under the 'approved 1982 LUP, the minimum building setback from Pacific Coast Highway is 100 feet. Additionally, under the approved 1982 LUP, buildings reaching the maximum 150' height are required to be setback only 250' from Pacific Coast Highway. With the proposed 1987 LCP, all buildings will be setback at. least 300' from Pacific Coast Highway and will be buffered by the golf course greenbelt. The proposed 1987 LCP also requires buildings of the maximum 105' to be set back a minimum.of 550' from Pacific Coast Highway. . . Landscaoing: To further reduce potential visual impacts, required landscape elements'along Pacific Coast Highway will soften the presence of the buildings as viewed from the highway and the state park. Preliminary studies (see visual Analysis,.Exhibit 11 in the LCP Appendix) show .that 30' high trees effectively screen and soften views of most of the resort's structural elements, an effect further enhanced by interior landscaping and structural terracing. Site Coverage: The approved 1982 LUP provides for four separate areas along Pacific Coast Highway, each of which could contain a 150' freestanding structure. By limiting the allowable site coverage of buildings over 85' to 2% of-one planning area, the proposed 1987 LCP would permit only a maximum of two structures to reach the 105' limit _ in one height zone. Residential: Under the proposed 1987 LCP, - residential development has been pulled back from Pacific Coast Highway to the ridgetops and slopes of Pelican Hill and has been set back from the habitat areas of Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully and Muddy Canyon. Specific visual siting criteria has been defined for those portions of PA 6 bordering the Moro Canyon Trail area of Crystal Cove State Park to buffer the park viewshed (1987 LCP Chapter 4, Seca' ... u) . 38 is 8. Transportation Mitidation Measures Traffic improvements created'as part of the 1987 LCP will provide sufficient circulation capacity to serve traffic needs generated by planned development, as well as excess capacity to serve regional traffic needs. Several mitigation measures carried out through the policy requirements of 1987 LCP Chapter 4, Section E ensure. this result. * Elimination of'the commercial office uses allowed in the approved plan and creation of a destination resort.reduce peak hour and overall traffic. * Due to changes in the type of residential uses in combination with the office uses deleted from the 1982 LUP, the 1987 LCP re- presents an overall reduction in total project traffic of between 10 -17 %. * The 1987 LCP circulation program provides for precise phasing requirements and circulation improvements that will result in the construction of arterial roadways significantly in'excess of project generated traffic under any scenario at full buildout of 1987 -LCP. land use intensities (see "Resort-Hotel Traffic Study" and "Irvine Coastal Area Traffic Analysis" in. Sections 3 and 4 of the LCP Appendix). * Traffic studies prepared in conjunction with the Irvine Coast LCP and Pelican Hill EIR 460 demonstrate that approximately twice as much traffic will be diverted from Pacific Coast Highway onto Pelican Hill Road as will be added to Pacific Coast Highway from. 1987 LCP development uses. Consequently, a substantial net increase in traffic capacity and- a significant incremental improvement.in level - of services on both roadway links and intersections in this area will result. This diversion of traffic from PCH is further enhanced by the requirement for the early construction of four lanes.of Pelican Hill Road (as contrasted with two lanes early under the approved 1982 LUP). . * Pelican Hill Road provides three regional functions: 1) the diversion of traffic off of Pacific Coast Highway, flowing from south county residential areas to, inland employment centers; 2) the provision of an alternative access to the University of California r Irvine; and, 3) the provision of a direct coastal access route for recreational purposes inland from residential areas to Crystal Cove State Park and' to new county coastal parks. 39 Iss -' Section VI - ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A. CEQA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS - RELATIONSHIP TO PLAN HISTORY volution of the Irvine Coas Pursuant to the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed 1987 Irvine Coast LCP has been examined with respect to the potential impacts of the proposed land uses on existing conditions within the planning.area both in Section IV, titled "Findings of Consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976," and Section V entitled "LCP Mitigation Measures." This section of the Irvine Coast LCP findings will focus on complianc4 with CEQA requirements regarding analysis of alternatives. In essence, the proposed -Irvine Coast LCP is an alternative to the 1982 LIJP approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission in. January 1982. As such,' the proposed 1987 LCP must be viewed in. the context of the historical evolution of the Irvine Coast plan and prior analyses_of plan alternatives. Attached to these findings as-Attachment A- 2 is a summary of the planning history for the Irvine Coast from the inception -of the TICMAP planning process in December 1973 through the Coastal Commission hearing process in 1981 (approved 1982 LUP at pp. I °3 through I -7). -In order to assess the proposed 1987 LCP as a plan alternative, it is necessary first to review the evolution of the. Irvine Coast. plan in relation to prior CEQA:and Coastal Act analyses. a. Preparation and 'Review of the 1976 Irvine Coast LC At the time of the review of the 1976 Irvine Coast LCP review in 1979 at the South Coast Regional Commission, the Coastal Commission siaff report identified several areas of policy concern and a set of plan alternatives that might in. varying ways address these concerns along with a set of proposed mitigation measures (see Attachment A -3, pp. 10 -14 Coastal "Commission Staff _ Summary and Recommendation) . Principal areas of concern included the need to .assure the permanent protection of natural resource areas, transportation impacts and the location of commercial recreation uses. Two of the plan alternatives presented in the CEQA analysis of the 1976 LCP focussed on reducing overall development intensity through the' use of estate lots and increasing public. - recreational use by means of a park acquisition. Sub- sequent to the South Coast Regional Commission action on the 1976 Irvine Coas4' '._r, the County and the lando,,mer determined that the public acquisition concerns should be resolved 'prior to State Coastal Commission action on the plan as a whole. As a result of extensive negotiations with the California Department of Parks and Recreation, a - voluntAry sale of all but one small parcel of the coastal shelf (i.e. the area of public viewshed between Pacific 40 1 S4 _ cy 88- 272903 Coast highway and the ocean). and an inland.Area ` comprising Moro Canyon were °sold.,to the State of California. Additionally, The'ltvine Company - subsequently donated 500 acres on Moro Ridge to allow for a further expansion of the public park with concomitant increases in recreational use potential. b. Preparation and Approval of the 1982 Irvine Coast LUP. The decision by the landowner to sell the coastal shelf to State Parks necessitated fundamental changes in.the 1976 LCP because that area had been designated for commercial recreation uses under the plan. Additionally, the. landowner decided to propose a significant reduction in overall plan intensity to respond to transportation concerns identified during.the hearing process before the South Coast Regional Commission: As a consequence, a significantly revised plan was 'prepared in close collaboration with-County staff and reviewed preliminarily by the Coastal Commission in Septem= ber 1980. The 1982 Irvine•Coast LUP, as ultimately certified by the Coastal Commission in January 1982, essentially is a combination of Alternatives 2 and 5 set forth in the 1979 Coastal Commission staff report on the LUP with a relocation'of commercial recreation uses 'to inland sites both in response to the park acquisition and public' testimony. and in response to Coastal Act priorities. The 1982 LUP ultimately, approved by the Coastal Commission constituted a significant reduction in' plan intensity, reducing the number of residential units from 12,000 to 2,000. C. Preparation and Approval of the 1987 Irvine Coast LCP. In order to enhance the visitor- serving uses proposed for the Irvine Coast and to improve on relationships between development areas and open space areas, the landowner initiated a proposed set of revisions to the 1982 LUP - which were reviewed and refined by County staff and published for public review in March 1987. The main features of the- proposed plan were highlighted in the Executive Summary for the Irvine Coast Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (dated March 1987). The proposed changes in the 1982 LUP included (1) a major increase in emphasis on visitor - serving facilities both in terms of recreational amenities and in terms of land area devoted to such uses; (2) significant increases in open space resource protection areas; and (3) significant increases - in lands to be dedicated for public park purposes. 41 i35 ' 88- 212903- when viewed in relation to the plan alternatives identified in the Coastal Commission staff report on the 1976 Irvine Coast LCP,.the 1987 Irvine Coast LCP combines the essential features of Alternatives 3 and 5 and further addresses the concern with the protection of resource areas discussed under Alternative 2. As the 1976 Coastal Commission staff report stated: The Irvine Coast is located near major California tourist destinations. The Irvine property has a potential for visitor - serving commercial recreational development which exceeds that of the Santa Monica Mountains. Another significant factor in the recreational potential of the Irvine property is the consolidated ownership of the lands. Unlike the Malibu /Santa Monica Mountains area, the Irvine property is.rot fragmented into multiple land ownership's or constrained by.past development patterns. The possibility of carefully planned, staged development creates the same potential for diversified recreational development that was created in part by c.nified ownership of the land and water areas in Mission Bay in San Diego. :Alternative 3 would open up areas providing unique experiences for recreational use that are committed to residential development in Alternative 1. In particular, a major commercial recreation complex could be developed on Pelican Hill, therebv (Attachme 1V3* , 1979 Coastal staff report, at rip. 11-12) The proposed 1987 Irvine Coast LCP carries out the policy direction outlined above by shifting residential development approved for the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill up onto Pelican Ridge and replaces such non - priority uses with two golf courses and a major destination resort, visitor- serving complex oriented toward the golf courses visually and functionally. The functional and visual benefits of these major plan modifications are depicted in Exhibits 4 and.5, and 10 and 11 of the Executive Summary. Other changes in the approved 1982 LUP also further Coastal Act objectives reviewed in the CEQA. alternatives analysis of the 1976 Irvine Coast A combination of the 1979 park purchase, the Moro Ridge donation, the 1987 - LCP proposed 2,666 acre Open Space Dedication Program and the 1,155 acre 'Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully and Muddy Canyon local /regional park dedication will result in _ three major park areas: 42 ISO 88- 272903 (1) Crystal Cove State Park - 2,807 acres (2) Irvine Coast Dedication Area /Laurel Canyon County Regional Park - 2,666 acres (3) Los Trancos, Buck Gully and Muddy Canyon County Local /Regional Park - 1,155 acres These parks are significant recreational assets not only in themselves but also in relation to the regional open space that, under the stewardship of the County, has resulted in commitments of over 12,000 acres of open space for recreational and habitat protection uses (see Exhibit D in the 1987 LCP). The park use -areas specified in.the 1987 LCP.are responsive to the concerns identified in Alternative-5.in the 1979 Coastal staff report identifying the need for recreational uses in "a rapidly_ urbanizing area sorely deficient in recreational facilities and open space." This statement in Alternative 5 preceded the implementation of the 12,000 acre County greenbelt program which is directly responsive both to the 1973 County open space report prepared by Nuebelbeck and Williams and to the concern _ identified in the 1979 Coastal staff report. Additionally, the-further concentration of residential development areas responds to the Coastal staff's concern that "low intensity development would not encourage the.' concentration of development in close proximity to the employment centers of Newport Center and the Orange County ,john Wayne Airport industrial park as envisioned by Public Resources Code Section 30250 ". As reviewed in the "Findings of Consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976" in Section 3V the residential areas 'in the. 1987 LCP have been pulled back from areas adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway to the Pelican kill ridge areas thereby concentrating development in areas in closer proximity to the airport employment areas and to Newport Center. The early construction of Pelican Hill Road will facilitate access to these employment areas both for residents of the 1987 Irvine Coast LCP plan area and for dcwncoast residents traveling to these employment centers. B. THE 1967 IRVINE COAST LCP AS THE CULMINATION OF THE PRIOR ALTERNATIVES REVIEWS Over a period of thirteen years, major features of the Irvine Coast plan have evolved, culminating in the 1987 LCP presently under consideration. Although-this plan evolution has been lengthy, it has been characterized by a steady and consistent refinement of plan components in response to the alternatives outlined in the 1979 Coastal staff report and subsequent public plan reviews rather than a divergent series of disjointed plan variations. In response to public concerns identified during the review of the 1976 LCP in 1979, the State Parks purchase was finalized and. supplemented through the Moro Ridge donation. With this key recreational component of the plan fixed, the County and the landowner were then able to prepare a plan in response to 43 -S:F 88 ®Z7Z903 - other' Coastal Act priority uses, including the permanent protection of habitat areas and visitor-serving uses. The 1982 LUP finalized the concept of the phased dedication program for -- open space areas contiguous with the inland portions of Crystal i Cove State Park so that there would be a continuous area. of open space /habitat lands rather than isolated fragments of habitat located within development areas. The 1982 LUP also relocated significant commercial recreation uses to areas inland of PCH in close proximity to-the state park. The 1987 Irvine Coast LCP has further strengthened visitor- - serving uses on Pelican Hill consistent with the analysis in Alternative 3 of the 1979 Coastal staff report. The additional public recreation areas and other plan improvements contained in. the 1987 LCP also further recommendations in the 1979 alterna- tives analysis as discussed above. Thus, .in a very consistent manner since the publication of the Coastal staff CEQA alternatives analysis. in the 1979 Coastal Commission staff report, the Irvine Coast LCP land uses have been _ refined and fixed to reflect the public .policy concerns expressed during the many plan hearings. The 1987 LCP is,an -alternative to an already approved 1982 LUP that further strengthens the plan's responsiveness to Coastal Act priorities in a manner fully - consistent with prior CEQA reviews of the'1976 LCP, the 1982 LUP and regional traffic considerations both as reviewed.in the 1987 LCP technical appendices and the Pelican Hill, Road EIR. 'In that _ major plan components have•been fixed over time, an analysis of hypothetical alternatives beyond those previously, set forth during thirteen years-of .plan review, and. steady plan refinement in response to these prior reviews, would not only be redundant but would be contrary to the concept of employing the alternatives analysis under CEQA to identify alternatives means of attaining the policy objectives'of -the relevant statutory _ standards for measuring plan consistency. , is particularly the case where a plan is a voluntary attept to improve on a plan already certified by the lead agency as in full conformity with its statutory standards. The primary focus of the 1987 LCP has been both to finalize plan land uses in response to early alternatives analyses/ (see above analysis) and to further mitigate any potential significant adverse environmental impacts of plan land uses as further examined in Section V, titled "LCP Mitigation Measures." Therefore, the proposed 1987 LCP must be viewed itself as a plan alternative consistent with and furthering the public policy considerations outlined in past and - present CEQA reviews. C:. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (1) The first no project alternative would leave its current state with no development and no coastal plan. This alternative would not be Coastal Act in that it would not fulfill the Coastal commission found were met in its app LUP. 44 the Irvine Coast in certified I— consistent with the goals which the :oval of the 1982 -S R 88- 2T2903 No visitor serving uses would be provided, thereby• precluding the opportunity for substantial public access to an enjoyment of a significant area of the California coast. Such a result contradicts Coastal Act policies calling for visitor serving uses to be accorded high priority on coastal lands. Additionally, no day use commercial recreation facilities to serve the state park users would be provided. No dedication program or local park program. would be implemented. The almost 4000 acres slated for these programs would remain in private ownership, forestalling the public use of these lands for recreation and conservation. open space linkage between regional Parks and Crystal Cove State Park would not occur. Transportation and circulation improvements would not be developed. In particular, Pelican Hill Road would not be built. The substantial public benefits resulting from this road, would be forfeited including, providing public access to coastal resources, and providing regional traffic. capacity. No affordable housing units would be constructed pursuant to local requirements. D. NO PROJECT ALT£RNATIV£ (I1) The second no project alternative would'be to proceed with development as allowed in the approved 1982 LUP. This alternative has been rejected because it would not provide the public benefits and additional mitigation measures' resulting from the proposed amendments. Specifically, it would not 1) increase open space from 61 %'to 761; 2) provide a trail and park system in Los Trancos, Puck Gully and Muddy Canyon; 3)' create a major destination resort; 4) eliminate office uses; 5) create a golf course greenbelt; 6) reduce residential acreage; 7) increase habitat protection; 8) create new habitat; 9) reduce overall and peak hour traffic; 10) simplify the open space dedication program; 11) include early dedication of first increment of open space to facilitate access to Laurel Canyon and coastal ridge; 12) designate dedication areas for wilderness protection; 13) require early construction•.of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road; 14) include numerous transportation mitigations; 15) define resort intensity limits; 16) include water quality monitoring program; 17) reduce PA 6 to allow for dedication of "Moro Sliver;" 18) redesignate major portions of Muddy Canyon for recreation use; and numerous other small refinements. 45 -39 Q) SECTIOU mil - sullH91?Y.�_Y9 @LIS�G6TISIP6TIoN LLMMEIIT... ._MIKii-P—O0y DATE ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS - LUP Coastal Commission Staff 1/19/82 Administrative Action executive Director, Coastal Commission staff; County of Orangel The Irvine Company ` IAP Planning Commission 10/11 /63 Public Hearing to Review County of Orange; The Irvine Company Hearing Zoning ' IAP Planning Commission 10/25/BI Public Hearing to Review County of Orange; The Irvine Company Hearing Zoning (0 IAP Planning Commission ll/ 8/07 Public Hearing to Review County of Orange; The Irvine Company Hearing Zoning; Rdeommendation for -� Approval T-0 IAP Buard of Supervisors 12/14/B1 Public Hearing to Review County of Orange; The Irvine Company Zoning; Approval for Submission to Coastal Commission IAP Coastal Commission 2/10/64 Submission of IAP for Coastal Commission Staff; County of Orange; Staff Processing and Completlon The.Irvine Company of 1982 LCP . IAP Coastal Commission 5/11/84 Issuance of Coastal Coastal Commission Staff; County of Orange, Staff Commission Staff Report The Irvine Company LUI' /161• County of Orange - EMA 5/ 6/86 Submission of Revised County of Orange; The Irvine Company; ' LUP and 'Zoning Coastal Commission Staff 46 s-I T-i pOC1lnt.ilT__ ..... PEvjP @OPY —PATE Aaryuy PARTICIPANTS LUP /IAP Coastal Commission Staff/ 7/12/87 Agency Brlefings'of LUP /IAP County of Orange; The Irvine Companyi County of Orange Revisions Coastal Commission staff 5.g LUP /IAP city of Irvine 7/24/87 Agency Briefing of LUP /IAP. County of .Orange; The Irvine Company; Revisions City of Irvine LUP /IAP City of Newport. Beach 7/26/87 Agency Briefing pf LUP /IAP Cpunty of Orangel The Irvine Companyi Revisions City of Newport Beach LUP /IAP City of Laguna Beach 3/70/07 Agency Briefing of UUP /IAP County of Orange; The Irvine Company; Revisions city of Laguna Beach LUP /IAP Nulti- agencies 3/ 31/87 Field Tour to Review County of Orange; Coastal Commission Staff Revised LIP /IAP California Fish S Game, California Dept: Parks 6 Recreation; Friends of the Irvine Coast Coalition; Cal- Trans; Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine LUP /IAP General Public 4/20/87 County Sponsored Public County of'Orange; The Irvine Company; Meeting to Review Plan Public at large; Friends of The lievlslons Irvine Coast Coalition 1-0I111IAP Friends of the Irvine 4/26/67 Field Tour " Friends'" Representatives; The Irvine Company ' Coast Coalition LUP /IAP General Public 5/12/07 County Sponsored Public County of Orange; The Irvine Company; d Meeting to Review Plan Public at largo; Friends of The O Revisions Irvine Coast Coalition LU1'/IAP Plannlnq Commission 5 /Ih /07 Public Ilcaring to Consider County of Orange; Coastal Commission Staff; Revised LUP /IAP Calirornia Fish& Game; California Dept. Park❑ 6 Recreation; Friends of The - Iivinu Coast Codlitlun; Cal- 'franc; Citles of C Iiow�n+r l' Beach and Irvine I'; Docprye11T_ ._.._. P €yIPLL14Py D9TC AMY1Ty PARTICIPANTS LU1y IAP Spyglass Community 5/28/07 Association Sponsored liomsowners In tho Spyglass Area,' Association Meeting to Review Revised liewport Beach LUP /IAP LUP!IAP Coastal Commission 6/ 3/07 Staff - Long Beach LUP /IAP California Department of 6/ 8/07 Parks 6 Recreation LUI° /IAP Friends of the Irvine 6/ 9/87 Coast Coalition ( "Friends ") LUI• /IAP Planning Commission 6/10/67 LUP /IAP California State 6/24/B7 Oupartaent of Parks E Recreation LUP /i AP California State 6/25/87 Department of Fish and Game Agency Briefing /Discussion coastal Commission Staffs County of orange; The Irvine Company Review Concerns bf State California Department of Parks 6 Recreation) Parks staff orange County, The Irvine Company ' Review.COncerns of ^Friends° Representatives of "Frionds "i Q� County of Orangel The Irvine Company 0 N Public Meeting and County of Orangel. Coastal Commission Staffs,�(..� Field Tour to Review The Irvine Company; Friends of The Revised LUP /IAP Irvine Coast Coalitioni California Dept. Parks 6 Recreatloni Laguna Greenbelt Field Tour California Department of -Parks 6 Recreatloni . The Irvine Company Iyl. V Review Revisions California Department of Fish 6 Game; The Irvine Company LUI' /IAP Planning. Commission 7/ 1/87 Public Ilearing to Review County of Orange; Coastal Commission Staff; IAP /IAP Issues The Irvine Company; Friends of The Irvine Coast Coalition; California Dept. Parks 6 Recreation 46 I M goClgll.l!T._ ..— REVIEIi_04pY _QATE— Commission ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS LUP /IAP Friends of the Irvine 7/ 7/87 Review Revisions Proposed County of Orange; "Friends'" Representatives; the Irvine Coast Coalition by "Fr lends" The Irvine Company K LUP /IAP Coastal Commission 8/11/87 Review Revisions ®T�: L1; 11 /IA I' Crystal Cove Association 7/15/87 Public Nesting to Review Residents of Crystal Cove and areal Homeowner Groups u /11/07 Presentation on 1AJP /IAP and Iluuport LUP /IAP Issues County of Orange; The Irvine Company Transportation Issues LUP /IAP Coastal Commission 7/23/87 Review Revisions County of Orange; Coastal Commission Staff; Staff - Long Beach _ he Irvine Company LUP /IAP LUP /IAP Planning Commission 7/28/87 Ilorth Laguna Association S/ I /87 Public Hearing to Review LUP /IAP; Recommendations for Approval Tour of the Irvine Coast LUP /IAP Coastal Commission B/ 5/87 Review Revisions Staff - Long Beach "Friends "; The Irvine Company. ' L11v /(Av Felends'of the Irvine 8 /10/87 Review Revisions Coast Coalition our Ilewport iS11011); various homeowners LUP /IAP Coastal Commission 8/11/87 Review Revisions Staff - San Francisco LUP /IAP Various Homeowner Groups u /11/07 Presentation on 1AJP /IAP and Iluuport Beach Transportation Issues 49 County of Orange; Coastal Commission Staffs The Irvine Company; Representatives of the "Friends "s California Dept. of Parke 6 Recreation North Laguna Community Assoclation; The.Irvine Company County of Oranges coastal commission Staff; The Irvine Company County of Orange; Representatives of the "Friends "; The Irvine Company. County of Orange; Coastal Commission Staff; The Irvine Company a Cx 1 County of Oranges City of Irvine; The Irvine Company; Stop Polluting our Ilewport iS11011); various homeowners association members and officers L LUP /IAP Coast Coalition board of Supervisors 9/70/87 Pub) le Hearing to Review LUP /IAP Revisions 50 County of Orange) The Irvine Company? !: •�� L1 Friends of the Irvine Coast Coalition? others ()nClin F11'J`___D M EL_ OLMY L)BT€ 9CTIVITY PARTYCYPANT __. LUP /IAP Coastal Commission 8/13/87 Review Rev Csions. County of Orangol The Irvine Company Staff - Long Beach Coastal Commission Staff Gil LUP /IAP Village Laguna 8/24/87 Presentation on LUP /IAP Various citizens of Laguna Beach LUP /lAP Newport -Mesa Board 8/27/87 Presentation on Planning Local realtorsl The Irvine Company of Realtors Commission'e- Revisions LUP /IAP Friends of the Irvine 8 /71 /87 Review Revisions e "Friends" Representatives) County of Orange; Co Coast Coalition The Irvine Company � PV LUP /IAP Planning Commission 9/ 1/87 Public Rearing to Revlew County of Orange) Coastal Commission Staffl ' Additional LUP /IAP, The Irvine Company) Friends of The Revislonst Recommendation Irvine Coast Coalition? California Dept. for Approval Parks 6 Recreation LUP/IAP Friends of the Irvine 9 /10 /87 Review Revisions Friends' Repres ®ntativesi The Irvine Company LUP /IAP Coast Coalition board of Supervisors 9/70/87 Pub) le Hearing to Review LUP /IAP Revisions 50 County of Orange) The Irvine Company? !: •�� L1 Friends of the Irvine Coast Coalition? others Y' - �- 38 ®272903 O SECTION VIII Written Responses to Significant Environmental Points Raised - During the Review Process (see attached document labeled Response to Comments, dated July, 1987). 145 X903 - 848 ATTACHMENT A -1 OPEN SPACE COST /BENEFIT ANALYSIS P' D FOR ORANGE COUNTY Prepared For: Orange County'Board of Suprvisors - Orange County Planning Commission Orange County Planning Department Citizens Advisory Committee On - Open Space and Conservation May 25, 1973 Prepared By: WILLIAMS- KUEBELECK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3848 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 216 611 VETERANS BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 52 .g G E PV 0 ('IHR Oq 30 MLS� TT"� 20f�dE It C't —a Hq9 oq 30 -70 PALS] ZOMIE III ( 3 -A Hq6 0 7C -170 ML97 --- COUNTY MOUNCARY LINE (1 f:fj1 ® CSNTF7Cf0 CF Gg10gtTY 11 (((((�( fill f Ala EA t�i •'!!((!(t N —Nyy V _ ❑ a to as x S SCALE IN MILES } t!11u ?r �. bd PLATE VI--3 1.67.6 it'll j(Ij(i_ 9AN TA HAQ9AAA' f V@NTUgA , V . :•��•�.. ����': LOS, ANGELES ,. 'tlft•fi•d• :�::: .(if(:iSS(' j 1 .. .:::..................._...._._ ........._......_....._..... 1:1 -..•...:... . ...... ....................... ..... ::SAN BEANAgCINO ........ ..................... ...... I / i 9f�t'oEGIAL I SPHISPE CF INFLUENCE PPIORITY APEA Iv ©.26a' L LOWEq AL190 IC;ME °NeeE_T 4NO LACUNA GAEENeELT 4 ,�� _ ATTACHMENT A -z 1981 LUP - PLANNING HISTORY - PLANNING HISTORY In January 1'974, The Irvine Company started "The Irvine Coastal Community ilti- Agency Planning Program (TICMAP)." Ies purpose was to provide a forum for rticipacion in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested zznizacions, among them State, Federal, and local government agencies and ec- Lroomeocal groups. Under -the TICYAP program, ten public meetings were held. irimg these meetings, participants articulated a number of issues of concern. The acerms focused largely on trans port at ion and open space needs, development of the dgelinez, protection of the Laguna 'Greenbelt, access to the beach, annexation, pneres of influence, and, housing considerations. As a result', a plan was sub - •'-cted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 197,5. It was called the C_*_•1.p plan_ After receiving The Irvine Company's submittal, the County Eaviroameacal Manr ;ement Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alcerna- ;vez. 'These alternatives reflected many concerns expressed during public hear - .ags. They also incorporated proposals of the Coastal Zone Cbeservacion Commis- ' The major differences between the plan submitted by The Irvine Company and the ilceraacives developed by the' County were the exrent of, urban uses and the amount f land to be set aside for public recreation and open space uses. Based upon the lancing Commission's recosmcendacion, one of the County staff's alter-iatives was idopced by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976. The Coastal Act was.aoc passed until December 1976, and the Irvine Coast PLau ..ad to wait for the escablishment,of the new coastal commissions and Procedures for the submittal of mandated Local Coastal Programs. ' In August 1978, and after preliminary reviews by the State and regional ccc- missions, .the County of Orange submitted an LCP (land use portion) for the L-vine -oast which was based on the aooroved Geae =al Plan amendment. In FebruaYy 1979; :he South Coast Regional Commission denied the proposed LCP and it is currently on appeal with. the State Coastal Cocinissiom. Since that time, there have been marked _changes which make the previous LCP outdated_ The aequisicion of Crystal Cove State Park in December 1979, by the Stace.of California, the passage of the Orange Coast National Urban Park Bill-by the House of Representatives in May 1980, a gift of approximately 500 acres along- Moro Ridge by The Irvine Company to the State of California for park purposes, and a proposal by'che landowner to reduce the number of residential units from approximately :12,000 to approximately'2,000, together with an approximate 2,650 -acre open'space dedication, provide the opportunity for _an entirely new'and dramatic planning concept for the Irvine Coast. Based on these events, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, by Yinuce Order of June 4, 1980, directed the Environmental Management Agency, _in cooperation with The Irvine Company, to prepare a new Local Coastal Program'for Irvine Coast, in- cluding necessary General Plan amendments, zoning ordinance, and appropriate envi- ronmental documentation for consideration by the Board in December, 1980. In the course of carrying out this directive, a- Concept Plan •gas prepared for consideration by the Orange County Planning Commission, 'Board of Supervisors, and the State Coastal Commission. The Concept Plan provided a concise statzmenc of the Principal elements 'of an LCP, describing the general type, lacacion, and acreage of PG22a5 X88- 272903 uses, the arterial highway system, the interrelationship between the'various uses, and open space commitments by the landowner. On August 13, 1980, the ;e County Board of Supervisors concurred with a Concept Plan for the Irvine t and authorised ics transmittal to the Stace Coastal Commission. , State Coastal Commission considered the Coneepc Plan on August 19, and Septem- 18, 1980: The Commission as a whole took no action on the Plan, but individual :issioners indicated support for the basic concept. PUBLIC ACQUISITION PROGRAMS Five separate acquisition programs currently affect the Irvine Coast.. These illustrated in Exhibit I -4 and described as follows: State Park. The cornerstone of, the public acquisition program.is Crystal e State Park, an area of 1,898 acres acquired from The Irvine Company in ember ' 1979. The, park includes all but 50 acres of the land between Pacific sr Highway and„ Ehe ocean, as well as 'land in and, around bo ro Canyon. The acion of the park and the commitment of the Department of Parks and Recreation such that future expansion of State management to surrounding lands is appro- .ate and feasible. -State Expansion Area. In addition, the State has the right to purchase 393 :es adjacent co upper Moro Canyon. The Irvine Company bas agreed to a .fixed ice for this area-until Sepcember 1981. Mora Ridge Gifc. The Irvine Company has donated 500'acres of Maro Ridge as a _ fc cc the Department 'of Parks•and Recreation. This ridge gives the park most _ the Moro Canyon watershed and provides additional opportunities for inland cess to the park. ' Dedication. The Irvine Company is also willing to dedicate an additional. "'- 650+ acres, including all of the Emerald Canyon watershed, to the County of 'ange in exchange for the development of designated residential• and commercial •eas of the LCP. _ National Park. The Orange Coast National Urban Park Bill proposes the crea- ' :on of a 12,000 -acre park in the general location of the Laguna Greenbelt. Within %e Irvine Coast, 931 acres in Muddy Canyon and. on the frontal slopes of Wishbone ` ill are proposed for Federal purchase. Proposed Sand Canyon Avenue forms the �rthwesceru boundary of the Federal park, with the excepeion of the frontal slopes f Wishbone Hill. The proposed San Joaquin Hills, Transportation Corridor forms the _ ortheastern boundary. . AREA DE5 PTION The Irvine Coast Flanniag_Onit contains 9,400 acs is located along the :outhern coast of Orange County between Nevpor and Laguna Beach.. The Irvine :oast generally extends from the to the ridge of the San Joaquin Hills. _ :eographically and topographi.o-a3 y, the coascal---area of the Irvine Ranch contains - :ive distinct areas: � shoreline, the coastal s f, gently sloping coastal sills, pictures gy canyons., and .prominent ridgelines. ?G22 a6 55 149 - r. - °272903 - ^ptember 1980 — December 1980 ovember 1980 — March 1981 Irch 1981 — May 1981 Tune 1981 - July 1981 10 TICMAP Meetingd 24 General Plan Amendment Hearings 4 Public Hearings on LCP 2 Preliminary Reviews by State and Regional Commissions 5 Regional Commission LCP Hearings 2 County Hearings; 2 Public Field Trips; 2 Coastal Commission Hearings an the Con- _ cepc Plan 4 LCP and General Plan Amendment Hearings 4 UP and Zane Change Hearings 3 I:CP Amendment Hearings . 3 Coastal Commission Hearings _ planning process for the Irvine Coast has had a long history. A detailed ology of the most receuc public participation program which resulted in this :_cular land use plan and implementation program is presented in Fxhibic I -2A. !C22a4 11 A i 1150 .:mber 1973 .— July 1975. '.y 1975. — August 1976 :ch 1978 — April 1978 y 3.978 — June 1978 n nary 1979 - February 1979 agust 1980 — c September 1980 ^ptember 1980 — December 1980 ovember 1980 — March 1981 Irch 1981 — May 1981 Tune 1981 - July 1981 10 TICMAP Meetingd 24 General Plan Amendment Hearings 4 Public Hearings on LCP 2 Preliminary Reviews by State and Regional Commissions 5 Regional Commission LCP Hearings 2 County Hearings; 2 Public Field Trips; 2 Coastal Commission Hearings an the Con- _ cepc Plan 4 LCP and General Plan Amendment Hearings 4 UP and Zane Change Hearings 3 I:CP Amendment Hearings . 3 Coastal Commission Hearings _ planning process for the Irvine Coast has had a long history. A detailed ology of the most receuc public participation program which resulted in this :_cular land use plan and implementation program is presented in Fxhibic I -2A. !C22a4 11 A i 1150 M O M CV N I co Co. 6�- L/ SUI -NARY OF IC PARTICIPATION Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LCP/LUP 00 -4 N/A July 7, 1900 Notice of Preparation Various public agencies an LUE 80 -4/ of EIR distributed community groups Zone Change LCP /LUP 80 -4 N/A July 24, 1900 Meeting State Department of Parks LUE 80 -4/ and Recreation, Orange Zone Change County EMA, The Irvine Company, Larry Seeman Associates, inc. Concept Plan Planning Commission August 12, 1900 Public Hearing Planning Commission Concept Plan Board of Supervisors August 13, 1900 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors LCP /LUP 00 -4 N/A August 14, 1900 Meeting Fred Talarlco, City of ilea LUE 80 -4 port Beach, Orange County EMA, The Irvine Company, Larry Seeman Associates; ' LCP /LUP 80 -4 State Coastal Commission August 15, 1900 Field Trip State Coastal Commission, LUE 80 -4 citizens Zone Change LCP /LUP 80 -4 State Coastal Commis'sior August 18, 1900 Field Trip State Coastal Comnission, LUE 80 -4 citizens Zone Change' Concept Plan State Coastal Comnission August 19, 1900 Public Hearing State'Coastal Commission Concept Plan State Coastal Comnission September 16, 1900 Public Hearing State Coastal Comnission Continued... EXHIBIT i -2A d I] Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LCP /LUP 80 -4 LUE 80-4% N/A September 25, 1980 Draft EIR D Mributed Various public agencies, Zone Change community groups and private citizens. LCP Planning Commission. September"30, 1980 Public Hearing Planning commission, Orange County DMA, The Irvine Company LCP Newport Beach Transpor- October 7, 1980 Briefing Session Committee Members tation & Envlron. Comm. LCP Planning Commission October 20, 1980 Public Hearing Planning'Commission, Orange County EMA, The Irvine Company LCP /LUP 80 -4 Newport Beach Planning October 23, 1980 Briefing Session Not Available LUE 80 -4 - Commission LCP Joint Session, Laguna November 10, 1980 Public Hearing. Planning Commission, City Beach Planning Commis- sion and City Council Council, Orange County EMA LCP /LUP 80 -4 LUE 80 -4 Planning Commission November 18, 1980. Public 'Hear ng Planning Commission, . Orange County F11A, The Irvine Company, Pam Davis - California State Horsemen's Association of Orange County, Michael Scott - Laguna Greenbelt, Audrey Moe - Cameo Shores Home- owner's Association LCP /LUP 80 -4 Planning Commission December. 2,` 1900" Public Hearing Planning Commission, 7he', Irvine Company, Bill Ward City of Newport Beach, a resident of Cameo Shores Homeowner's Association, P am. Davis, California.Stat cinued... IiorsemenIs Association rl Its 7 D J J D D eF r 'I SUWARY OF PUBLIC PARIICIPATION (Contlnued) P Document Review Body Date Act lvIt Participants LCP /LUP 80 -4 Board of Supervisors December 17,. 1900 Public Bearing Board of Supervisors Zone Change Planning Commission January 26, 1901 Public Hearing Planning Commission, Orange County EIM, Audrey Moe and Sherry Loofbourrow - Cameo Community Association, The Irvine Company Zone Change Board of Supervisors March 4, 1901 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors LUP. Amendment N/A March 25, 1981 Distribution of Draft Various public agencies, LUP Amendment community groups, and private citizens LUP Amendment Planning Commission April 15, 1981 Public Hearing Planning Commission, Orange County EMA,.Coastal Ccanission staff LUP Amendment Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Public {tearing Planning Commission, Orange County EMA, Coastal Corrmisslon staff, Depart- ment of Parks. and Recreation LUP Amendment Board of Supervisors May 6, 1981 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors, Orange County EMA, Ron Kennedy, Friends of Irvine Coast, Laguna Greenbelt, CEED, The Irvine Company Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce I I , I I I , I I I iMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Continued) Page'4 Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LUP Coastal Commission June 2, 1981 Public Hearing Coastal Commission, Depart ment of Fish and Game, Friends of Irvine Coast LUP Coastal Commission June 18, 1981 Public Hearing Coastal Commission, Depart- ment of Fish and Game, Friends of Irvine Coast, SPON, Laguna Greenbelt, County of Orange, The Irvine Company, community groups, and private citi- zens LUP N/A July 18, 1901 Workshop County of Orange; The Irvine Company, SPON, ' Laguna Greenbelt, commun= ity groups, and private .citizens LUP Coastal Commission July 21, 1981 Public Hearing Coastal Commission, County of Orange, The Irvine Company, various community groups, and private citizens "t4''��` A -3 ATTACH 88- 272903 .y ATTACHMENT A-3 1.979 COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - CEQA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MAJOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLAN /CEQA (EQUIVALENCY)' REOUIREMENT n order to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA)and the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission is required to examine the implications of alternatives to the plan. Zie following is a discussion of the major alternatives. mecause.the County reviewed several development alternatives at the time of the adoption of the Irvine Coast General Plan, the following discussion will not ttempt to examine variations of 'the high intensity alternative. Rather the ollowing discussion is directed toward a review of major types of alternatives in terms of overall land•use and intensity (e.g. recreation use.as an - lternative co residential development). •• ALTERNATIVE 1: Maximum Development Alternative his alternative basically consists of dhe plan as proposed, including - xtensive /intensive urban development in Area A, and "Reserve" areas for later. ., possible phased development or possible acquisition and /or dedication.' Other A gh- intensity alternatives were considered by the County and the Irvine Company .s the Irvine coastal area planning process evolved. The currently proposed plan is the ,product of lengthy analysis and extensive work by the County; this -Ian, if modified to meet Coastal Act requirements, would be the optimal high - .ncensity plan for the area, should it be determined that'a high = intensity urban alternative is appropriate. )st of 'the high - intensity urban development would be located near employment Inters. The plan could be modified to allow for maximum feasible public transit and maximum open space, thereby addressing recreation and air quality protection - .oncerms, as well as access and habitat protection issues. However, this :lternative has significant' disadvantages �due to the magnitude and intensity of the urban development proposed. The natural habitat value of. Buck Cully would Rssencially be lost. Surface runoff would increase significantly.and extensive ;rading and fill would have substantial adverse impacts. Negative impacts would occur if Sand Canyon Road is-constructed as proposed And the ridge between.Moro and Emerald Canyons is developed in residential use. The plan's designation of 'Reserve" areas, as proposed, will only postpone development, and will not , rreserve resource areas permanently. The outstanding natural visual quality of the area would be permanently-degraded, especially in the urbanized areas. :onsiderable.open space area would be lost, especially in the coastal shelf. This alternative also makes no provision for guaranteed "'affordable" housing. " roposed resort areas west of Highway 1 and in the Lower Wishbone area would Intrude into extremely sensitive scenic areas. Proposed roads could create congestion on Pacific Coast Highway if interchanges are not adequately designed. This alternative may result in significant air quality degradation in an already legraded airshed. These impacts are potentially quite significant. However, if :he issues discussed in this report, and referred to in the July 6,•1976 letter from Director Bodovitz to Director Osborne of Orange County '(See Attachment 2) -7ere resolved, a modified plan . could provide for extensive development in close )roximity to major employment centers combined with protection of significant resource areas. 61 1515 80- 272903 developed oq Pelican Hill, thereby making accessible to the public the spectacular views of Newport 'Bay and the Orange County coast available only from that area. Lower intensity recreational uses such as equestrian /hiking trail systems could also be integrated into a commercial recreational system linking _ the ridges with the coastal shelf. Since commercial recreation would be less land intensive than residential development, fewer, direct impacts on resourc-: areas would occur; indirect impacts of residential development resulting from the, intrusion of people and domestic animals into habitat areas would be reduced, if not precluded. Traffic impacts could also be reduced, or at least limited to traffic serving priority uses under the Coastal Act. The disadvantages of Alternative 3 are essentially the same as those described under Alternative 2 dealing with the permanent management of the resource protection areas, the requirements of Section 30250 and the loss of low and moderate-income housing opportunities. ALTERNATIVE 4: Maintain the Area in Azricultural Use This alternative would basically keep the area as a ranch with grazing and some - crops (e.g., grapes). It would main Cain the visual attributes of the area, and most natural habitats .would be protected. Air quality and traffic impacts would. be avoided; the beneficial role of the ranch iii mitigating, instead of causing, _ air pollution problems would be maintained. However, with this alternative, the public would lose potential recreational benefits. The already overgrazed areas of the ranch could be further degraded, with significant adverse impacts on improperly managed habitat areas. Additionally, there is serious question about the economic feasibility of maintaining the area in primarily agricultural uses. _ ALTERNATIVE 5:, Public Park Purchase of the Entire Area, or a Si.znificant Portion of the Area This alternative is currently under. study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It would have the major advantage of maintaining visual quality and natural habitat values of the area. Most traffic and air quality impacts as- sociated with urban development would be avoided. This alternative would create - a major recreational asset to a rapidly urbanizing area sorely deficient in re- _ creational facilities and open space. Such a major park would be a significant addition to the regional and state -wide public open space recreation system. - C. DISCUSSION OF MAJOR- CONCERNS WITH THE COLWN Y PLAN This report expresses strbng agreement with. the basic d'evelopmenc patterns and land use designations set forth in the land use plan. Concurrence in the outlines of the County Plan can be attributed to the considerable efforts by the County and cooperation at the time the plan was formulated. Proposals for change, in general, are not focussed on the amount or location of proposed developments. The only areas where changes are recommended in.the County's'developmenc designations are: (1) redesiguation of Moro-Ridge from residential to commercial recreational use in order to provide uses more compatible with _ habitat protection (Section 30240 of the Act) and 'to provide recreational access to use and staging areas that will complement beach recreational use (Section 30223; and (2) redesignation of a small area at the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon from Tourist Recreation Commercial to Conservation in order to protect the resources of the canyon (Section 30240 of the Act). The staff report does contain conditions recommending 'modifications in use designations 1150 TERNATIVE 2: Estate Zoning Combined with Park Acguistion 'his alternative would provide for development of the entire Irvine Coastal property as 20 -40 acre "ranchettes" in conjunction with public acquistion of some park lands. The development contemplated by this alternative would be ;imilar-in scope to the Hollister Ranch development in Santa Barbara County. Io terms of resource protection•this alternative would maintain the visual and iatural habitat values of the area since such a form of development involves minimal laudform alteration. .Because this alternative could be conditioned on limited maintenance of the natural areas by the homeowners association, habitat - management costs would be significantly lover, if not minimal when compared with the Orange County LCP Alternative 1,-due to the absence of people generated impacts. This alternative would elimininace the potential for adverse.traffic impacts on coastal access from traffic generated by the local residential and commercial development inherent in Alternative 1. The traffic impact on public use of Pacific Coast Highway from the potential 250 residential units under . _Alternative 2 would be inconsequential in comparison with Alternative 1, even if to roads connecting with inland areas are constructed. The disadvantages of this alternative include the likelihood that permanent. - preservation through public management of much of the habitat and potential re- creation areas, shown as 5.4-and 5.41 in County Plan, could not be attained in contras[ with the phased dedication program recommended by staff for Alternative -1. In addition, low intensity development would not encourage the concentration )f development in close proximity to the employment centers of Newport Center and the Orange County Airport industrial park as envisioned by Public Resources -Code Section 30250. Additionally; the low intensity alternative would probably preclude the implementation of an affordable housing program in the area. ALTERNATIVE 3: Commercial Recreational Development of the Entire Area The Irvine coast is located near major CalifortLia tourist destinations. The Irvine• property has a potential for visitor- serving commercial recreational - development which'exceeds that of the Santa Monica Mountains. Another significant factor in the recreational potential of the Irvine property is the consolidated ownership of the lands. Unlike'the Malibu /Santa Monica Mountains area, the Irvine property is not fragmented into multiple land ownerships or constrained by past development patterns. The possibility of carefully planned, staged development creates the same potential for diversified _ recreational development that was created in part.by unified ownership of the land and water areas ia-Mission Bay in San Diego. _ Intensities of recreational use could be varied according to resource protection and access. constraints and in a manner which would allow a multiplicity of recreational experiences. By providing a much larger scale of commercial de- velopment than is proposed by Alternative 1,- Alternative 3 has a greater Potential for providing recreational opportunities for low and moderate income Persons. Additionally, Alternative 3 would open up areas providing unique ex- periences for recreational use that are committed to residential development in Alternative 1. In particular, a major commercial recreation complex' could be EXHIBIT D OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS; PUBLIC BENEFITS - 88272903 1152 88- 272903' I. BENEFITS SECURED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: This Exhibit D sets forth public benefits to be received by COUNTY and its residents as conditions to the approval of the Agreement ( "Agreement ") to which this Exhibit D is attached including, without limitation, the.undertakings with respect to the provision of public facilities described below. A. Sheriff Substation. The Implementation Agreement shall provide that within twelve (12). 'months from the date of written notice by COUNTY to OWNER that COUNTY desires construction of such facility to commence, OWNER shall make the financial contributions required pursuant to Paragraph I.A.3. below toward the construction of the.sheriff facility described below (the "Sheriff Substation "). 1. Description of Facility. _ The term- "Sheriff Substation" shall include: the land; building or buildings; parking areas; driveways; sidewalks; walls and fences; landscaping; water, sewer, gas and electricity pipelines, transmission lines and facilities; and other ancillary and incidental buildings, fixtures, structures and improvements necessary to provide sheriff and related services to the.then present and future residents, populations and public of and within the Property and the area of benefit for such Sheriff Substation, which area of benefit will be determined at a later date ( "Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit ") ; provided, however, that said term shall not include equipment and furnishings. The standards utilized in making the foregoing determinations as to the size, quality and nature of the facilities required shall be the customs, practices and standards in effect on the Effective. Date, as determined by COUNTY. 2. OWNER's Obligation. Subject to the Maximum Amount set forth below, SLMEXD.023 /110 D -1 04/20/88 -2 - ,59 OWNER shall bear and pay its "Pro- rata" Share of the costs of the Sheriff Substation determined in accordance with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3570. For purposes of this Section. and Section 3.8.b.(1)(C) of the Agreement, OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of the Sheriff Sub- station shall equal - the lesser of (i) OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the actual costs of the Sheriff Substation or (ii) OWNER's Pro -rata Share (expressed as a percentage) multiplied by $6,382,750, as such number is adjusted annually after the Effective Date for inflation utilizing the most recent quarterly report of the Real Estate Research Council of Southern California's Office Building Construction Cost Index. (the "Index ")... In addition to its Pro -rata Share, OWNER shall also bear and pay an additional portion of. said costs, as partial consideration for this Agreement, which are necessary to• cover the remainder of' the costs of said facility; provided, 'however,. that in no event shall the aggregate of said Pro -rata Share and said additional portio, n of such costs exceed $343,875 (subject to adjustment annually for inflation utilizing the Index) ( "Maximum Amount ").. Such additional portion in excess of OWNER's Pro -rata Share shall be subject to contribution and reimbursement as provided below. Based upon uncertainty currently existing regarding the actual size of the sheriff facility required, a high Maximum Amount has been established. 3. As a condition precedent to OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Paragraph I.A.3., COUNTY shall use its best efforts to cause all other developers of undeveloped lands within the unincorporated portion of the COUNTY lying within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit to contribute to the costs of the Sheriff Substation and to: (i). require that all future development within the unincorporated area of the COUNTY lying within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit pay its Pro -rata Share of the costs of said facility; (ii) cause compensation to be paid to COUNTY during the term of this Agreement for sheriff services provided to incorporated areas within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit in an amount attributable to the value of the use of said facility in connection with the provision of such services; and (iii) require that"any developer'of lands within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit entering into a development agreement with COUNTY, pay an-additional sum to SLMEXD.023 /110 04/20/88 -2 D -2 100 :?' 3 ®272903 COUNTY, which additional sum bears the same ratio'to the Pro - rata Share of such developer as the additional sum required to be paid by OWNER. (including amounts to be advanced subject to reimbursement as provided, below) bears to OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the. costs of said facility. In the event the cost of the Sheriff Substation exceeds $6,382,750, any amounts collected by COUNTY which were not taken into account in computing OWNER's contribution shall first be used to fund the excess cost. After the excess .cost is completely funded, any such remaining fees shall be paid by COUNTY to OWNER and other contributors under development agreements or other contributors of more than their Pro -rata Share in proportion tb their individual Pro -rata Shares as reimbursement for, and to-the extent of, the amounts, if any, paid by them in excess of their respective Pro -rata Shares but only to the extent, however, that OWNER has not previously been reimbursed by-COUNTY or a CFD. B. Library. Within twelve (12) months of written notice by _ COUNTY, but not prior to recordation of the first development tract map, OWNER shall pay to COUNTY $422,500. Such funds will be used for the enhancement-or construction of library _ facilities which will serve the. Project and adjacent areas. COUNTY shall use such funds only for such purposes (including .but not limited to provision for-administration and overhead) , and may provide all or a portion of "such funds to another public agency to be used for such purposes. C. Fire Facility. Prior to the recordation cf the first development subdivision map covering lands inland of Pacific Coast Highway which results in the creation of one or more building sites, COUNTY and OWNER shall enter into an Implementation Agreement, in COUNTY's customary form, to provide for the construction of the below- described Fire Facility. The Fire Station shall be operational on July 1, 1990, or prior to the issuance of the 500th certificate of occupancy or prior to' the occupancy of the first hotel, whichever occurs first. If it is apparent the 500th certificate of occupancy or occupancy of the first hotel will be more than 180 days after the July 1,1990 date the COUNTY agrees to a' fire station construction schedule which will provide an operational facility prior to the issuance of the 500th certificate of occupancy, or prior to occupancy of the first hotel, whichever occurs first. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -3 04/20/88 -2 1101 6%, X83 ®272903 1. Description of Facility. The term "Fire Facility" shall be a facility to -- provide fire protection services to the Property and the area described in COUNTY's.Development Fee Program for Fire Stations and Branch Libraries dated December, 1987, for Fire Station 52 ( "Fire Facility Area of Benefit ") and shall include: the land; building or buildings; parking areas; driveways; sidewalks; walls and fences; _ landscaping; water, sewer, gas and electricity pipelines, transmission lines and facilities; and other ancillary.and incidental buildings, fixtures, structures; equipment and improvements necessary to - provide fire and. related services to the then present and future residents, populations and public of and within the property and the Fire Facility Area of - Benefit. The standards utilized in making the foregoing determinations as to the size, 'quality and nature of the facilities and equipment required shall be the customs, practices and standards of COUNTY in effect on the Effective Date. Plans and specifications shall be prepared by-OWNER - in accordance with the requirements promulgated by COUNTY and set forth in said written notice from COUNTY to OWNER described above and in consultation with - COUNTY General Services Agency. and Fire Chief. OWNER shall expeditiously commence, prosecute and complete the construction thereof; provided, however, that the commencement of construction of said facility shall be subject to the prior written, approval of said plans and specifications by COUNTY General Services Agency and Engineer Division. - 2. OWNER'S Obligation. OWNER shall bear and pay its Pro -rata Share of the costs of the Fire Facility determined in accordance with COUNTY'Ordinance Number 3570. For purposes of this Section and Section 3.6.2.(C) of the Agreement, OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of the Fire Facility, as owner of the Property, shall equal 33% of the actual costs of the Fire Facility. In addition to. its Pro -rata Share, OWNER shall also bear and. pay an additional portion of said costs, as partial consideration for this Agreement, which is necessary to cover the remainder of the costs of said facility ( "Maximum Amount ") . Said Additional portion of the costs in excess of OWNER's Pro -rata Share shall be subject to contribution and reimbursement as provided below. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -4 04/20/88 -2 102 Q1 8�':27ZUU:� 3. Contribution and Reimbursement to the Costs of the Facility. As a condition precedent to OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Subsection I.C., COUNTY shall use its best efforts to cause all other developers of undeveloped lands within the unincorporated portion of the County within the Fire Facility Area of Benefit (which may include OWNER) to contribute to the costs of the Fire Facility in accordance with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3570 and to: a: require that all future development within the unincorporated area of the County lying within the Fire Facility Area of Benefit to pay its Pro -rata Share of the-costs of said facility; and b. require that any developer of lands - within the Fire Facility Area of Benefit entering into a development agreement with COUNTY pay an additional sum to COUNTY, which additional sum bears the same ratio to said Pro -rata Share of such developer as the. additional. sum required to be paid by OWNER (including amounts to be advanced subject to reimbursement as provided below) bears to OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of said facility. Any amounts collected by COUNTY which were not taken into account in computing OWNER's contribution shall be paid by COUNTY to OWNER and other contributors under development agreements in proportion to their individual Pro -rata Shares.as reimbursement for, and to the extent of, the amounts, if any, paid to'them in excess of their respective Pro -rata Shares but only to the extent, however, that'OWNER has not been previously ' reimbursed by COUNTY, a CFD, a special assessment district, or similar entity. - D. Standby Commitment for 1990 Action Plan for South County Road Improvements. In the event COUNTY adopts a fee program to complete the roadway improvements pursuant to and in accordance with the Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors adopted on December 15, 1987, for South County Roadway Improvements (the 111990 Action Plan ") OWNER shall pay its Pro -rata share of the costs of the 1990 Action Plan as and when.building permits are SLMEXD.023 /110. D -5 04/20/88 -2. lo3 '8- 272903 issued; provided, however, that OWNER's maximum contribution under any such program shall not exceed $1,200 per equivalent dwelling unit, and provided further that said contribution (fees) shall be expended on roadway improvements identified in the 1990 Action Plan. E. Participation in Traffic Signal Fee Program. In the event COUNTY adopts a Traffic Signal Fee Program which includes the'Property in the area of benefit to pay for the design and installation of _ traffic signals, OWNER shall participate in the payment of such fees, on a Pro -rata basis as determined in accordance with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3.570 and based upon the benefits thereof to the Property or portions - thereof which remain subject to-this Agreement, concurrently with the issuance of building permits; provided, however, that OWNER's maximum contribution - under any such program shall not exceed $75 per equivalent dwelling unit. OWNER shall receive a credit against the first fees due under any such program for _ the cost of the design and installation of the signal on Pacific.Coast Highway at Los Trancos to serve the existing and future state park facilities and for other off -site signals installed by OWNER or.at its cost, - provided that such installation, payment.and credit is approved in advance in writing by'the Director of the Environmental Management Agency for COUNTY. - F. Security for Performance of Work. The obligations of OWNER under any.Implementation Agreement to complete any facility shall be secured by a surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, cash, negotiable bonds or other security, or combination of security, acceptable to COUNTY, in a sufficient sum (not to exceed the Maximum Amount in connection therewith ) to assure completion and the faithful performance of OWNER's obligations under 'this section. The amount of such security shall be reduced by the availability of CFD, special assessment district, or similar entity, bond proceeds available to satisfy the obligations of OWNER under this section. G. Satisfaction of Obligations. Performance by OWNER of its obligations set forth above will fully satisfy all of'the obligations of OWNER and its successors and assigns to COUNTY with respect to the Property relating to the construction, - dedication., equipping and furnishing of sheriff, library or fire _ SLMEXD.023 /110 D -6 04/20/88 -2 104 r r-;88 -2T 2903 facilities or to participate in any fee programs of COUNTY in connection therewith,' subject to and except as _ provided in Sections 3.6.2(c) and 4.3 of the Agreement. H. Child Care. OWNER agrees to participate in the 'establishment and funding of an entity for the provision of child -care facilities by entering into an agreement with COUNTY, within ninety (90) days of-the Effective Date, to provide a'fee of $20.00 per applicable dwelling unit to be paid to COUNTY or such entity for the establishment of a child -care facility. I. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) . 1. Right -Of -Way Dedication. OWNER shall record an irrevocable Offer of Dedication of the ultimate MPAH width right -of -way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between future Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard within ninety days (90) of the Effective Date of this Agreement. (The offer shall provide for the dedication of sufficient right -of -way owned by-the Company determined by COUNTY ;to fully satisfy the needs therefor and to fully comply with applicable Regulations (including full compliance with the California-Environmental Quality Act•.("CEQA") and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA). The right of COUNTY or the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency ( "TCA") by COUNTY's designation, to accept OWNER's Offer of Dedication shall be subject to securing the required approvals in accordance.with applicable Regulations (including full compliance with CEQA and, if applicable, NEPA) and, the first to occur of the following: (a) recordation of the first development tract 'map; or (b) 'approval by COUNTY or TCA of plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of the SJHTC between Sand Canyon and MacArthur Boulevard. Said Offer of Dedication shall provide that the lands shall be used only for transportation purposes and, on an interim basis, open space purposes. If OWNER is unable to convey title by the date on which COUNTY has the'right to and accepts OWNER's Offer of Dedication, through no fault of OWNER, said date may be extended as agreed by OWNER and Director of EMA of COUNTY. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement, OWNER shall receive from COUNTY fee credits in satisfaction of its SLMEXD.023 /110 04/20/88 -2 D -7 105 `8- 272903 J; existing obligations to pay fees under the SJHTC Fee Program for the conveyance of the dedication. The amount of said credits shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the SJHTC Fee Program. COUNTY acknowledges that OWNER would not have entered into this Agreement but for the fact that the dedications to the SJHTC by OWNER as required by this Agreement are agreed to be in excess of what would otherwise be OWNER's obligations pursuant to the SJHTC.Program. 2. SJHTC Fee Program. Project development and construction funding for the SJHTC provided by OWNER pursuant to agreement with the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) (including the value of dedicated right -of -way in excess of 120 feet in width, and the creditable value of Pelican Hill Road improvement's within the SJHTC right -of -way, all as approved by the "TCA") shall be counted as a credit toward fees to be paid under the SJHTC Fee Program. Any remaining fees owed under that Program shall be secured by financial instruments (or other agreements provided the COUNTY or TCA in accordance with OWNER's agreement to provide reasonable assurances of its performance) upon recordation of first tract map and payable upon demand by TCA. Building permits for which corridor fees are paid. in advance-pursuant to the financial instruments or other agreements shall not'be required to pay for any fee increases made after the funds are advanced. J. Dedication of Open Space. Owner shall proceed to record the Offer of Dedication for the 2,'666 acre dedication area, as provided in, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the 1988 Local Coastal Program. K. Enhanced Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan The roadway phasing program specifically provided in the 1988 LCP, Chapter 3, Section E, will be enhanced by acceleration of the construction schedule and /or additional road improvements as follows: SLMEXD.023 /110 D -8 04/20/88 -2 100 1. S'an Joaquin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road will be improved an additional two (2) lanes, a length of one and one -half miles. 2. Pacific Coast Highway. The north -bound travel lane of Pacific Coast Highway will be constructed as one project and in advance of the phasing defined in LCP Exhibit Q. _ 3. Pelican Hill Road. Pelican Hill Road will be constructed to ultimate width (six lanes) from Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road prior to the use and occupancy of the Pelican Hill Frontal Slope Development (PA13A, P.A13B). II. PREVIOUSLY EXACTED BENEFITS: The previously exacted public benefits, to be.received by COUNTY and its residents as a result of the Project are described in more detail in the 1488 Local Coastal Program, Part I, Chapter 2, entitled "Coastal Act Consistency and Overall Findings and Conclusions," Chapter 3, entitled "Resource Conservation and Management Policies," and Chapter 4, entitled "Development Policies." Such benefits include, without limitation: A. Early dedication of 2,666 acres of open space, with an.accelerated and simplified incremental'. acceptance schedule; B. Dedication of over 1,100 acres 'of additional open space in Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon and Muddy Canyon; C. Dedication -of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor right -of -way; D. Early construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast'Highway to MacArthur Boulevard; _ E. Extension of two (2) lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road from its eastern terminus to the new Pelican Hill Road; F. Widening of Pacific Coast Highway along the frontage of the development areas; G. Phased completion of all internal road improvements; and SLMEXD.023 /110 D -9 04/20/88 -2 107 88- 272908 H. Strengthened emphasis on visitor- serving facilities, including the provision of a destination.resort. The following is a description of the significance and extent of these public benefits: 1. Transportation Improvements. a. Pelican Hill Road. The COUNTY desires to encourage the ear- liest possible construction of'Pelican Hill Road because, in the time period prior to the .construction of the SJHTC, Pelican Hill Road is the only regional.transportation facility capable of contributing to the achievement of certain regional traffic objectives established by the COUNTY. Under the 1988 Local Coastal Program, Pelican Hill Road will be constructed at four lanes from Pacific . Coast Highway to MacArthur instead of the two lanes provided for under the 1982 Land Use Plan. The COUNTY will thus achieve this benefit in advance of both the Project needs• and the time at which it would have been achieved under the 1982 Land Use Plan. The early construction of Pelican Hill Road will provide the following significant public benefits: (i) Relieves congestion on and allows for a significant diversion,of traffic from Pacific Coast Highway and sections of MacArthur Boulevard by providing a bypass route around Corona del Mar in Newport Beach, with the attendant commute and recreational access benefits discussed in EIR 460'and noted in the Irvine Coast Area Traffic Analysis. The analysis indicates that approximately twice as much . traffic could be diverted from Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach onto Pelican Hill Road.as may be added to Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the Project. This diversion of traffic will provide a substantial benefit for Corona del Mar residents and businesses and SLMEXD.023 /110 D -10 04/20/88 -2 102 88� .... . will substantially benefit other users of Pacific Coast Highway - living elsewhere in the region. (ii) Improves access from inland areas to _ visitor- serving and public recreation facilities such as Crystal Cove State Park. - (iii) Establishes a route compatible with existing and ultimate regional circulation needs in accordance with - the MPAH and all adopted plans of. the City, COUNTY and State agencies which have jurisdiction or interest _ in the area. (iv) Enables a highway design compatible with the terrain. ,(v) Establishes a major new access to the University of California at Irvine campus, which is expected to experience significant future growth. (vi) Creates a regional air.quality benefit by reducing driving distances for users of the new - roadway, thereby increasing the overall system efficiency. - (vii) Contributes to implementation of Development Plan land uses and corresponding benefits. b. Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan. This roadway phasing program is intended to assure both that Project generated circulation needs will be met and that additional capacity to serve local and regional transportation needs will be provided above and beyond the Project's needs. As is specifically provided in the 1988 Local Coastal Program, Chapter 3, Section E, Transportation Policy 22: "The highway improvements and phasing as - defined in this Section E and on Exhibit Q, which are required by this LCP, have been. determined to be of significance beyond normal SLMEXD.023 /110 D -11 04/20/88 -2 log M-- x'72903 project requirements so as .to meet .the objectives of the COUNTY's Growth Management Program. Consistent with this LCP, highway -- improvements and implementation of the Growth Management Program identified above will be incorporated into subsequent agreements, if _ any, between the landowner and the COUNTY." This Agreement is intended to carry out the policy direction set forth in the Development Plan in relation to the objectives of the COUNTY's Growth Management Program. C. Pacific Coast Hicrhway. Pacific Coast Highway will be improved to _ five lanes from Corona del Mar to Muddy Canyon, a length of about two and one -half miles. It will be widened by one north -bound travel lane with appropriate transitions along Planning Areas 3A, 3B, 10B, and 14. Additionally, PCH will be widened along Planning Area 10A to create a transition from - three lanes north -bound to the two existing lanes. Along Planning Area 9, it will be widened by one south -bound lane with _ appropriate transitions. Habitat Area Protection. The Development Plan provides for the transfer of ownership to the COUNTY of major riparian areas on the Property. In addition to the 2,666 acre - open space dedication area, -these areas include the approximately. 1,100 acres of large. scale canyon habitats in Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon and _ Muddy Canyon. Residential areas have been pulled back from the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill and along the ridges to further protect the coastal viewshed and to increase setbacks from Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully habitat areas. Specific habitat protection benefits resulting from this residential clustering and from road re- alignments include: a. The realignment of Sand Canyon Avenue out _ of Muddy Canyon. b. The realignment of Pelican Hill Road away _ from the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -12 04/20/88 -2 17L) 272903 C. The conversion of portions of`Planning Area 6 from development to open space in areas adjoining Moro Canyon and Muddy - Canyon. d. The reduction of development areas - bordering Los Trancos Canyon. 3. Local Parks. Active recreational needs will be met by the dedication of a ten -acre site located at the Coyote Canyon Landfill with improvements to be provided - through assessment district financing. If that site is determined to be infeasible, a combination of land and improvements to equal ten acres will be - identified on a site within the boundaries of the Irvine Coast Planned Community. The precise location of the site will be determined, subject to the approval.of the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the recordation of the first development tract map within the Irvine Coast Planned Community. The first increment of local park requirement shall be met through dedication of public special use open space. 'The second phase shall include the improved public.local park.' This credit can be used to' satisfy the local park code requirements for an appropriate number of dwelling units. 4. . The Property has been the subject of cooperative planning efforts by the OWNER, the COUNTY, environmental groups and other interested parties for a ' number-of years.- The Development Plan contains significant modifications to the earlier approved 1982 Land Use Plan. The modifications were made by the OWNER with the cooperation of the Coastal Commission staff and local environmental groups. They are contained in an amended Land Use Plan which is included in the 1988 Local Coastal Program. The COUNTY has found that the modifications achieve significant public - benefits and further both COUNTY and Coastal Policy Act Objectives. The significant public benefits in the 1988 Local Coastal Program above and beyond those in the 1982 Land Use Plan are summarized below. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -13 04/20/88 -2 �J 2903 a. Enhanced-Open Space Dedication Program. The significant benefits over the Open Space program approved in the 1982 Local Coastal Program include: (i) The.1988 Local Coastal Program will provide an additional approximate 1,100 acres of public open space (for a total of approximately 5,500 acres of contiguous open space- area), increasing total plan area open space from 61% under the 1982 Local Coastal Program to 76% under the 1988 Local Coastal Program. Approximately 1,100 acres of new special use park lands, comprised primarily of parklands in Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully, and Muddy Canyon, which were designated as private recreation areas under the 1982 Land Use Plan, and 16 acres of land near Laurel Canyon previously designated for development will be added to the approximate 2,650 acres of public recreation area required under the 1982 Land Use Plan.' Dedicating this land as special use park.recreation areas provides opportunities to link them with Crystal Cove State Park trails. Muddy Canyon, which would have been significantly altered under the 1982 Land Use Plan, will also be preserved. (ii) The 1988 Local Coastal Program contains an offer of dedication for 'the entire approximate 2,666 acre dedication area to be recorded prior to initial development grading (other than grading for Pelican Hill Road). The Offer may be accepted in four phases, constituting four large management units, as contrasted with the twenty or more management units /phased dedications and complex access and utility easement reservations provided for in the 1982 Land Use Plan. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -14 04/20/88 -2 _ 172 8'272903 (iii) The 1988 Local Coastal Program provides for acceptance of the .remaining phases of the dedication program to occur in clearly defined increments in advance of completion of the Project and has been simplified to facilitate COUNTY management. (iv) The 1988 Local Coastal Program provides for completion.of all phases of-the open space dedication program after fifteen years (as contrasted with twenty -seven years under the 1982 Land Use Plan) even if the Project is not completed within that time so long as the Project has not been delayed in obtaining entitlements. (v) The 1988 Local Coastal Program enables significant early public access both to the coastal ridges and to the Laurel Canyon dedication. This early .public access results from the triggering of the first phase acceptance at initial development grading .(other than grading for Pelican Hill Road). b. Significant Visitor - Serving Facilities. one of the focal points of the 1988 Local Coastal Program is a series of land use.plan modifications intended to foster the development of'a future destination resort providing a variety of public benefits. The frontal slopes of Pelican Hill have been redesigned to permit the development of two 18 -hole golf courses in an area that was. designated for residential•development under the 1982 Land-Use Plan. Related commercial uses and extensive recreational amenities have been added for use in conjunction with abroad array of overnight accommodations. office uses allowed under the 1982 Land Use Plan have been deleted. This increased emphasis on visitor-serving 'facilities carries out strong Coastal Act priority policies for the provision of day use and overnight facilities to accommodate coastal visitors who do not SLMEXD.02.3 /110 D -15 04/20/88 -2 live in close proximity to the ocean., The golf course greenbelt is an intregal part of the destination resort. In addition to the increase in open space,: the COUNT:Y.will also _ benefit from the additional overnight - accommodations and day -use retail uses provided for in the 1988 Local Coastal Program. C. Traffic ImRlications of Chahae In Land Uses. (i) The 1988 Local Coastal Program represents - a .decrease in average daily trips from that which would result from the 1982 Land Use Plan. - (ii) The 19$8 Local Coastal Program represents a significant decrease in peak hour traffic allowed in the 1982 Land Use Plan, primarily due to the deletion of commercial office uses. (iii) The emphasis in the 1988 Local Coastal Program on a destination resort further decreases both peak hour and overall traffic intensity. d. Protection of Coastal Viewshed. The reduction in building heights from that permitted in the 1982 Land Use Plan and the addition of the two golf courses will create a - greenbelt along Pacific Coast Highway, thereby contributing.to a landscaped.foreground for the visitor serving areas. - I1I. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. The terms used in this Exhibit shall be defined as provided in the Development Agreement to which this Exhibit is attached. ` ... SLMEXD..023 /110 D -16 04/20/8.8 -2 17.4 Recorded in the county of orange, California IIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Clerk/Recorder Fee 005 ,700299.6 17 639970149745 12;43pim 04102197 .-RECORDING REQUESTED BY A17 5 7.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of .Or�ngeCounty, California .... P-0-AIR ED 0 S 19VIS0RS _ PLAZA 1 L0 It•r�i ,via g�;o2 -a�s7 (Space above this line for Recorder's use.) r i Cvt 5:u� FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Govt. Code Sections 65864- 65869.5) THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment ") is entered into this day of .c%:tc 1cc 1996, by and between THE IRVINE COMPANY; a Michigan corporation ( "OWNER "), and the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ( "COUNTY "). RECITALS This Amendment is entered into based upon the following facts: A. OWNER and COUNTY previously entered into the Irvine Coast Development.Agreement on May 23, 1988, a copy of whic�y- is recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, ✓.fJ- .,27:1YY California (the "Agreement "). Among.other things, the Agreement provided that the property described in the Agreement would be developed consistent with the permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, and maximum building .heights and sizes described in that certain First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program approved by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors on December 2, 1987, and certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 14, 1988, unless otherwise consented to in writing by OWNER. Page 1 of 4 1/ LJ• �X S. OWNER has now applied to the COUNTY for approval of a Second Amendment to the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program, which Second Amendment was approved by the COUNTY for submission to the California Coastal Commission on July 16, 1996, recommended for certification with modifications by the California Coastal Commission on October 10, 1996, and subsequently approved with the recommended modifications by the COUNTY on November 19, 1996 (the "Second Amendment "). C. OWNER has consented in writing to adoption of the Second Amendment as the Local Coastal Program for the Property. _ COUNTY and OWNER now wish to enter into this Amendment to memorialize that consent. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of due consideration the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the Agreement is hereby amended by making all references to the "Development Plan" and the 1988 Local Coastal Program, other than historical references, mean and include the 1988 Local Coastal Program as amended by the Second Amendment. Except as so amended; the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day and year first set forth above. OWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY a Michigan Corporation By . - - -� WILLIAM H. MCFARLAND Its: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT; By: DANIEL C. HEDIGAN Its ASSISTANT SECRFTARV Page 2 of n i7LO COUNTY: THE CO OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of — the St t of Ca 1,10t1f or ' B Cha' m n of the Board of Supervisors SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. By: DARLENE J. BLOOM Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of Orange, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY COUNSEL ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By: Be min P wlde Mayo, Deputy STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this ;drik day of before me, , :- 1! d¢ /Z- personally appeared DRU.EEn1 T TLoom known to me to be the Clerk of the Board cf Supervisors of the County of Orange and known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of the County of Orange pursuant to Government Code ,Section 25103, and acknowledged to me that such political subdivision executed the same by-use of an authorized facsimile signature WITNESS my hand and official seal. y and Stat I thefized Signature /Position LOUISE SCNULZ COMM. 41077520 � �`` ='fj • y fdoio:} Public • California "�' ✓ ' OhANGcCOUNTY v Page 3 of n � Yv o,'.,•, My Comm. Ezp. Nov. 12, 1999 (� 17L7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF OP ANGE ) On this LJ2�4 day of / 1pzLn 19��, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appearedilihi1J� sad[ "_, f�Gz/1� personally known to me ar proved me on the b sis of satisfactory evidence, to be the persons who execu ad the within instrument as e and respectively, on beh if of a corporation, the corporatiion med therein, and ackntwledged to me that said corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same.. Witness my hand and official seal. Not ubli in for said County and State ��l•1. C, 44 p.. .:.Ai Page 4 of 4 1�-R STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE )' On December 19, 1996 before me, Terry J. Halpern personally appeared William H. Mc ar an an P Y Pp na n; P 1 C. _ Hatii ga n personally known — to me to be the person(s) whose names (s)xxix_:/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that X /they executed the .same in I-Aa/ /their authorized capacity(ies), and that byxhl.t/ her;/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument, WITNESS 'my hand and official seal. Signature Page e of a 179 120 Clay CUuI1CH Development Agreement No. 14: City, the Irvine Company, and Irvine Community Development Company i R-T 122 RECORDING REQUESTED AND Recorded in official Records, County of Orange Gary Granville, Clerk- Recorder WHEN RECORDED RETURN To: Illilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllt `l0FEE City Attorney's Office 20010800494 01:020m 11/08101 City of Newport Beach 115 15 Al2 N07 47 p 3300 Newport Boule 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 vard Newport Beach, CA, 92658 Space above this line for Recorder's use only. EBBIPT RECORDING REQUEST PER ;rr GdDlileRShc'H1 T CODE 1103 A NNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT { 11111 IN r, m ME Ll C•I \r CJL \�V V�` ~'� �1- V�,�`•lI \I `J �I,I I�•_i Page 1 of 23 -RS ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Annexation and Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement ") is entered into effective as of August 23, 2001, (hereinafter the "Effective Date ") by and among the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (hereinafter "CITY "), and THE IRVINE COMPANY and IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (hereinafter collectively "OWNER "). RECITALS A. OWNER collectively. owns a substantial portion of the real property ( "Property ") described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B," consisting of approximately 7799 acres. B. The Property is currently in the unincorporated area of the County of Orange ( "County "). OWNER has obtained development approvals from the County and the California Coastal Commission for the majority of the Property from the County and has commenced subdivision and development of the Property under the jurisdiction of the County. C. The development approvals for the Property have been granted after a lengthy planning process that involved the careful review of numerous environmental documents (Planning and Environmental History is attached as Exhibit). The development approvals include: 1. The County of Orange Newport Coast Local Coastal Program and Master Coastal Development Permit for that portion bf the Property in the Coastal Zone. 2. A Development Agreement with the County (County Agreement). The Newport Ridge Planned Community Plan. 4. Subdivision Maps. D. The Property is also part of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) — a complex agreement that requires OWNER to dedicate. portions of the Property upon completion of certain phases of development. OWNER is also required to dedicate large portions of the Property pursuant to the development approvals. Page 2 of 23 -g4 E. OWNER was required, by the development approvals, to make costly infrastructure improvements far in excess of those necessary to mitigate the impacts, or serve the needs, of the development. OWNER was required to make, and has made, these extraordinary improvements prior to development of the Property, F. OWNER has acquired a fully vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the development approvals because of the extraordinary expenditures for public and private improvements made in reliance on the development approvals, the dedications made in reliance on the development approvals and the County Development Agreement. G. CITY and OWNER intend for this Agreement to fully conform to the development approvals and to fully facilitate full implementation of the Project, as conditioned by the County and Coastal Commission. To the maximum extent permitted by law, this Agreement is intended to be the functional equivalent of, or a supplement to, the County Development Agreement in light of the CITY's intention to allow County to retain all municipal land use authority over the Property until such time as the discrete portions of the Project are complete. H. City is desirous of annexing the Property but recognizes that the development approvals for the Property involve complex and interrelated planning documents. CITY does not have sufficient staff to timely process the permits required for implementation of the Project in compliance with all the development approvals. Moreover, the development approvals and land use plan involve the dedication of valuable habitat and open space within and outside of the boundaries of the Property and City does not have the personnel and expertise to ensure that dedications occur as planned. I' CITY and OWNER have discussed the process and terms and conditions of annexing the Property. to CITY, and each has determined that it is in their respective best interests to pursue that annexation pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the development approvals. In particular CITY desires assurances that OWNER will support eventual annexation of all of the Property to CITY, in order to: (a) Facilitate the timely and orderly integration of the Property into the CITY consistent with the CITY's sphere of influence; (b) Facilitate planning and provision of municipal services to the Property without any adverse fiscal impact on the CITY or the ultimate owners of the property; and (c) Ensure consistency with and implement the CITY's General Plan. At the same time, OWNER desires to obtain assurances from CITY that, Page 3 of 23 125 subsequent to annexation: (a) OWNER will be able to develop the Property to the full extent permitted by the development approvals granted by the County and the Coastal Commission subject to conditions of approval imposed by the Coastal Commission and the County as well as consistency with the City's General Plan; (b) Development will be processed by the County in accordance with a uniform set of land use and building rules, regulations and requirements, as established by the development approvals given by the County for the Property prior to its annexation; and (c) Development of the Property will be subject only to costs, fees, processing requirements, conditions or exactions that would have been imposed had the Property not been annexed to CITY. J. In addition to the authority at common law for annexation agreements, Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. ( "Development Agreement Law "), and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code authorize CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property. This Agreement is consistent with the public policy that'supports development agreements in that it strengthens the public planning process, facilitates implementation of comprehensive planning, provides significant public benefits, and reduces the economic costs of development. K. The City Council has found that this Agreement is in the best public interess of exe the CITY and its residents, that adopting this Agreement constitutes a presen rcise of its police power, and that this Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Charter. L. This Agreement is not intended to, and shall not be construed, to impair the rights and obligations of OWNER, or other involved parties under and pursuant to the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, Second Amendment, and the Litigation Settlement Agreement entered into June 27, 1997, by and among OWNER, the Friends of the Irvine Coast, Laguna Greenbelt, Inc., and Stop Polluting Our Newport. Page 4 of 23 120 COVENANTS NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. This Agreement uses a number of terms having specific meanings, as defined below. These specially defined terms are , distinguished by having the initial letter capitalized, or all letters capitalized, when used in the Agreement. The defined terms include the following- 1.1.1 "Agreement" means this Annexation and Development Agreement 1.1.2 "Coastal Zone Area" means that portion of the Property that is subject to the-provisions of the California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq. 1.1.3 "CITY" means the City of Newport Beach, a California charter city. 1.1.4 "County' means the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California. 1.1.5 "Development" whether or not capitalized means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and park facilities and Improvements. For purposes of this Agreement, however, "Development" does not include any remodeling, reconstruction, or other building or grading activity by any person subsequent to the termination of this Agreement as provided in and pursuant to Section 2.3.3 below. 1.1.6 "Development Approvals" means all permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions subject to approval or issuance by County or CITY in connection with Development of the Property, including but not limited to: (a) General plans and general plan amendments adopted by the County or the CITY; (b) Specific plans and specific plan amendments; (c) Zoning and rezoning adopted by the County or the CITY; (d) Tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; Page 5 of 23 �g� (e) Variances, conditional use permits, master plans, public use permits and plot plans; and (f) Grading and building permits. 1.1.7 "Development Plan" means the plan for Development of the Property, including the planning and zoning standards, regulations, and criteria for the Development of the Property that are contained in and consistent with the Development Approvals. The components of the. Development Plan are more fully described in Exhibit "D." 1.1.8 "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is approved by the CITY and effective pursuant to the CITY Charter as shown in the first paragraph. 1.1.9 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, . rules, regulations and official policies governing.Development and use of land applicable to the Property pursuant to this Agreement, including, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing: (a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; �l (b) Taxes and assessments except as provided in Section 4.9; (c) The control and abatement of nuisances; (d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; and (e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain 1.1.10 "OWNER" means individually and collectively The Irvine Company and Irvine Community Development Company, and when appropriate in context, their respective successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. 1.1.11 "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security- device, a lender and their Page 6 of 23 -gg successors and assigns. 1.1.12 "Project' means the Development of the Property consistent with the Development Plan. 1.1.13 "Property' means the real property described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. 1.1.14 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with Development of the Property. 1.1.15 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means any Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement, other than the Development Plan. 1.1.16 "Term" shall mean the period of time from the Effective Date until the termination of this Agreement as provided in subsection 10. 1, or earlier termination as provided in Section 7. 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement: Exhibit "A" Legal Description of the Property. Exhibit "B" Map showing Property and its location. `Exhibit "C" Planning and Environmental History. I. Exhibit "D" List of County Development Approvals. Exhibit "E" Mitigation Measures. Exhibit "F" Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the CITY from and following the Effective Date. However, CITY shall have no right or duty with respect to the Property until annexation of the Property to CITY and CITY has fully complied with the conditions to OWNER's support for annexation. These conditions include the execution of a cooperative agreement that allows the County to retain all municipal land use jurisdiction and all responsibility for Page 7 of 23 129 processing Development Approvals. 2.2 Assignment by OWNER. 2.2.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no transfer violates the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.), and in so doing to assign, at any time during the term of this Agreement and to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation, its rights and obligations under this Agreement as the same may relate to the portion of the Property being transferred. 2.2.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Upon the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a portion of the Property, the transferring OWNER shall be released of all obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred; provided that the obligations under Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred are assumed by and enforceable against the transferee. 2.2.3 Termination of Agreement With Respect to Individual Residential Lots On Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the obligations of OWNER pursuant to this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any residential lot and such residential lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: (a) The residential lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk ") sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and, (b) A certificate of occupancy has been issued or a final building inspection has been conducted and approved for the primary dwelling unit on the residential lot. 2.2.4 Termination of Agreement With Respect to Non - Residential Parcels. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the obligations of Owner pursuant to this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any non - residential parcel and the non - residential parcel shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement at such time as the parcel has been fully improved and occupied consistent with the allowed intensity of development under the Development Plan. Page 8 of 23 X90 3. PRE - ANNEXATION OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS. 3.1 Annexation of Property. Consistent with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and specifically,this Subsection, CITY may, in one annexation proceeding or several annexation proceedings, annex the Property under such conditions as are imposed by or through the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission and reasonably acceptable to OWNER. Conditions shall be deemed to be reasonably acceptable to OWNER unless the conditions impair or interfere with OWNER's rights to develop or materially increase the cost of development. OWNER's consent to annexation of all or a portion of the Property is contingent on, and OWNER has reasonably relied on, CITY's commitments in Section 3 and 4 of this Agreement. 3.1.1 Annexation Before Project Completion. OWNER will support CITY's annexation of the Property, in its entirety before project completion, provided that the Property may be fully developed to the full extent permitted in the Development Plan and as evidenced by satisfaction of each of the following conditions: (a) The Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed, legislation that clarifies provisions of the Coastal Act such that annexation of the Property (1) will not alter or affect the validity and enforceability of the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, Second Amendment, including any amendments applicable to the Property and any related coastal development permits; or (ii) deprive the County of authority to issue coastal development permits pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, any ordinance, joint powers agreement, or other mechanism that confers municipal land use authority to the County after annexation and the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, Second Amendment or any subsequent amendments that are certified by the California Coastal Commission; (b) The City adopts, and maintains during the term of this Agreement, general plan and zoning designations for the Property that are essentially identical to the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, general plan and zoning designations adopted by the County and in effect as of the Effective Date. (c) The City authorizes County to retain all municipal land use authority (including the issuance of building and grading permits) to the County pursuant to a cooperative agreement Page 9 of 23 19- until such time as development is complete with each Planning Area or until OWNER consents, in writing, to an assumption of municipal land use authority over all or a portion of the-Property. 3.1.2 Ultimate Annexation. OWNER will fully support CITY annexation of all or a portion of the Property without satisfying the provisions of Section 3.1.1, provided that all lots and /or parcels within the area to be annexed have received building permits for construction of structure(s) consistent with the Development Approvals, a certificate•of occupancy has been issued or a final building inspection has been conducted and annexation will not interfere with, affect, or impair the Development Approvals or OWNER's ability to complete the Project. 3.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation. The parties acknowledge that Environmental Impact Reports, environmental documents and functional equivalents ( "Environmental Documents - described in Exhibit C) have been prepared and certified for the Project by County and /or approved by the Coastal Commission. CITY has reviewed and evaluated the Environmental Documents to determine if the impacts of the Project, as represented by this Agreement, the Development Plan, and the CITY approvals, were fully analyzed and evaluated. CITY has also reviewed the Environmental Documents and all relevant existing facts and circumstances to determine if any of the events that require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document have occurred. CITY has determined based on that review that none of the events described in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code or Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred. CITY has specifically determined that the detachment of the Property from County and the annexation of the Property to CITY do not require preparation of any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report for the Project because the reorganization will not increase, decrease, or modify any Development or dedication when compared to the entitlement prior to annexation. CITY has also determined that, subject to incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in Exhibit "E" and except as specifically provided in this Agreement; there is no current or anticipated deficiency in any municipal service or facility (including planned community and neighborhood parks, drainage and flood control facilities, circulation system infrastructure, and public safety services) resulting from Development of the Project. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibit "E" are incorporated by reference into the Development Plan. Page 10 of 23 192 . 3.3 Additional Pre - Annexation Understandings. As a further inducement to OWNER to support the annexation of the Property to CITY, CITY agrees that, as of the date of its approval of this Agreement, all County affordable housing requirements associated with development of the Property have been satisfied. CITY also acknowledges that the OWNER has a vested right to proceed with development pursuant to the County Agreement and that no additional affordable housing requirements shall be imposed on development of the Property pursuant to the CITY's General Plan or otherwise. The Affordable Housing Implementation Plans approved by the County, describing the manner in which affordable housing requirements have been satisfied for development of the Property, are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "F." Fees payable upon issuance of any development permit (e.g., building permit or occupancy permit) will be paid to the issuer of the permit in accordance with County Codes, fee schedules and requirements for original improvements. Following annexation, fees shall continue to be paid to the issuer in accordance with the codes and requirements for additions, remodels and rebuilds of the jurisdiction with land use authority. CITY agrees that the Project is in full compliance with, and shall not be further subject to, CITY's Traffic Phasing Ordinance following annexation of the Property, CITY having determined through this Agreement that: a. Development of the Property will not cause or make worse any unsatisfactory level of service at any primary intersection as defined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; b. Development of the Property has been considered a committed project which has been incorporated into the CITY's traffic model and Circulation Element traffic projections and all resulting levels of service have been accepted in the Circulation Element; and q. There is an overall reduction in peak hour ICU at impacted intersections having unsatisfactory levels of service taking into account the circulation improvements constructed or facilitated by OWNER pursuant to conditions imposed for development of the Project, including construction of Newport Coast Drive, extension of San Joaquin Hills Road, widening of Pacific Coast Highway, and facilitation of construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 3.4 Cooperation. Subject to and in reliance upon the representations and covenants of the City, OWNER will support the annexation of the Property by the CITY. Page 11 of 23 -q3 3.5 Termination of Annexation Proceedings. This Agreement may be terminated by OWNER in the event that CITY fails to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 3.1 above with respect to any proposed annexation of the Property to CITY, or if conditions imposed by or through the Local Agency Formation Commission on the annexation are determined by either party to conflict materially with its rights and obligations under any provision of this Agreement. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AFTER ANNEXATION. Following annexation of the Property by CITY, the following provisions shall apply 4,1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, . following annexation of the Property OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Plan. Pending and subsequent to annexation of the Property to CITY, OWNER shall have the right to seek approvals from County for the Development of the Property, and to develop the Property, consistent with the Development Plan. CITY expressly agrees to take no action that would or could (a) interfere with or impair the Development Approvals; (b) interfere with or impair the OWNER's ability to complete the project; (c) materially increase the cost of completing the project without the OWNER's express written consent; or (d) cause the transfer of any permitting or development review authority pursuant to State or local law, including Government Code section 30519, from the County to the City or any other agency until such time as that portion of the Property affected by the transfer is fully developed pursuant to the Development Plan and provided the transfer would riot interfere or impair OWNER's ability to develop any other portion of this Prope4. 4.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. The rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to Development of the Property, shall be those contained in the Development Plan (and those Land Use Regulations not inconsistent with the Development Plan) and that were in full force and effect on or before June 26, 2001 except as may be otherwise provided by this Agreement,. 4.3 Timing of Development. The Parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors that are not within the control of OWNER, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, Page 12 of 23 194 that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of Development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of Development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that OWNER shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Nothing in this section, is intended to alter the standard time limits of any permits issued to OWNER pursuant to the Development Approvals. . 4.4 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that Development of the Project may require Subsequent Development Approvals. OWNER may determine that changes in the existing Development Approvals or Development Plan are appropriate and desirable. In the event OWNER finds that such a change is appropriate or desirable, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to Development Approvals or the Development Plan to effect such change and the application shall be processed for approval by County. CITY shall expressly permit and authorize modifications of any proposed changes in the existing Development Approvals or Development Plan - unless the proposed modifications: (a) Would materially reduce the amount of open space intended for dedication to the public, or (b) Would materially alter the cost of providing municipal services to the Property subsequent to annexation, or (c) Would materially reduce the amount of property tax or other revenue available to the CITY after annexation, or (d)`I Would materially increase the density and /or intensity of development allowed in the Project as a whole, resulting in unacceptable intersection impacts outside of the Project that cannot be mitigated pursuant to the CITY's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Any change in the Development Approvals or Development Plan made in accordance with the procedures required by the Land Use Regulations and with the written consent of the OWNER shall be conclusively deemed to be consistent with this Agreement, without any further need for any amendment to this Agreement or any of its Exhibits. 4.5 Continuation of Irvine Coast Development Agreement. CITY acknowledges and agrees that the County Agreement entered into between OWNER and County shall continue to govern the rights and obligations of OWNER and County with respect to the Coastal Zone Area preceding annexation, and following annexation to the maximum extent permitted by the cooperative agreement and State law. If for any reason this Agreement is found to be invalid Page 13 of 23 195 or unenforceable or OWNER's ability to proceed with the Development Plan is impaired or delayed for any reason, then the Coastal Zone Area shall be and remain subject to the terms and protections of the County Agreement. 4.6_ Monitoring of Project. City shall, subsequent to annexation of all or a portion of the Property, have the right, pursuant to a standard right of entry permit issued by OWNER; to enter the Property for the limited purpose of ensuring that development of the Property proceeds in substantial compliance with the Development Approvals and all conditions to those approvals that are material to the issue of water quality and aesthetics. OWNER shall designate a Project Manager to provide CITY with access to all grading and building plans and specifications on or before the date they are submitted to the County. CITY shall conduct all monitoring activities in a manner that does not unduly burden OWNER's rights to develop the Property in compliance with the Development Approvals. Any report' prepared pursuant to monitoring shall be lodged with the City Manager and CITY shall provide OWNER with the opportunity to review and comment on the report prior to submittal to the City Manager. The monitoring authorized by this Subsection is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create any formal procedure, right or process on the part of the CITY to review or modify the Development of the Property. City shall make available to any person, upon request, any report or document lodged with the City Manager that is prepared by any professional retained by the CITY to conduct the monitoring authorized by this Section. 5. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AFTER ANNEXATION. 5.1 Formation of Financing Districts. If so requested by OWNER, CITY uJlill cooperate in the formation or modification of any special assessment district,',community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism ( "CFD ") to pay for the construction, acquisition, and /or maintenance and operation of public and /or quasi - public infrastructure, lighting, landscape, or any other public facilities required as part of the Development Approvals. CITY may, pursuant to the cooperative agreement, allow the County to retain the authority to administer, form or modify any new or existing assessment district. However, CITY shall have no obligation to authorize or to cause any such CFD to issue debt or sell bonds prior to the completion of the annexation of the Property to CITY. In the event that such a CFD is formed and sells bonds to pay for the construction or acquisition of public or quasi - public facilities which were provided, in whole or in part, by OWNER, OWNER may be reimbursed from such bonds to the extent that OWNER has spent funds or dedicated land for the establishment of such facilities and creation of the CFD. While it is acknowledged that this Agreement cannot require CITY or the City Council to form any such CFD or to issue and sell bonds, CITY represents that it can do so and agrees that it shall not refuse OWNER's request to form such a CFD and to issue and sell bonds following completion of annexation of the Property to CITY, except for good and reasonable cause. In no Page 14 of 23 Igo event shall CITY have any obligation or duty to refinance, repay, reduce the amount of, or assume any financial relationship to; any bonds or other debt issued by any CFD prior to annexation, but City may assume such obligation pursuant to agreement. 5.2 OWNER's Right to Construct Facilities. Subject to CITY or , County review and approval of plans and specifications, as appropriate, the OWNER may elect, and reserves the right, to construct, or cause the construction of, any public or quasi - public facility for which the CITY intends to collect a fee, and to dedicate the completed facility to the CITY, in lieu of payment of the fee. 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE FOLLOWING ANNEXATION. 6.1 Periodic Review. Following annexation of all or any portion of the Property, the City Council shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance _ by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. As part of that review, OWNER shall submit an annual monitoring review statement describing its actions in compliance with this Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, within 30 days after written notice from the City Manager requesting that statement. The statement shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council. 6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at anytime at CITY's sole. cost. OWNER-shall cooperate with the CITY in the conduct of such special reviews. .i 6.3 Procedure. Each party shall have, at any periodic or special review, a reasonable opportunity to assert matters which it believes have not been undertaken in accordance with the Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other party a justification of its position on such matters. If either Party concludes, on the basis of any review, that the other Party has not complied in good faith with the terms of the Agreement, then such Party may issue a written "Notice of Non - Compliance" specifying the grounds and all facts demonstrating such non - compliance. The Party receiving a Notice of Non - Compliance shall have thirty (30) days to respond in writing to the Notice. If the response to the Notice of Non - Compliance has not been received in the offices of the party alleging the default within the prescribed time period, the Notice of Non - Compliance shall be conclusively presumed to be valid. If a Notice of Non- Compliance is contested, the Parties shall have up to sixty (60) days to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) occasioning the Notice. In the event that the Parties are not able to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) by the end of the sixty (60) day period, the Party Page 15 of 23 _97 alleging the non - compliance may pursue the remedies provided in Section 7. 6.4 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance ( "Certificate ") to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City Manager and CITY Council that (1) this'Agreement remains in effect and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder. Additionally, OWNER may at any time request from the CITY a Certificate stating, in addition to the foregoing, which obligations under this Agreement have been fully satisfied with respect to the Property, or any lot or parcel within the Property. 7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 7.1 Specific Performance Available. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance is a particularly appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to OWNER and CITY because due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Pr4erty to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. )After such implementation, OWNER and /or CITY may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize or condition the Property or portions hereof. OWNER and CITY have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, such that it would be extremely difficult to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER and /or CITY for such efforts. Except as provided in Section 7.2 below, neither OWNER nor CITY shall be.entitled to any money damages, including attorney fees, from the other party by reason of any default under this Agreement. 7.2 Restitution of Improper Development Fees. In the event any Development fees or taxes are imposed on Development of the Property other than those authorized pursuant to this Agreement, OWNER shall be entitled to recover from CITY restitution of all such improperly assessed fees or taxes, together with interest thereon at the maximum allowable non - usurious rate from the date such sums were paid to CITY to the date of restitution. 194 Page 16 of 23 7.3 Termination of Agreement. - 7.3.1 Termination of Agreement for Default of OWNER. CITY in its discretion may terminate this Agreement as to any non - annexed portions of the Property for any failure of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER hereunder or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement related to its annexation (hereinafter referred to as "default'); provided, however, CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after following the procedure set forth in Section 6.3 and thereafter providing written notice to OWNER of the default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period, the failure of CITY to commence to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and to cure such default.. 7.3.2 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER in its discretion may terminate this Agreement by written notice to CITY after the default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after following the procedure set forth in Section 6.3 and thereafter providing written notice by OWNER thereof to CITY and, where the default can be cured, the failure of CITY to cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period, the failure of CITY to commence to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently proceed to Goniplete such actions and to cure such default. 7.3.3 Rights and Duties Following Termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to (i) any obligations to have been performed prior to said termination, (ii) any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to said termination, or (iii) obligations that have vested through the annexation of the Property, or any annexed portion thereof. 7.4 OWNER's Right To Terminate Upon Specified Events. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, OWNER retains the right to terminate this Agreement (but not the provisions of Section 3) upon thirty (30) days written notice. to CITY in the event that OWNER reasonably determines that continued Development of the Project consistent with the Development Plan has become economically infeasible due to changed market conditions, increased Development costs, burdens imposed as conditions to future discretionary approvals of the Project consistent with this Agreement; or Page 17 of 23 199 similar factors. 8. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any claim, action or proceeding filed and served against CITY to challenge, set aside, void, annul, limit or restrict the approval and continued implementation and enforcement of this Agreement. CITY and OWNER agree to cooperate in the defense of such action(s). 9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. The parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. Subject to compliance with applicable laws, CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by ' law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If CITY timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part Page 18 of 23 200 thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; except that (1) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and (ii) in the event any Mortgagee seeks to develop or use any portion of the Property acquired by such Mortgagee by foreclosure, deed of trust, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, such Mortgagee shall strictly comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of this Agreement and the Development Plan applicable to the Property or such part thereof so acquired by the Mortgagee. 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Term of Agreement. Following completion of the annexation of the Property, or any portion thereof, to the CITY within the preceding time periods, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to such annexed land for a period of fifteen (15) years from the effective date of that annexation. 10.2 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk upon annexation of the Property to CITY within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. Similarly, amend ents approved by the parties, and any cancellation, shall also be record d. 10.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 10.4 Severability. if any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, then this Agreement shall terminate in its entirety, unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. Page 19 of 23 20- 10.5 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fain language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party or in favor of CITY shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 10.6 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 10.7 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 10.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 10.9 Waiver. Failure of a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 10.10 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit for the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this' Agreement; provided, however, that the fee owners of any non - residential p.'arcels)in the annexation area may elect to be covered by this Agreement. 10.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default_, where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. Page 20 of 23 202 10.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 10.14 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court. 10.15 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Development of the Project is a private Development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property and the owner of such property. 10.16 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent conte�plated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this A'greerr ent and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party.at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Subject to Section 3 above; OWNER will cooperate with the CITY in the processing of the annexation of the Project through the Local Agency Formation Commission including advocating the application of the existing AB 8 Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement. OWNER acknowledges the importance of maintaining the fiscal benefits of the Project assuming that the current method of allocating sales tax revenues (i.e., point of sale) is utilized. OWNER will consult with the CITY regarding legislative proposals to adjust this procedure with the goal of supporting CITY efforts to maintain the fiscal benefits of the Project through the legislative process. Page 21 of 23 2O3 10.17 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain. 10.18 Amendments in Writing /Cooperation. This Agreement may be amended only by written consent of both parties specifically approving the amendment and in accordance with the Government Code provisions for the amendment of Development Agreements. The parties shall cooperate in good faith with respect to any amendment proposed in order to clarify the intent and application of this Agreement, and shall treat any such proposal on its own merits, and not as a basis for the introduction of unrelated matters. 10.19 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he /they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his /their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he /they has /have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 10.20 Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as follows: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to CITY shall be addressed to CITY at: City of Newport Beach City Manager's Office 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 1!i Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to OWNER shall be addressed to OWNER at: Vice President of Entitlements The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first set forth above. Page. 22 of 23 204 N] CITY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By c TOD RIDGEW/kY; Nlayor Pro em ATTEST: By LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk APPROV O AS TO FORM' By obert Burnham, City Attorney OWNER: THE IRVINE CCOOMPANY By Title Joseph D. Davis, Executive Vice President By ITitle Tim Paone, Vice President Entitlement OWNER: IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By Title g °segi? D. Davis, President and CEO By Title Daniel C sistarit� Secretary Page 23 of 23 205 CALIFORMOA ALL - PURPOSE AC9SNOWLE®GMEMT State of California /� { L l ss. County Of 11 l" NJ I On �j Q l v l/, \ti zi✓ A\ lJ U `' � J U /t1"u !before me,��� Cale �� Name Wd Me of Gffter (v.g.,'J a Doe, Notary Pu�c'), personally appeared \ tc) �b t����� C'ZO 3 AL Na )of Signers) .�P personally known to me O proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence CATHY RSHER to be the perso s) whose nam s) is/ re commission #tv subscribed to the within instr ment and < Notary Puolic - California acknowledged to me that he /she they executed Orange County the sam in his /her hei authori rtyComm.E>¢re_sFeb2t,2�2 capacity le and that 'by his /her, he signature s) n the instrument the perso (s) r the entity upon behalf of which the personfs acted, executed the instrument. t`F ESS my hand and fficiiall seal. place Notary Seal Above Sigh u of Noldry PubCc OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying an the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Descl`iption of Attached Document r� j Title o1) Type of Document: �U�u� LXA n �L.�L`�� �7��^f� }4c�fC� E�y.1 N!, Document Date: J Number of Pages: t� Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: A 1¢^'� Ti, 11 (1 I z- `J_VilrVlrf J Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer 1' Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner —❑ limited ❑ General Q Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: O 19g9NaWml Noary Ae¢ociaCoo -9350 Ca So:*Ave..P.C. Box 202• Chalraonh; CA 91313.202•m ralvfalwnolery.olg Prod. No 590] NaoNer. Call ToN.Pmo 609097&a822 N , �_ 20 State of California) ) ss. County of Orange ) On November 8, 2001 before me, W. S. Bettini , Notary Public, personally appeared Joseph D. Davis and Daniel C. Hedigan , personally ]mown to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. my hand and official seal. 1 I 20� State of California) ) SS. County of Orange) On November 8. 2001 before me, W. S. Bettini , Notary Public; personally appeared Joseph D. Davis and Tim Paone , personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and -that by tbeir signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instnunent. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ��. S. aernbi Cemmision 0 1291 IN Plotmy Public - Cmlfnn,. a > mange C.Ournv @AjbfCcmm.5#mFeb7a=° �3T 202 EXHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NETVPORT BEACH BLOCKS: 5151, 5152, 5251 5252, 5253, 5351 5352 MODULES: VARIOUS BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 91, 95 -98, 128 -134, 161 -164 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF FILED -IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS AND PARCEL '2 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 PER CORPORATION GRANT DEED. BOOK. 13439, PAGE. 94- 132', - .RECORDED DECEIVER 19, 1979, IN THE OFFICE:-OF . THE' COUNTY RECORDER OF—THE COUNTY' OF ORADIGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXISTING .CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED BY REORGANIZATION NO. R097 -35, "BONITA CANYON. _k_NNEXATIO -T -TO THE CITY OF -NEWPORT BEACH AND DETACHMENT OF THEW SAME. TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF IRVINE ", SAID ANGLE POINT BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY- TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH 11058131" EAST 11.29 FEET" IDi SAID REORGANIZATION NO. R097 -35, SAID POINT ALSO. BEING DISTANT NORTH '26 °42'33" EAST 3071.87 FEET FROM ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S HORIZO -TTA, CONTROL. STATION GPS NO. '6247, HAVING A COORDINATE V_1,UE (U.S. SURVEY FOOT) OF NORTH 2173287.386.,AND EAST 6074018..52-1, BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83�, ZONE Vi. 1983 NAD (1991.35 EPOCH O.C.S. GPS ADJ— USTbTE-NT) AS SAID GPS;POINF IS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP YTO. 15945, RECORDED IDT BOOK 805, PAGES 18 -25 LINTCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLADTEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING COMMON ^_0 "HA -RBOR VIEWS HILLS — PHASE 3" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THENCE'CONTINUING ALONG THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PER "HARBOR VIEW HILLS —PHASE 3" ANNEXATION, THE fx_ RBGR VIEW HILLS SECTOR 4" ANNE:'CATION, THE "HARBOR RIDGE ALNNEXATION NO. 89 ", THE "HARBOR RIDGE ANNEXATION 1\70. 82, THE "HARBOR VIEW HLLS —PHASE 3" ANNEXATION, THE "HARBOR VIEW HILLS —PHASE 4" ANNEXATION, THE "- *TEXATIO -T NO. 57 (CENTERVIEW ANNEXATION) ", THE "HARBOR VIEW- ADINEXATION, ANNEXATION `NO. 8, CITY BOUNDARY 1928 (COURT CASE NO. 23686) INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1906; THE "CORONA HIGHLANDS" ANNE.YATION, THE "SEAWARD 17" ANDTEXATIO -I, THE "CAMEO HIGHLANDS" ANNE.'CATION, THE "AL-NEXATION N0, 84 ", THE "CAi�O HIGHLANDS" ANNEXATION, THE "ANNEXATION NO. 64 ", THE "CAMEO CLIFFS" ANN— EXATION" THE "SHORE CLIFFS — CAMEO SHORES TIDELANDS ANNEXATION" THROUGH THEIR VARIOUS COURSES IN A GENERAL SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, 'SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, LZG1133 1- LGO1lR1.O C 106/191011 s. PAGE 1 ��9 E=BIT +A' NEWPORT COAST 7UMTF_ATIOU NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OE NES+TPORT BEACH SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, SOUTH1WESTERLY, WESTERLY, SOUTHTPIESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, SOUTHTnTESTERLY; WESTERLY, SOUTHEASTERLY, NORT.HEA'STERLY, SOUT ERLY, W SOUTHESTERLY, NORTI- FgESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO AN ANGLE POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF. NEWPORT BEACH AS ESTABLISHED BY "SHORE CLIFFS - CAMEO SHORE. TIDELANDS ANNEXATION'; THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY IN A DIRECT LINE NORTHEASTERLY 3 MILES MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH TIDE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN; SAID POINT BEARING SOUTH 37039' SO" WEST 600 FEET MORE OR LESS FROM THE NORT _Hr, +TEST CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF "PARK PROPERTY" AS DESCRIBED Ili CORPORATION GRANT DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ON FILE DECEMBER 19, 1979, IN BOOK 13439, PAGE 94 -132 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THAT .CERTAIN .COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 37039'50" EAST 104.98 FEET" IN SAID DEED Ili THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 3 OF SAID "PARK PROPERTY THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION "NORTH 37 °39'50" EAST 600 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIF COURSE DESCRIBED` AS "NORTH 37039'50" EAST 104.98 FEET" IN T'F_E NORTHWESTERLY BO(TTDARY OF SAID PARCEL. 3, SAID TERMINUS ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAYS INE OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BEING A HIG W,dAY OF VAR -ABLE WIDTH, AND FU',THER DESCRIBED IN BOOK 48-1,'PAGE 1 OF DEEDS -id THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF 7:AY L-MIE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL 3 OF SAID "PARK PROPERTY "; THENCE :NORTH 37039,50" EAST 104.98 FEET TO THE BEGI_DPTING OF A T_DOTGENT 950.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE; NORTHEASTERLY, 219.65 FEET THROUGH A CMTTRAL ANGLE OF 13014'50 11; THENCE NORTH 50054'40" EAST 1645.45 FEET TO THE BEGIMTDTIIiG OF A TANGENT 13Q0.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY, 1590.29 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL, ANGLE OF 70005'24 "; 210 LEG \1711- LGLl(AI.=C (06119/011 S£ PAGE 2 THENCE NORTH THENCE SOUTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE SOUTH EXHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST AM EXATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF N]"VgPORT BEACH 19010'44" 840d-2'47., 58 °39'02" 74008'04" 60027'40" 68054'28" WEST EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST 387.88 FEET; 288.52 FEET; 1018.72 FEET; 197.52 FEET; 137.93 FEET; 150.05 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66048'05" EAST 167.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04038'08" EAST 74.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87003'52" EAST 84.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23021106" WEST 232 -.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51008'19" EAST 310.79 FEET; `{`HENCE NORTH" 31050'33" EAST 223.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11055'46" WEST 290.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30002'00" EAST 147.85 FEET; THENCE .,NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH THENCE NORTH 35052'56" 10031'40" 46028'08" 67053'26" 38031'49" 24035,2'x„ 03052'43" (n]EST EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST 232.03 FEET; 229.87 FEET; 55.17 FEET; 138.16 FEET; 138.06 FEET; 129.77 FEET; 118.27 FEET; 2-11 LEG \11]1- LGL1(R).CCC 106/19/011 SE PAGE 3 EXHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST ANNE:iATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THRICE NORTH 19050'41" EAST 141.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49001'42" EAST 150.97 FEET; THRICE NORTH 73052'21" EAST 172.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60049'09" EAST 176.38 FEET; THRICE NORTH 11048'47" EAST 312.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03021'59" WEST 272.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMIDTUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH 28 °44'47" EAST 328.52 FEET" IN THE EXISTING WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF "PARK PROPERTY" AS DESCRIBED IN CORPORATION GRM\TT DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED NOVEMBER 17, 1981 ON FILE IDT BOOK 14292, PAGE 953 -965 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY NORTH 28044'47" WEST 328.52 FEET; THaNNICE NORTH 11021'29" EAST 467.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08021'57" WEST 68.73 FEET; THEMTCE NORTH 29 °47'31" EAST 301.90 FEET; i 1 THENCE NORTH 80008'45" EAST 383.72 FEET; THEM7CE NORTH 30018'40" EAST 301.17 FEET; THENCE•NORTH 79056'51" EAST 446.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49046'51" EAST 390.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75036'00" EAST 152.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88017'55" EAST 404.18 FEET; THRTCE NORTH 02027'46" EAST 186.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25047'27" EAST 330.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89015'21" EAST 308.03 FEET; 212 LZG \1331- CGLljRI .CCC (06119/01) se PAGE 4 EXHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THENCE NORTH 11034'59" EAST 2549.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11006'16" WEST 1038.44 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10047'04" EAST 235.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35006'10" EAST 551.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16038'20" EAST 181.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18054'59" WEST 188.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16025'40" EAST 424.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29010'03" EAST 196.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14024'00" EAST 152.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52016'30" EAST 67.01 FEET; THENNCE NORTH 80017'00" EAST 148.12 FEET; HFANCE NORTH 87027'15" EAST 274.61 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33000'20" EAST 789.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70038'36" EAST 784.31 FEET; THENCE•SOUTH 02059'35" WEST 306.42 FEET;.. THENCE SOUTH 22006'00" EAST 356.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35018'58" EAST 2345.66 FEET TO WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH 44 031'21" EAST 678.84 'FEET" IN THE EXISTING NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BOOK 13439, PAGE 94 -132; THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID BOOK 14292, PAGE 953 -965 AND ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BOOK 13439, PAGE 94 -132; THENCE SOUTH 44031'21" EAST 678.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71026'28" EAST 584.39 FEET; 21s EXHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION NO_CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THENCE SOUTH 85006'26" EAST 515.88. 'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74032'30" EAST 420.20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66047'38" EAST 548.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 161 OF SAID IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BOOK 13439, PAGE 94 -132 AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 161 NORTH 40033'59 "' EAST 188.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THAT CERTAIN COURSE BEARING "NORTH 34 056'51" WEST 457.86 FEET" IN THE EXISTING BOUNDARY OF "THE PROPERTY" DESCRIBED IDT GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH RECORDED JTDTE 27, 1991 AS DOCUMENT NO. 91- 330557 .IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID COURSE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF "THE PROPERTY" OF' SAID GRANT DEED NORTH 34055156" TA7EST 53.88 FEET; Th-1 -IiCE NORTH 68 021'18" WEST 560.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60007'54" WEST 785.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH' \83028'56" WEST 326.82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6!6044'01" WEST 658.40 FEET; THENCE-NORTH 39 006'41" WEST 465.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54032'38" WEST 526.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34026'23" WEST 410.92 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12044'59" EAST 337.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 24022'24" WEST 331.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38033'34" WEST 489'.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22014'13" WEST 315.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41041'22" WEST 538.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46030'42" (WEST 848.19 FEET; 21'4 LEG \1111- LGL1(A1.➢ C 106 /19/01) SE PAGE 6 EXHIBIT "A' NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THENCE NORTH 71006'$3" KEST 244.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89008'04" WEST 252.22 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE COURSE DESCRIBED AS "DTORTH 40 000'00" EAST 660.00 FEET" IN ANNEXATION i`TO. 1 (FRASIER ANNEXATION) TO THE CITY OF IRVINE; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION NORTH 40 033'37" EAST 221.97 FEET TO A POINT 1PT THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CIT`l OF IRVINE AS ESTABLISHED BY "REORGANIZATION NO. R097 -04" DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 64016'17" EAST 1340.,14 FEET FROM THE NORTHTnTESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "DTORTH 64016'17" WEST 4468.85 FEET" N THE ,CEAiTERLI�IE OF TR -73 (SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRA1NSPORTATION CORRIDOR) AS DESCRIBED IN 'PARCEL 1 OF SAID REORGANIZATION NO. R097 -04; THENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY AND THE CEI�TTERLII,TE OF TR -73 PER SAID "REORGAIl\7IZATION NO. R097 -04" THROUGH THEIR VARIOUS COURSES IN A GENERAL NORTTIT,VESTERLY DIRECTION TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXISTING CITY OF ATEWPORT BEACH BOiTTDARY AS ESTABLISHED. BY "REORGANIZATION NO. R097 -35 ", SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF T - -?T COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 690 24'23" WEST 2092.48 FEET "; THENCE ALONG , SAID EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY PER S =.ID "AEORGANIZATION NO. 8097 -35" THRiOUGH ITS VARIOUS COURSES IN ? GFITERI NORTT,?n1ESTERLY, SOUTHERLY', SOUTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE TkUE POINT OF BEGINNING. . CONTAINS 7,799 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, IS A MAP DESIGNATED AS EXHIBI ^1 .,B„ TO OBTAIN THE GRID DISTANCE AT GPS PT. NO. 6247, MULTIPLY THE GROUND DISTANCE BY 0.99996664. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER,- m SUPERVISION FROM RECORD INFORbk'.TIODI ODTLY. NO FIELD SURVEY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED —TO VERIFY ANY REX S. PLUM111ER, PLS 6641 DATE EXPIRATION DATE 12/31/03 -=G \1111- LGLIIRl -U0C 106/19/011 9a PAGE 7 2 -5 E;LHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST ANNE:ATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NI VWPORT BEACH THIS PROPOSAL DOES MEET THE APPROAAL OF THE ORA1gGE COUNTY SURVEYOR' S OFFICE. DATED T]�WS -Z� DAY OF - �JO-b� 2001. l�V V11Y1 JV1lVL LS � O$ , EX TION DATE 09/30/01 N0.440>3 OF (.AG \1]]1- 4GL11R1 .CCC (06/19/011 52 PAGE 8 0 210 BLOCKS 5151, 5152, 5251, 5252 5253. 5351, SJ52 ANNEXA11ON NO. I MODULES: VARIOUS (FRASIER :ANNEXATION) — — — /� ANYON ROAD I T BONITA \01rr or- I IRVINI NEW FORD ROAD r . SAN IIOAQUIN HILLS TRtNSPORTATION Y I CORRIDOR ITI Yn GfTy or NEWPORT fl \��",fl =, BEACH I �� �11.F,.�11, I I / I I � w I.. I I I I yoo�. I I I I n! I — — —I H GHWAYCOAST i IW INDEX MAP ' Nor To SvI (D INDICATES SHEET NUMBER Iv F-1 LEGEND SHEET I OF 5 = f.X15RRE CITY IZ NEWPORT BEACH BOUNDARY-PER RG CITY OF NEE N0. BEACH. ° EXISDI +G CITY OF NfN ?ORT BEACH BOUNDARY PER _ VARIOUS ANNEXA 110NS: " EXISRNG CITY OF IRVINE BOUNDARY PER REORGANI?A 17011 N0. 97 -04. ° EXISRNG CRYSTAL 004E STAIE PARK BOUNDARY. BOUNDARY OF DEED GRANTED TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH RECORDED JUNE 27, 1991 AS DOC. NO 91— JJ0557 711,1,11' 0 lNOICATES SHEET NUMBER P.O.B. INDICATES POINT OF BEGINNING INDICATFS 11OR17ONTAL CONTROL STATION AS NOTED N07E THIS ADJUSffi£NT CONTAINS 7.799 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PREPARED BY ME OR UNO£R MY DIRECT SUPERVISION FROM REC 0 1 ARON ONLY. NO R£LU SURVEY HAS BEEN CO UC e i IFY ANY RECORD INFORMA ROM. / (U COVE — REX S PLUMMER LS 6641 STATE I RECISMARON EXPIRES l2 /SI PARK I C /. EXPIRES U0. 6641 \� P THIS PROPOSAL DOES MEET THE APPROVAL OF MF/- c AL \F� ° ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE DA IS r_LUAY 2001 � ?.Lr kON AMAS C OUNTY SURVEYOR L.S. 4408 NSE EXPIRES 9 /JO /Of + NO. Y.OB 3 r�4r�OFGF\ - \f OP` EXHIBIT 118 1 Pmjact Design. Consultants ('NEWPORT COAST" ARMEXARON F+ lNnlc EWIMSE/u SUAIs Nm CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ) >m -s sh. <. s °u. SM 5a° m qo. c2 o21o1 L, 235'6111 FAX 231 0310 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY Date Document Action /Approval Relationship to Proposed Project 1976 -79 Irvine Coastal Community Approved by the Established a maximum residential build out for Irvine Coast of - Gen6al Plan Amendment, County; denied by the 12,000 DUs. Acted as County General Plan and proposed as first Final EIR No. 134. California Coastal coastal LCP to Coastal Commission. Commission (as LCP document) ' 19821 Irvine Coast Local Coastal Approved by the Established as first LCP for Irvine Coast. Maximum residential build 1983 Program 80 -4 1Land Use County; certified by ' out of 2,000 units, provided other land uses, development policies, Element Amendment 80-4; the California Coastal and regulations. Determined Coastal Act Consistency. For PA 3 Supplemental EIR No. 237; Commission (similar area to proposed project area) established maximum of 85 LCP Implementation Action SF DUs. PA14: 250 overnight accommodations and 25,000 square Plan. feet of related commercial uses. 19871 First Amendment to the Approved by the Established a maximum residential build out of 2,600 units, land . 1988 Irvine Coast Local Coastal County, and certified uses, intensity of use, development policies, and regulations. Program Land Use Plan by the California Determined Coastal Act consistency. Similar land use designations and Implementing Coastal Commission and build out within proposed project area as was approved in the Ordinance for the Irvine 1982 LCP. Coast Planning Unit. 1988/ FEIR No. 486, Irvine Coast Certified by the Serves as an implementing mechanism for the Irvine Coast LCP. 1996 Planned Community ' County of Orange Addressed impacts based on build out of project pursuant to the Development Agreement. 1988 LCP and Development Agreement. Addendum for Development-Agreement First Amendment. 1988 FEIR No. 485, Irvine Coast Certified by the Addressed environmental impact of backbone infrastructure, Planned Community County of Orange roadways, and subdivision of 2,813 acres, evaluating 23 of 44 Master Coastal Master CDP land use planning areas. EIR analysis included PAs Development Permit MCDP 3A, 36 and 14; addressed construction of Sand Canyon Avenue 88 -11P and Vesting A" through PAs 3A and 38; partial widening of PCH along The Irvine Tentative Tract Maio No. Company property; construction of backbone drainage system as 13337. recommended in the RfvIDRMP; construction and /or relocation of master utilities and construction of backbone domestic water storage and distribution system and backbone wastewater collection system. FEIR 485 did not address specific development proposals for residential, tourist commercial, or golf course development. Subsequent EIRs, in conjunction with subdivision "8° maps and project Coastal Development Permits, have addressed area specific proposals. 1989 Final EIR No. 511, Irvine Certified by the Evaluated construction level impacts for 11 individual projects . Coast Planned Commun /ry, County of Orange (residential and golf course uses) in addition to the realignment of Phase 1. Lower Loop Road (now named Pelican Hill Road). Included PAs 3A, 38, 14. Pr oposed, development in PAs.3A,.3B, and 14, as addressed in FEIR 511, was low density (estate /custom lot) ' residential units. FEIR 511 addressed the First Amendment to the MCDP and the Second revised Ve A" sting " Tentative Tract map 13337. As part of the First Amendment to the MCDP, planning area boundaries, including those of 3A, 38, and 14, were adjusted from boundaries established in the original MCDP and LCP documents; and development densities in PAs 3A and 3B were changed from 0- 2 du /ac as stated in the certified LCP, to 0.3 du /ac in the MCDP First Amendment. 1989 Refined Master Drainage Approved by the Recommended backbone drainage improvement system for the and Runoff Management County of Orange NCPC. Drainage and sedimentation control measures are in Plan as part of each subsequent development project within the . MCDP/NCPC. The-RMDRMP addressed facilities to mitigate increased peak runoff volumes and rates due to planned development. The RMDRMP is the master improvement plan from which subsequent site specific storm runoff management plans for NCPC development areas are derived. Each development project must engage a runoff management system that will maintain post - project flow rates to within ten percent of the pre - developed condition, in accordance with the certified LCP. 2 -g EXHIBIT C Date Document Action /Approval Relationship to Proposed Project 1991 Final EIR 517 Approved Certified San Joaquin Hills PC Addendum 1, Addendum SJHPC Initial Study 1, Addendum PA21 No..PA9501191PA950120, Addendum IP98 -070 1994 Addendum to FEIR No. Certified by the Site Development Permit to allow mass grading in PA 3A and for a 511 -PA 940113 Site County of Orange borrow site (in PA 3B) in an area pr6iously.analyzed for Development development. PermitLWishbone Hill Grading 1995- Mitigated Negative Approved by the Negative Declaration addressed .potential environmental effects of Declaration No. IP- 954 00, County of Orange deleting segments of Sand Canyon Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Element Road from the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Amendment 95 -1 Most relevant to the proposed project, NO Phase IV -2, the approval of the MPAH amendments removed the master planned segment of San Canyon. Avenue from its existing terminus just north of PCH to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ( SJHTC), and deleted the then planned interchange of San Canyon Avenue at the SJHTC. The removal of this planned segment was the result of changes in future land uses in the City of Irvine (PA 22) that would result in more open space /less development and in unincorporated Orange - County property /Newport Coast/Newport Ridge areas. Therefore, San Canyon Avenue north of PCH has been changed in name (application.in review at County) to Crystal Cove Drive, and'will serve as a community access /entry street rather than a County arterial. 1995 Ord. #3931 & Reso #95= approved by County PA22, Newport Ridge PC 180 of Orange 1996 Second Amendment to the Approved by the The LCP Second Amendment further modified the LCP by adjusting Newport Coast Local County of Orange, planning area boundaries and open space boundaries adjacent to Coastal Program Land Use and certified by the Crystal Cove State Park to improve habitat connectivity; the Second Plan and Implementing California Coastal Amendment increased the maximum number ofdwelling, units Ordinance for the Newport Commission allowed in undeveloped planning areas to match the low end of Coast Planning Unit density ranges established by the land use categories while maintaining the maximum allowed 2,600 total dwelling units in the NCPC; technical revisions were made to the LCP including name changes to roads and planned communities. 1996 Natural Community Certified by the Addressed NCCP /HCP for Central /C.oastal Orange County. Plan Conservation Plan and County of Orange, includes 37,000 acre reserve system, authorizes incidental take of Habitat Conservation Plan California Department coastal sage scrub, and provides regulatory coverage for 39 Joint Pro&a matic FEIR of, Fish and Game, individual species. The proposed project site is not within the NCCP No. 5531FE1�96 -26 and U.S. Fish and Reserve since the site was master planned for development. Wildlife Service Mitigation measures prescribed in FOR 511 and FEIR 553 1FEIS 96- 26 (NCCP) pertain-to project impacts to coastal sage scrub and are applied in this EIR. 1996 Addendum to Final EIR No. Adopted by the Addressed proposed amendments to the Central and Coastal 553 for the County of County of Orange NCCP /HCP to reflect relevant provisions of the Second Amendment Orange Central and to the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program (LCP). The 'Coastal Sub region Natural amendments to -ihe NCCP /HCP included a) revisions to the Coastal Community Conservation Subarea Reserve to reflect new development and open space Plan and Habitat configurations provided for in the LCP Second Amendment; b) Conservation Plan corresponding elimination of certain Special Linkage Areas, and c) provisions for infrastructure to be located in areas proposed to be added to the Coastal Subarea Reserve. The amendments to the Reserve System boundaries represent an'overall increase in total acreage of the Coastal Subarea Reserve, and significant improvements to wildlife connectivity within the Reserve System. 997 Addendum PA 9700{6 to Certified by the Addressed a modified development plan for one -half of Planning r EIR No. 511 County of Orange Area 3A, known as Development Area (DA) 3A -1. The proposed project site is not within DA 3A -1. 219 EY-111B IT Date Document Action /Approval Relationship to Proposed Project 1997- FEIR 568, Phase IV -2 of Certified by the Evaluated construction level impacts for PA 3A -2, 3B, 12B and 14, 1998 the Newport Coast Planned County of Orange including: shifting of development area boundaries; extending - Community, Newport Coast development into lower Los Trances Canyon; providing for Planning Areas 3A -2; 38, neighborhood commercial uses near PCH; and increasing flexibility 14;. MCDP Sixth for tourist commercial uses in PA14. The project establishes Amendment and Coastal infrastructure and mass pads to facilitate future residential Development Permit; TTNis development and commercial projects. in PA 3A -2, 38, recreation in 15444 and 15446. PA 128 and touristivisitor uses in PA14. TTMs 15444 and 15446 subdivide the project for financing and conveyance purposes. 1998 - FEIR 569, Phases IV -3 and Certified by County of Evaluated construction level impacts for PAs 4A, 48, 5, 6, 12C, 12E' IV -4 of the Newport Coast Orange and 12G. Uses . proposed include residential and recreation. Planned Community, Included: MCDP Seventh Amendment - Program analysis of 335 Newport Coast Planning residential units in Phase IV -3, 24 gross acre private recreation Areas 4A, 48, 5, 6, 12C, facility in 12E, 300 residential units in Phase IV-4, shifting of 12E, and 12G and MCDP planning area boundaries; shifting of development from PA12G Seventh Amendment; TTM increase the maximum number of residential units allowed in 15447 underdeveloped planning areas, adjustment/expansion at the types of recreation; subdivision of PA into development components, ' deletion of appealable areas; relocation of 66KU transmission of an emergency access /utility road in county open space. TTM 15447 - mass grading and infrastructure, including construction of major circulation improvements, drainage structures and utility improvements; State Parks Public Works Plan- amendments to allow for improvement and maintenance within Crystal Cove State Park. 1998 ' Addendum covering: Land Approved by County SJHPC PA 22 Re -named Newport Ridge PC Use Element LU98 -1 of. Orange Community Profile Amendment CPA98 -1; . Zone Change 3C -98 -1 (Reso 98 -87) ; Site Development Permit 98 -0117; Local Parks Implementation Plan PM 92 -01; TTM 15333; PA21 P.C. Reso 95 -20; TTM 15717; TTM. 15134, 15135; VTTM 15¢85; PA22 TTM '15934 '16037; PA 99 -015 Z Site Develcpment�Permit 00- 0029 SDP; .` TTM 15935 1999 Addendum No. PA980117 Approved by County San Joaquin Hills PC; PA 21 of Orange 2000- Coastal Commission Approved by Seventh Amendment for NCPC. Proposed project includes mass 2001 Appeal No. A5- IRC -99- California Coastal grading, back lane infrastructure for future residential and 301A Commission recreational development in PA 4A, 48, 5, (northeaster 2C), 6, 12C, ' offer to dedicate open space in 12E and 12G and approval of TTM 15447. Also includes 1.6 acres of Needlegrass restoration and riparian mitigation totaling approximately 3 acres to mitigate .0529 acres of wetland impact and approximately seven miles of "non - wetland" waters of the U.S. 220 DRAFt Au? st 29. 2001 Page 16 of 16 Exhibit D List of County Development Approvals The components of the Development Plan as shown by various Development Approvals include: A. Newport Coast Local Coastal Program 2 "d Amendment and all further amendments adopted before the City assumes permit issuing authority for the property-as provided for within this Agreement. The Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, 2 "d Amendment was approved by the California Coastal Commission on October 10, 1996; certified by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors on December 3, 1996 (Resolution No. 96 -861 and Ordinance No. 096 - 3974); and Certified'by the California Coastal Commission on January 21, 1997; B. Newport Ridge Planned Community Program: Approved by the Eounty of Orange Board of Supervisors on ivlarch 17, 1998 (Resolution Nos. 98087 and 98 -88; Ordinance No. 98 -3); C. Newport Coast Master Coastal Development Permit 7i "Amendment (PA 9701.52); Approved by the County of Orange. Planning Commission on July 21, 1998; D. First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Development Agreement: Recorded April 2, 1997 (No. 19970149745); and E.. Related secondary implementing approvals, permits, and actions pursuant to and consistent with. the foregoing (e.g. subdivision maps, individual coastal development permits, grading plan approvals and permits, etcetera). F. An Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company, and Irvine Community Development Company; approved by the Newport Beach City Council on July 24, 2001. 221 EXHIBIT E MITIGATION MEASURES the term Mitigation Measures includes, but is not limited to, the mitigation measures approved in conjunction with the certification or approval of the following environmental and planning documents. This Exhibit is for information only and does not constitute any modification or amendment or any mitigation measure or condition adopted with reference to the Project. The environmental documents listed in this Exhibit are on file in the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach. Irvine Coastal Community General Plan Amendment, Final EIR No. 134; 2. Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program 80 -4 1Land Use Element Amendment 80 -4; Supplemental EIR No. 237; LCP Implementation Action Plan; 3. FEIR No. 486, Irvine Coast Planned Community Development Agreement. Addendum for Development Agreement First Amendment 4. FEIR No. 485, Irvine Coast Planned Community Master Coastal Development Permit MCDP 8841P and Vesting "A" Tentative Tract Map No. 13337 5. Final EIR No. 511, Irvine Coast Planned Community, Phase 1 6. Refined Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan 7. Addendum to FEIR No. 511 -PA 940113 Site Development Permit/L>lshbone Hill Grading 8. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IP -95 -100, Transportation, Element Amendment 95 -1 9. Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan Joint Programmatic FEIR No. 653 1FEIS 96 -26 1 10. Second Amendment to the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinance for the Newport Coast Planning Unit 11. Addendum to Final EIR No. 553 for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan 12. Addendum PA 970046 to EIR No. 511 ��2 EXHIBIT F AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLANS The term Affordable Housing Implementation Plans refers to two plans prepared for the Environmental Management Agency of the County of Orange. The plan for that portion of the Property within the Coastal Zone - identified as the "Affordable Housing Implementation Plan - Irvine Coast Planned Community" - was prepared by Affordable Housing, Consultants and was approved by the County on October 29, 1991. The plan for the Newport Ridge - identified as the "Affordable Housing Implementation Plan —.The San Joaquin Hills Planned Community" - was prepared by FORMA and was approved by the County on November 2, 1995. These Affordable Housing Implementation Plans are available for public inspection in the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach during normal business hours. 223 224 City Council Attachment C Cooperative Agreement: City and County of Orange (cages 227 -247 available at City Clerk's Office and City's website) 220 ITEM 513 TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Newport Coast Annexation Action Items: Cooperative Agreement for Planning Services in the Newport Coast between the City and the County of Orange; Resolution 2001 -iii' Adopting the County of Orange's Master Plan of Drainage for the Newport Coast Community RECOMM -ENDE6 (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement for planning ACTION: services between the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach; and (2) Adopt. Resolution 2001-4 Adopting the County of Orange's Master Plan of Drainage for the Newport Coast Community. BACKGROUND: The Newport Coast is a 7;799 -acre region within Newport Beach's sphere of influence that lies immediately southeast of the city s limits at Corona del Mar, Harbor Ridge, and Bonita Canyon, When ultimately developed, it will contain up to 5,150 residential dwelling units, 2,150 resort accommodations, two retail i commercial centers, and extensive open space dedicated for public use. The V .a open space dedications are contingent upon, and phased with, the development. T' = n q j ��� -' — Today, about 3,000 of the 5,150 residential dwelling units are built and occupied. _ _i_i �. i. Both commercial centers are under development, with the Newport Coast Retail T Center at San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Coast Drive and the Crystal Cover Retail Center slated to open in early 2002. Only about 150 of the 2,150 resort accommodations are built or under construction (the Marriott Newport Coast Villas). County demographers report that about 7,000 people live in the Newport Coast today. In September 2000, the City Council directed staff to proceed with filing an annexation application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of the Newport Coast. The City filed this application in March 2001. On September 12, 2001, Orange County LAFCO approved the City's application on a 7 -0 vote and directed the City to complete several "terms and conditions" in advance of an anticipated October 15- November 16, 2001, protest period and a November 30, 2001 certification. Cooperative Agreement for Planning Services with the County of Orange. In June and July, 2001, the City entered into an Annexation and Development Agreement (DA #14) with the Heine Company that transfers municipal land use authority in the Newport Coast (already bound by a County development agreement and the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, 2nd Amendment) to the County of Orange. 227 THIS AGENDA This Agenda Item asks the City Council to authorize Mayor Adams to sign the ITEM: Cooperative Agreement for planning services with the County of Orange. The Agreement leaves most planning activity for the Newport Coast community with the County of Orange. It also asks the Council to formally accept and adopt the County of Orange's master plan of drainage for the Newport Coast community. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - Cooperative Agreement for Planning Services (to be included Monday, November 26, 2001) Appendix B -Resolution 2001 -_ Adopting the County of Orange's Master Plan of Drainage for the Newport Coast Community 222 "RECEIVED AFTER AGEND PRINTED:" COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ( "Agreement'), dated October 9, 2001 for purposes of identification, between the COUNTY OF ORANGE ( "County") and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ( "City") is based on following:. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is in the process of annexing approximately 7,799 acres of property commonly known as the Newport Coast (Property). The Property, which is described. in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, is currently in the unincorporated area of County and was wholly owned by. The Irvine Company (Company) during the planning for development. WHEREAS, the County has, for thirty (30) years, planned. for the development and use of the Property and related infrastructure. The manner and timing of the development of the Property is an extremely complex issue that has been subject to intense public scrutiny and participation. The development of the Property is the subject of numerous agreements and planning documents and is a matter of regional importance. The following are examples of the complexity of the issues resolved through the planning process, relevant planning documents and the many agreements that protect the interests of the public and the Company: A. The County and the California Coastal Commission have ensured preservation of that valuable habitat by requiring dedication to public agencies subject to Company's right and ability to develop portions of the Property in accordance with the Development Plans and Development Approvals. The County, in planning the Property; has identified significant portions of the Property that contain valuable habitat that is of regional significance and is, or is intended -to be, designated as part- of the. Natural Communities Conservation Plan for the Central ;and Coastal Subregions of Orange County (NCCP). The NCCP, is a complex agreement between property owners (including the Company) and' public agencies (including the County) to ensure the preservation of large contiguous areas of habitat for endangered species. B. The Company has constructed or contributed to the construction of public improvements on, or in the vicinity of, -the Property that serve regional transportation demand and that are vital to the regional transportation system. These improvements, many of which have been constructed at the sole cost of the Company, have been made in consideration of the right to develop the Property in conformance with the Development Plan. These improvements include the construction of Newport Coast Drive, the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road, the Cooperative Agreement 1 of 30 229 WHEREAS, City and County are public'entities possessing the common power to review and approve applications for administrative and ministerial permits for development, 'including coastal development permits; subdivision maps, conditional use permits, grading - permits and building permits, and approvals related to the planning for, and development of, real property. City and County also have the common power to accept dedications for open space or habitat protection, to develop and maintain recreational facilities and to create and administer assessment districts pursuant to provisions of State and /or local law. Government Code Sections 51300 of seq. authorize a county to contract with a city for the performance of municipal functions common to both agencies by designated county officers and employees. This Agreement fully complies with all State statutory and constitutional provisions related to the transfer of municipal functions from a city to a county. WHEREAS, this Agreement achieves the objectives of the Parties, such as the efficient implementation and administration of the Development Approvals and Development Plan, by authorizing the County to exercise all land use and building authority of the City relative to each Planning Area upon annexation and until a Planning Area is fully improved. This Agreement also will ensure Company's consent to proceed with. the immediate annexation of the entire Property in accordance with the requirements of the ADA. This Agreement is consistent with provisions of State law, specifically SIB 516, that require implementation of a certified local coastal program by a county with respect to property annexed by a city- that does not have a fully certified local coastal plan. Finally, this Agreement will provide a vehicle for ensuring that all conditions to development are satisfied and that any proposed modification to any Development Approval or the Development. Plan not impair or affect, the right of the Company to develop.the Property to the full extent permitted by the Development Approvals and Development Plan. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. This Agreement uses a number of terms having specific meanings, as defined below. These specially defined terms are distinguished by having the initial letter capitalized, or all letters capitalized, when -used in the Agreement. The defined terms include the following: Cooperative Agreement 3 of 30 230 amendment of those actions before the assumption of land use authority by the City over a Planning Area after that Planning Area is Fully Improved. The term "Development Approvals" includes (including any modifications or amendments as described above), but is not limited to, those Development Approvals shown on Exhibit C and the following: (a) General plans and general plan amendments; (b) Specific plans and specific plan amendments; (c) Local Coastal Programs including the Land Use Plan and all implementing ordinances; (d) Zoning and rezoning; (e) Tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; (f) Variances, conditional use permits, master plans, and plot plans; (g) Master Coastal Development Permits and Coastal Development Pen-nits; (h) Grading and building permits; and (i). Development Agreements and Annexation and Development Agreements. 1.1.9 "Development Plan" means the plan for Development of the Property, including the planning and zoning standards, regulations, and criteria for the Development of the Property contained in and consistent with the Development Approvals. The components of the Development Plan are more fully described in Exhibit C. 1. 1. "Fully ' Improved" means that the County has issued certificates of occupancy (or similar evidence that the all structures have received all inspections and fully comply with all laws such that there is no further condition to occupancy) for all development permitted in any Planning Area pursuant to the Development Approvals and Development Plan. Cooperative Agreement 5 of 30 231 Exhibit F — Map of Open Space and Recreational Areas to be Retained by the County. 1.3 Construction. The word "include" or any form of the word "include" shall be construed and interpreted to add the phrase "without limitation." 2. OBJECTIVES AND INTENT 2.1 Objectives. The objectives of this Agreement are to: 2.1.1 Ensure that, following annexation of the Property to City, the Property is developed in substantial compliance with, and to the full extent permitted by, the Development Approvals and the Development Plan. 2.1.2 Ensure that development of the property proceeds in a manner that preserves: the public benefits associated with the Development Approvals and Development. Plan including the dedication of valuable habitat and open space. 2.1.3 Effect a transfer of land use authority from the City to the County upon annexation with the City to assume land use authority over individual Planning Areas when Fully Improved and City is in possession of necessary planning and building records, 2.1.4 To provide a process for the transfer of documents necessary to City's assumption of land use authority and a mechanism for facilitating City's right to monitor development as provided in the ADA. 2.1.5 To preserve County's ownership, after annexation, over open space and habitat to the . extent contemplated by the Development Approvals, Development Plan and related agreements such as the NCCP. 2.1.6 To provide a mechanism for City assumption of title to certain open space and for modifying the recreational facilities and open space provisions of the Development Approvals and the Development Plan without impacting Company's development rights, the NCCP or County's regional park plans. 2.1.7 To provide for the administration of existing assessment districts and the formation of new or modified districts by County personnel and Cooperative Agreement 7 of 30 232 ownership of all County property upon annexation except as otherwise provided by agreement (see Exhibit Q. City, pursuant to this Agreement waives all rights to assume ownership of County property upon annexation and County agrees to maintain ownership of its property until title is transferred pursuant to this-Agreement or another agreement. City and County shall, subsequent to annexation, meet and confer on a regular basis to determine when and if.any County property should be transferred to the City. County shall transfer County property to City if and as necessary to enable City to fulfill its obligations to Newport Coast residents relative to the construction of a community center, the development, operation and maintenance of active recreational facilities and the maintenance of slope, parkways and medians. County shall have no obligation to transfer to City any property designated as open space or habitat by the NCCP or any property that is part of the County's regional 'park plan. A map of the open space areas to be retained by the County is included as Exhibit F. 3.2.2 Offers of Dedication. City, by this Agreement, transfers to County the right and responsibility to accept any offer of dedication of park and /or open space land to the extent contemplated or required by the Development Approvals, the Development Plan, the NCCP or any other agreement. County shall assign to City the right to accept an offer of dedication. with respect to any property that City requires to fulfill its. obligations to Newport Coast residents as specified in Subsection 3.2.1 3.2.3 Restrictions on Transfer. The "rights and duties of City and County pursuant to this Sectioh.shall not be exercised in a manner that could impair Company's rights to fully develop the Property pursuant to the Development Approvals and Development Plan. In no event shall County transfer any property to City that is designated as part of a habitat conservation plan such as the NCCP. 3.3 Assessment District Authority. City transfers. to the County, upon annexation and to the maximum extent permitted by law, all rights, duties and obligations relative to the administration of any existing assessment district that affects some or all of the Property (Assessment District Authority). County shall also retain the right to form and administer new assessment districts provided that no new or increase special tax or levy is imposed on any person or property except as expressly permitted by law. County and City shall fully cooperate in any review conducted by City or its Cooperative Agreement 9 of 30 233 the County shall be the County's sole consideration for all services performed and the exercise of all authority transferred pursuant to this Agreement. The fees charged by the County shall also be the County's sole, consideration for the transfer of records as specified in Section Article 5. 4.4 County Officers. The County Executive Officer (CEO) shall designate the County officers, employees and- contractors that are to perform the services contemplated by, and exercise the. authority transferred pursuant to, this Agreement. The Parties contemplate that the CEO will designate the same officers, employees and contractors that have, prior to the effective date of this Agreement, been performing services or exercising powers related to Land Use Authority, Open Space Authority or Assessment District Authority. 5. COOPERATION. 5.1 Cooperation. City shall provide any assistance requested by County with respect to the implementation and administration of the Development Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement. City and County shall cooperate with one,another relative to any action necessary to ensure that County retains the authority to perform the functions required by, or to achieve the objectives of, this Agreement. ` 5.2 Monitoring. City and County shall also cooperate with one another to facilitate City's right to monitor implementation of the Development Plan and the conditions to the Development of the Property. County shall maintain a list of pending activities related to implementation of the Development Plan and provide City with a copy of the list once each ninety days during the Term. 5.3 Records. City and County shall, during the initial one hundred and eighty (180) days of the Term, evaluate the type and nature of County records, and . the mechanisms for the transmission of those records, that would facilitate the City's assumption of Land Use Authority after any Planning Area is Fully Improved. In evaluating the type and nature of the records, the Parties shall give special consideration to the type of information that is necessary to issue building permits for other than initial construction and the provision of municipal services such as police, fire personnel and property maintenance. In evaluating the mechanism for transmission, the. Parties shall give special consideration to the format and medium for transmitting relevant information that would be most easily incorporated into the City's databases and that would minimize the cost of transfer /transmittal. The Parties shall, within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the Effective Date, implement a program Cooperative Agreement 11 of 30 23-4 the Parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement since all Parties have been represented by counsel. 7.5. Indemnification. City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County and its officers, employees and agents with respect to any claim, damage, loss, cause of action, lawsuit or proceeding that arises out of or is in any way related to any act or omission by City or its officers, employees or agents in the performance or non - performance of any duty or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. County shall defend, indemnify, and. hold harmless the City and its officers, employees and agents with respect to any claim, damage, loss, cause of action, lawsuit or proceeding that arises out of or is in any way related to any act or omission by County or its officers, employees, or agents in the performance or non - performance of any duty or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. 7.6 Section Headings. All ' section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect'any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 7.7 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 7.8 Waiver. The failure of a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or the failure of a Party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other Parry, shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand and require, at any time, the other Party's strict compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 7.9 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit for the parties and their successors and assigns: Except as expressly provided in Article 6, no other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement, provided, however, that the fee owners of any non- residential parcels in the area to be annexed to City pursuant to the ADA may elect to be covered by the Agreement. 7.10 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. Cooperative Agreement 13 of 30 .235 delivered personally or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first'class mail, addressed as follows-.. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to CITY shall be addressed to: City of Newport Beach City Manager's Office 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to COUNTY shall be addressed to: Director of Planning and Development Services County of Orange 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703 -5000 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to Company shall be addressed to Vice President for Entitlement (Newport Coast) 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92625 7.18 Effective Date.. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date on which. the City annexation of all or a portion of the Property becomes effective. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first set forth above. COUNTY: nthia P. Coad, Board Chair County of Orange, State of California Cooperative Agreement 15 of 30 2.3 o EXHIBIT `A' NEWPORT COAST.ANNEXATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BLOCKS: 5151; 5152, 5251 5252, 5253, 5351 5352 MODULES: VARIOUS BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 91, 95 -98, 128 -134, 161 -164 OF IRVINE'S. SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON A MAP' THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS AND PARCEL 2 AND 'A PORTION 'OF PARCEL 1 PER CORPORATION GRANT' DEED BOOK., 13439, PAGE '94 -132, RECORDED. DECEMBER 19, 1979, IN THE OFFICE OF THE,COUNTY RECORDER OF..THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EXIS -ING. C_TY OF NEWPO ?,T BEACH BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED BY REORGANIZATION N0: R097 -35, "BONITA CANYON ANNEXATION'TO THE' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND DETACHNE4T OF TH9 SAME TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF IRVINE ", SAID ANGLE POINT BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH- 1'-058'31' EAST 11.29 FEET' IN SAID REORGANIZATION NO. R097 -35, SAID POINT ALSO BEING DISTANT NORTH 26942'33" EAST 3071.87 FEET FROM ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S HORIZONTA =. CONTROL STATION' GPS NO. 6247; -HAVING A COORDINATE VA:,UE (U..S. SURVEY COOT) OF, NORTH .2173287.386 AND' EAST 6074018:521, 'BAS =. UPON THE CALIF RaC_A COORDINA ?E SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE VI. 1983-MAD (199_.35 EP_CH O.C.S. GPS ADJUSTMENT) AS SAID GPS POINT IS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP N.O. 15945, RECOR == IN BOOK'8Cs, PAGES 18 -25 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS; MAPS '1N TEE OFFICE.OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING COHII40N =0 "F' -23J3 VIEWS =LLS - PHASE 3' ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH;. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG'THE EXISTING C__Y BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PER "HARBOR VIEW HILLS -PHASE 3' _V EX.A=_ON, THE ;`F" -_RBOR VIEW HILLS SECTOR 4" ANNEXATION. THE "HARBOR RIDG7 ANNEXATION NO. E'.' THE "HARBOR RIDGE ANNEXATION NO.- 82, THE "HARBOR V_EW HILLS -PHASE 3' ANNEXATION, THE "HARBOR VIEW HILLS -PHASE 4" ANNEXATION, THE "ANNEXATION NO. 57 (CENTERVIEW ANNEXATION) ', THE "HARBOR VIEW" ANNEXATION, ANNEXATION NO. 8, CITY BOUNDARY 1928 (COURT CASE NO. 23686) INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1906; THE 'CORONA HIGHLANDS' ANNEXATION, THE "SE.AWARD 17' ANNEXAT_ON, THE "CAMEO HIGHLANDS" ANNEXATION, THE "ANNEXATION NO. 84', THE "CAMEO HIGHLANDS' ANNEXATION, THE "ANNEXATION NO.' 64 ", THE "CAMEO CLIFFS' ANNEXATION" THE "SHORE CLIFFS - CAMEO SHORES TIDELANDS ANNEXATION" THROUGH THEIR VARIOUS COURSES IN A GENERAL SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, SOUTHEASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, sma- ,cci,e,.wc 10an1101) zc PAGE 1 Cooperative Agreement 17 of 30 2S:F NEWPORT COAST ANNEBATION NOXAO -1 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SOUTHEASTERLY; SOUTHERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, WESTERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, ' SOOT2iERLY. NORTH.-JES- F.PJ,Y, SOUTHWESTERLY; 47ESTFALY, SOUTHEASTERLY, NORTEEASTER..Y, SOUTHERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY, NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHF�ESTERLY DIRECTION ='0 AN ANGLE POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY. OF"NEWPORT BEACH AS ESTABLISHED BY 'SHORE CLIFFS - CAMEO SHORE TIDELANDS ANNEXATION'; THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOONDAEY IN A DIRECT LINE NORTHEASTERLY 3 MILES MORE. OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH TIDE OF RE PACIFIC OCEAN; SAID POINT BEARING SOUTH 37 039'50' WEST 600 FEET MORE OR LESS FROM THE NORTHWEST. CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF -PARK PROPERTY' AS DESCRIBED IN CORPORATION GRANT DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON PILE OECEN9ER 19, 19%9. IN BOOR _3439, PAGE 94 -132 IN THE OFFICE OF nw COUNTY RECORDER. SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE AESC,RIBED AS "NORTH 37 °39'50" EAST 104.98 FELT-'IN SAID DEED IN THE WESTERLY-80UNDARY OF PARCEL 3 OF SAID "PARK PROPERTY'; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION "XORTH 37039'57' EAST 60C FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWPSTERLY TERKnT.:S. OF THAT CERTAL`: C:JRS.E DESCRIBED AS 'NORTH 37039'50" EAST. 104.98 FEET' -IN T;E NORTh:lESIERLY BOONDARY OF SAID PARCEL 3, SAID TERMINUS ALSO BRIN-_ ON ':=.L' NORT:EASTERLY RIGHT OF PTAY LINE OF THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BEING A H= G:•lAY OF VAR =ABLE: WIDTH, AND FURTHER DESCRIBED IN BOOK 487, PAGE 1 OF 7 = 'DS'__N THE OFFICE OF TiaE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF '.:AY =VE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OP' PARCEL 3- OF SAIn "PARK PROPERTY'; THENCE NORTH 37 039'50' EAST 104.99 FEET TO TKg SEGINNI';,; OF A TAM-GENT. 950.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHF -ST; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE; NORTHEASTERLY, 219.65 FEET TRROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 014'50'; THENCE NORTH 50 054.40' EAST 1645.45 FEET TO _'HS BF:GTNNTNG OF A TANGENT 1300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NEST; TIUU4CE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY, 1590.29 F2-ET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 70 005.24';. .m�uu- vu�w -wc (.111.10„ . PAGE 2 Cooperative Agreement 19 of 30 234 E7®IT `A' NEWPORT COAST ANNEX.ATSON NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACE THENCE NORTH 19 050'41' EAST 141.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49001'42° EAST 150.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73052/21' EAST 172.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60049109' EAST 176.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11048'47' EAST 312.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03021'59" NEST 272.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN. COURSE DESCRIBEU.AS -SOUTH 28 044'47" FAST 328 -52 FEET' IN THE EXISTING WESTERLY BOUNDARY- OF "PARR PROPERTY" AS DESCRIBED IN CORPORATION GRANT DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED NOVEMBER 17., 1981 ON FILE IN BOOR 14292, PAGE 953 -965 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY NORTH 28044'47" WEST 328.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11021'29" EAST 467.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08021'57" WEST 68.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29047'31' EAST 301.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80008'45' EAST 383.72 :FEET; THENCE NORTH 30018'40" THENCE NORTH 79055.51' THENCE NORTH 49046'53.' THENCE NORTH 75036'00" THENCE NORTH 88017'55' THENCE NORTH 02027'46' THENCE NORTH 25047'27' THENCE NORTH 89015'21' EAST 301.17 FEET; EAST 446.86 FEET; EAST 390.27 FEET; EAST 152.80 FEET; EAST 404.18 FEET; EAST 186.17 F£EP; EAST 33D.97 FEET; EAST 308.63 FEET; u0�u �i- u7.�i.i .coc ins n s�oi� FACE 4 Cooperative Agreement 21 of 30 23q SSHIDIT `A' NEWPORT COAST AME%ATION NO.CA01 -06 TO THE CITY OF NHWPORT BEACH THENCE SOUTH-85006'26' EAST 515.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74032'30' EAST 420.20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66047'38' EAST 548.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHL•'ASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 161 OF SAID IRVINE'S. SUBDIVISION; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BOOR 13439,'PAGE 94 -132 AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID- BLOCR, 161 NORTH 40033'59" EAST 188.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THAT CERTAIN COURSE BEARING 'NORTT{ 34 056'51' WEST 457.86 FEET' IN THE EXXTSTISIG BOUNDARY OF 'THE PROPERTY' DESCRIBFD IN GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH RECORDED JUNE 27, 1991 AS DOCUMENT NO. 91- 330557 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID COURSE AND THE SOUTHIVESTERLY BOUNDARY OF "THE PROPERTY" OF SAID GRANT DEED NORTH 34055'56' WEST 53.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68021'18' WEST 560.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60 007.54' WEST 785.39 FEET; ^HENCE SOUTH 83028'56° WEST 326.82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66044'01' T, CE NORTH 39006'41' THENCE NORTH 54032'38' TH}TICE NORTH 34026'23' THENCE NORTIE 12044.59' THENCE NORTH 24022'24' THENCE NORTH 38033'34' THENCE NOR'TR 22014'13' THENCE NORTH 41041'22' THENCE 0ORTH 46030'42' WEST 658.40 FE T; WEST 465.65 FEET; WEST 526.14 FEET; WFS'1' 410.92 FEET; EAST 337.73 FEET; WEST 331.27 FEET; WEST 489.32 FEET; WEST 315.36 FEET; WEST 538.97 PEET; WEST 848.1.9 FEET; uc�v�a iai.me i ".doll n PAGE 6 Cooperative Agreement 23 of 30 240 s�zezT `n• NEWPORT COAST APNEXXTION NO.C&01 -116 TO TEE CITY OF NEWPORT 9E7SC9 THIS PROPOSAL DOES ifEET THE APPROVAL OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE. DATED S Z� l�� DAY OF ��JtiEc. 2001. JO AS, COUNTY. ��pNO SURE LS OS wSYr ZXP'TlMTIObT DATE 09130101 is Na• -, ^, p�.wc rev. ?•a� a PAGE 8 Cooperative Agreement 25 of 30 24-T Exhibit C Summary of Development Approvals The components of the Development Plan as shown by various Development Approvals include:. A. Newport Coast Local Coastal Program 2nd Amendment and all further amendments adopted before the City assumes pen-nit issuing authority for the property as provided for within this Agreement. The Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, 2nd Amendment was approved by the California Coastal Commission on October 10, 1996; certified by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors on December 3, 1996 (Resolution No. 96= 861 and Ordinance No. 096- 3974); and Certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 21,1997; B. Newport Ridge Planned Community Program: Approved by the County of Orange Board of Supervisors on March 17, 1998 (Resolution Nos. 98087 and 98 -88; Ordinance . No. 98 -3);. C. Newport Coast Master Coastal Development Permit_7d' Amendment (PA 970152); Approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission on July 21, 1998; D. First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Development Agreement: Recorded April 2, 1997 (No. 19970149745); and E. Related secondary implementing approvals, permits, and actions pursuant to and consistent with the foregoing (e.g. subdivision maps, individual coastal development permits, grading plan approvals and permits, etceteras). F. An Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company, and Irvine Community Development Company; approved by the Newport Beach City Council on July 24, 2001. Cooperative Agreement 27 of 30 242 Exhibit E Orange County LAFCO Condition Relating to Open Space Areas CA 01-06 NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of. Orange DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: Section 2. The proposal is approved subject to the following terms and conditions: h) Upon annexation of the territory to the city, .all right, title and interest of the County, including underlying fee where owned by the County in any and all public roads, sidewalks, trails, landscaped.areas, open space, street lights, signals, storm drains and bridges shall vest in the City, except for those properties to be retained by the County specifically listed by these conditions except as otherwise agreed to by the City and the County. OEM Cooperative Agreement 29 of 30 24S Exhibit F Map of Open Space and Recreational Areas to be Retained by County Retained by County Exhibit F Map of Open Space and Recreational Areas to be Retained by County NR is Cooperative Agreement 30 of 30 244 i VfAttf Diva Did Nwnbrs (714) 834 -4760 Robert H. Burnham City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 OFFICE OF . THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF ORANGE I O CMC CENTER PLAZA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1379 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 -1379 (714) 830.33W FAX (714) 830.1359 November 15, 2001 BENJAMIN P. de MAYO COUNTYCOUNSEL JAMES F. MEADE DEBORAH M. GMEINER ASSISTANTS EDWARD N. DURAN RICHARD A OVI E DO HOWARD SERBIN RODIIRT L. AUSTIN DONALD R RUBIN DARBARA L. STOCKER IAIES L TURNER NICHOLAS S. CBRISOS TIIONAS F. MORSE . WANDA S. FLORENCE HOPE E SNYDER THOMAS C. AGIN SIEUE A CHRISIENSEN ADRIENNE S. HEMiAN KARYN J. DRIESSEN KAREN R PRATHER 351 PERSINGER GEOFFREY R HUNT JACK W. GOLDEN CHRISTOPHER I. TILLER ROBERT G. OVERBY DANDiL P. TORRES JOHN R ADD= TICHE EELPAL1,1FR WARD BRADY CHRISTOPHER TL DARGAN JANMIX TL BROCK RACHEL M 13AVIS ANN E. FLETCHER AMY B. MORGAN MARGARET E. EASTMAN DANA J. STNS )AN T. TIARTDI . MARIANNE VAN RIPER JAMES C. HARMAN JULIE J. AGIN LAURIE A SHADE DANIEL IL SHEPHAKD JOYCE RIEY . PAULA A wuALEY THOMAS'A TM I ER STEVEN C. MUF]l ALEXANDRA G: MORGAN CAROLYN S. TRUST ROBERTMERVAIS BBTHL. LEWIS LAURA D. KNMP JEFFREY M RICHARD ROGER P. FRMIAN NICOLE A SAIS NDOEL G. DAFTARY VERONICA R PAWLOWSKI JPANNIE SU ' JAhUSS G HARVEY MM L GHANDOUR DEPUTIES' Re: Cooperative Agreement for Processing Newport Coast Land Use Approvals This transmits, for your records, a fully executed copy of the above Cooperative Agreement as approvgd.by the Board of Supervisors on October 23, 2001 along with a related minute order. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Nick Chrisos Encolsure Very truly yours, BENJAMIN P. de MAYO COUNTY COUNSEL .. 245 Resolution 2001- 94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE'S MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FOR THE NEWPORT COAST COMMUNITY WHEREAS, the County of Orange has enacted and approved a Master Plan of Drainage for its unincorporated communities; and WHEREAS, this Master Plan describes the watersheds and structural drainage systems that exist in each unincorporated community; and LNHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has filed for and received Local Agency Formation Con-mission approval for the annexation of unincorporated territory known as the Newport Coast and described within LAFCO Resolution CA #01 -06; and V HEREAS, should its annexation of the Newport Coast community be successful, the City of Newport Beach will administer and maintain the same watersheds and structures for the unincorporated area known as the Newport Coast after annexation; now, therefore be it RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby accepts and adopts the County of Orange's Master Plan of Drainage for the territory described in LAFCO Resolution CA #01 -06, otherwise known as the Newport Coast community. ADOPTED this 27th day of November, 2001. GAROLD B. ADAMS Mayor of Newport Bea ATTEST: Po T LAVONNE HARKLESS _ Newport Beach City Clerk 41 FOVL 240 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LAVONNE M. HARKLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2001 -94 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 27th day of November, 2001, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor Noes: None Absent: Mayor Adams Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 28th day of November, 2001, (Seal) City Clerk Newport Beach, California 247 242 Attachment D Newport Coast Planned Community Annual Monitoring Report (2002 -2010) 249 250 SIN Annual Monitoring Report Newport Coast Planned Community Years 2002 -2010 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Community Development Planning Division Contact: James Campbell (949) 644 -3228 Submitted by: L•vine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Dan Miller (949) 720 -2000 Prepared by: CAA Planning, Inc. 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Contact: Shawoa Schaffner (949) 581 -2888 Completed: May 2011 2151 TILE NEWPORT COAST 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - BACKGROUND A. Introduction B. Project Description C. Project Status SECTION II - DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS SECTION III - COMMUNITY -WIDE INFORMATION SECTION IV - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS SECTION V - APPENDIX I. 2002 Annual Monitoring Report Format (County of Orange) 2. Exhibit W, Planned Community Development Map (Newport Coast LCP) 3. Planned Community Statistical Table — 6 °i Revision (Newport Coast LCP) 4. Exhibit D — Benefits to County and Tts Residents (Urine Coast Development Agreement, County of Orange) 252 THE NEWPORT COAST 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Planned Community Location Map Residential and Tourist Commercial Planning Areas Planned Community Statistical Summary Aerial Photograph X153 SECTION I — BACIfGROUN'D A. Introduetion Section 6.1 of the Annexation and Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company and hvine Community Development Company Concerning the Newport Coast and Adjacent Properties (Agreement), effective August 23, 2001, states the "City CoutnciI shall review the Agreement annually ... io order to ascertain the good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of the Agreement... " and "As part of that review, Owner shall submit an annual monitoring review statement describing its actions in compliance with this Agreement..." Ptnsu- ant to the City's request the Amoral Monitoring Report (AMR) which follows for the Newport Coast Planned Community (Newport Coast) covers the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2010 (2002 -2010 AMR). Previously, the responsibility for reviewing the Newport Coast AMRs rested with the County of Orange (County) as required by the Irvine Coast (Newport Coast) Development Agreement be- tween the County and The hvine Company, effective May 23, 1988. All AMRs for the Newport Coast, including the attached 2002 - 2010 AMR have been prepared in accordance with the Annual Monitoring Report Format (Appendix 1) provided by the County. The first AMR for Newport Coast was prepared for the Year 1997 and was submitted to the County iu April of 1998. Follow- ing the 1997 AMR submittal, the County Planning and Development, Services Department estab- lished a baseline AMR file for Newport Coast. Subsequent AMR submittals were required to in- clude only those pages, exhibits, and maps that changed or required updating from previous AMR submittals. Each subsequent year the AMR included an updated statistical summary, a list of dis- cretionary approvals, compilation of conmmnity and planning area activity data, an aerial photo- graph, and reporting the status of compliance with Development Agreement Obligations. An AMR was submitted to the County for review each year from 1997 through 2004. In March of 2006 the County informed Irvine Company that they were no longer required to submit an AMR. The AMR which follows is based ou the fornnat established by County except that it reports devel- opment activity for nine years (2002 -2010) rather than for one year. Since Newport Coast devel- opment activity for 2002 through 2004 was previously submitted to the County, the 2002 — 2004 approved AMRs have been merged with the 2005 — 2010 information to create one comprehensive AMR as the City has requested. The County criteria for reporting development activity for the community as awhole and for indi- viduat planning areas was to provide data for the reporting year, and to project the activity through to the end of 2005 and also through to the end of the build -out year which was estimated to be 2010. The 2002 — 2010 AMR assumes build -out of Newport Coast to be 2015. 254 B. Project Description All development within the Newport Coast Planned Community is located within both the Coastal Zone as defined in the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the Newport Coast Local Coastal Pro- gram, 2nd Amendment (Newport Coast LCP). The Newport Coast LCP is divided into two parts, the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementing Actions Program (IAP). The Newport Coast Planned Community contains 9,493 acres of formerly unincorporated land which is now in the City of Newport Beach. Newport Coast was annexed into the City of Newport Beach in 200 L However, until the City receives certification of a LCP, land use development au- thority remains with the County. The Planned Community is bordered on the east by unincorpo- rated areas of the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, on the south by Crystal Cove State Park and the City of Laguna Beach and on the west by the Pacific Ocean as shown on the Planned Conununity Location Map (Exhibit 1). C. Project Status The Newport Coast LCP contains a Planned Community Development Map (Development Map) and a Planned Conununity Statistical Table (Statistical Table). The Development Map indentifies Planning Areas and land uses within the Planned Community and the Statistical Table contains a statistical breakdown for each residential and non - residential Planning Area shown on the Map in terms of maximum and estimated number of dwelling units, resort accommodations, and gross commercial acreage. The Development Map and the Statistical Table are included in the Appendix for reference (Appendix 2 and Appendix 3). The 2002 -2010 AMR contains a more detailed and focused Development Map identified as the Newport Coast Residential and Tourist Commercial Planning An•eas Map (Exhibit 2). Rather than showing the Planning Areas as vacant land they are instead shown as subdivided residential or tourist commercial parcels surrounded by parks and open space. Also, the community names for each planning area are included. The 2002 -2010 AMR also contains a modified Statistical Table entitled the Planned Conununity Statistical Summary (Exhibit 3) that provides an up to date ac- counting of the approved tentative maps, final naps, and building permits for the Planning Areas shown on the Newport Coast Residential and Tourist Commercial Planning Areas Map. Finally, an aerial photograph is provided (Exhibit 4) which shows the Newport Coast and the surrounding communities. The 2002 -2010 AMR Planned Community Statistical Summary shows that all residential Planning Areas have been subdivided and have approved Tentative Maps. However, there are approxi- mately 189 residential units for which building permits have not been issued. it also shows that there are 2150 visitor serving accommodations (either hotel or non - individually owned) allowed under the LCP within the Tourist Commercial Planning Areas. Of this number, 700 visitor serving accommodations have been approved for the Marriott Vacation Resort (696 units built) and 408 visitor serving accommodations have been approved and built at the Pelican Hill Resort. There are 1042 visitor serving accommodations remaining within the Planning Areas designated for Tourist Commercial land use subject to the maximum accommodations allowable for each Planning Area. For the purpose of the 2002 — 2010 AMR build out of the Newport Coast Planned Community is 2015. 2155 zz CHIGA HUUPVTOMTOO M EEQCH COASTAL BOUNDARY SANTA ANA RIVER ESTUARY SANTA ANA HEIGHTS NEWPORT DUNES h� ANgRA wJ Tue've, COBT& P01E8W Myopan u sEnCH EMERALD 1111WOM L7LLa009 SOUTH LAGUNA LAGUNA NEWPORT RIDGE PLANNING UNIT -NEWPORT COAST PLANNING UNIT `ALISO CREEK, UL U DD AHJ% `-'CRY)' F(DEN T' CAPISTRANO BEACH Exhibit 1 PLANNED COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP NEWPORT COAST PLANNED COMMUNITY AMR IJoI to Soolx 2150 AT I ART I /J J I NOT A PART NOTISFPART- 5 1Lr, IAGNVA DOnST WILDEME55PAGG C t / ��,/ -:! '•\ � � \ -. f4. VIILDERxEAPMX '•. ��Py ` \ II DOlFCOYPSE vEUUNN10. 1� �—� ./- ,--•'� —� � i I 1. \ •"� .. � D / _ '�'� --i WM1DEPNF:S Vnrtlf LAGYNhCDAST / - /7[74yJ (�-� wItOCME55 P.voG C� I \GOLG COYHSE I / OflT51ALCOK u ATE PAM td n .l t / r. `\"!``•., WILDEM'ESS PA \\ \ .. ^ \. ..� �I ♦.11 fir/ .,\ 1 I �1••,/ ✓ GOLFCDU0.SE Cwsmccnc .ware vwrc , IOD ft CAA PLANNING •vr.:a:o ar: 7 ®rY VSnr:easnaso<IArLs �N Pl sve cemmunlry A... AGPa grcn IA IB PeUfan HO Ic PM oPa 2A I Pn 2 5mm�. l NP B I P a Go R Pnlrun Fgpo EsNle" C T'- .1. e Dwnn N� Anla Loa TnncP: ' 0 Wmpnbello Qm wlo X JD. Cryolw GrvP KAB 5 Pd:K Mk A I T. 4 villkvn P.I IX I]D IWrrKKINVnWn CMarwAa, f]C, I]D. PPIwan NlAflron I]E.1]F LEGEND DovolODmenl ❑ Own SpaCo Q SO...s Newport Coast Residential and Tourist Commercial Planning Areas Exhibit 2 EXHIBIT 3 PLANNED COMMUNITY STATISTICAL SUMMARY FOR THE 2002 - 2010 AMF NEWPORT COAST LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - SECOND AMENDMENT ramlMl vpuulYOwneO. apnanl 00 c� 5 ua 1 MIT ESTIMATED(I) MLLINGUN) IN UNITS ON BUILDING PERMITS BUILDING LAND USE PLANNING GROSS ACRES GROSS ACRES UNIT DWELLING UNrtSI DWELLING UNITS/ PROVED APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS ISSUED ORUNRS CATEGORYICODE AREA NON -COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ACCOMMODATIONS Tomtivo Maps Flnal MAPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RESIDENTIAL' No. IA 25.5 29 150 29 29 29 Mo}. 18 IY'1.) 115 KO 115 115 115 HII. tC 1794 DI 185 970 t65 159 1So MCOIUMM 2A I0.1 (3) 202 J00 2U2 205 205 MMIUMM 20 20.3.3 (3) 400 530 488 403 490 MCOIYMM 2C 2N,7 500 905 5W 501 `A1 M.N. 3A 102.3 (3) In 470 179 179 In m.:u. M 157.5 (2) Mt 065 291 291 HI MWuMM 4A 237.4 202 )B4 NR 203 102 MaOWINM 4B 100.0 100 501 Iae 100 W Mw,uml.wrlML 139.0 170 30'? 17C 171 132 LGwh a ra a 75 0 00 Lwrt 7A 25p 0 IS 0 a 0 LPVM1 7B 25,0 0 10 0 0 0. H'DNX 0 35.7 (3) 96 76 96 33 MCEiumLmvlMl 9 W.0 WI 51 76 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1.74.0 10.0 DI 2.600 26M 2Tda 2.599 24H OPEN SPACFm£OREATON: GOLFCOURSOG 104 nth ' Ia6 50.0 RE<REATronIR: MWWlaeaM, 0rq Pt OIW I1R fSS .111 NCO] 124 5 +^n MA 9010 in 9010 120 Y.5 - +2E 289.0 ElMaO EpmUmrlry SOpa 120 RS Mp10 Slivvl 120 35 37.9 5 121 1 2 99 Wpw BC.WICwelywOlet OCUle 121 70 Cry;ul COw Gmlo Pen V 2507.0 (5) IMne CO0p1WII6pmU]9 IB 544.0 (W Re7 n I 133.0 (0) .PP(5) Reaasn nlMln Anl]nenl 0 20B 12.0 IOL07uruGnyOn Raw roc eo - - - CONSERVATIONIC ' COnxrvOVOn PSwIa AA acOnta 1" 10.0 L19u.a Ceeyoe Raw 100 to lmr CO.w.W.mw] 21MID 1.989.0 (0) bnnl PUn 5 21C21O TOTAL OPEN SPACE 8 RECREATON ) }316 0 0 0 0 0 TOURIST 13A 03 (7) 488 100 525 525 532 COMMERCNLRC 130 27.2 w 175 1)3 IG 13C 5.6 (7) 31.4 7% N6. 204 20+ 130 2.0 (7) 354 850 1R 132 132 13E 460 p) t04 300 r R 72 13F A8 (7) =(3)2.. I4 2).7 20A 174 A COMMERCWL )4.0 20t.3 .1:4 tt08 1.1088 1104 GRIND TOTAL 93820 20! 0/2150 IOOOI LWO 9 25'M I1.t08 9 2avn±w ramlMl vpuulYOwneO. apnanl 00 c� 1 e M' a^tKF'rLy L 4, ■ 1 (14 (,. &3�a r. r ivJ 'k�,•i. Cam:] a IF F ♦�, a���II�J�/�. 3s¢`1t ilk, L,_L li :A� {�� r x!F'i vi. •'.w vj ''��' 'r °,�rn d�/ , AP" r 1 - 4�qy�., A4" k c n1A�is 11r� � � '✓ �., �1�,'�` �y. / . _4 '�"�! � ! ,Y�n• � �! v !� jar �u � � ,,� L'y i i �J-0 ,,�,. r�� • �. � o+ �d � �� � }'�vl� r[ � � , yyn 1� � , SECTION A — 2002 -2010 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS This Section documents all discretionary permits approved by the County from 2002 through 2010 and includes the type of permits approved, i.e. Coastal Development Permit, Changed Plan or Site Development Permit, a summary of the purpose of the permit issued and the date each was ap- proved. 200 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 2002 January 11, 2002 — Changed Plan CP01 -0058 Changed Plan CP01 -0058 — Changed Plan to PA00 -0111, PA00 -0113, and PA00 -0114 to allow minor changes to accommodate a modification to the grading of one entry road and adjacent slope, and a slight revision to the product mix (Planning Areas 2C, 5, and 6). January 9, 2002 — Planning Application PA01 -0104 Planning Application PA01 -0104 — establishment of a wireless telephone Resort (Planning Areas 13A and 13B). Site Development Permit for the site for four providers at the Marriott June 26, 2002 — Changed Plan CP02 -0023 Changed Plan CP02 -0023 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0049 and PA98 -0191 to allow changes to Bluff View Park, the addition of nine residential dwelling units within Planning 3B, and modification to the parking lot for the Reef Point Drive Entry Plaza (Planning Areas 3A and 3B). June 27, 2002 — Changed Plan CP02 -0031 Changed Plan CP02 -0031 — Changed Plan PA01 -0104 to relocate the Verizon Wireless electronic equipment to an outdoor location at the Marriott Resort (Planning Areas 13A and 13B). June 27, 2002 — Planning Application PA01 -0062 Planning Application PA01 -0062 — Coastal Development Permit to allow grading for the expansion of the existing El Morrow Elementary School (Laguna Beach School District) playfield with associated drainage improvements and water quality treatment plans (Planning Area 12F). July 8, 2002 — Changed Plan CP02 -0032 Changed Plan CP02 -0032 — Changed Plan to PA97 -0005 to allow the addition of AT &T Wireless Services to the existing wireless telecommunications facility located on Signal Peak in Tract 14487 (Planning Area 2C -7). August 5, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0062 Planning Application PA02 -0062 — Coastal Development Permit for a stealth designed wireless telecommunications facility consisting of the installation of two antennas mounted on an existing retaining wall within a lettered lot with associated equipment cabinets to be located below the retaining wall adjacent to Newport Coast Drive (Planning Area 1 C). August 8, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0060 Planning Application PA02 -0060 — Coastal Development Permit to install an additional wireless telephone facility for AT &T at the Laguna Beach County Page 1 of 13 2101 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 Water District Moorehead Reservoir site consisting of six new pole panel antennas, an equipment shelter, and a platform (Planning Area 7B). October 2, 2002 — Changed Plan CP02 -0046 Changed Plan CP02 -0046 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0139 to allow the addition of 22 dwelling units by means of reducing lot sizes through adjusting lot widths. Impacts to the internal street alignments are minimal and there will be no change to the gross acreage for each development area. The Changed Plan also provides for a new 2.6 acre recreation center within Planning Area 413-1. The site for the recreation center will be graded with this Changed Plan but the construction of the recreation center will require a separate Coastal Development Permit. After securing all entitlements for the recreation center, Irvine Company will vacate the Coastal Development Permit (PA98 -0187) for the Muddy Canyon Equestrian Center and Recreation Facility proposed to be constructed in Planning Area 12C (Planning Area 4A, 4B, and 12C). October 10, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0084 Planning Application PA02 -0084 — Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a single - family dwelling on Lot 48 of Tract 14063 adjacent to an existing dwelling on Lot 47 and the construction of a covered walkway /bridge between the existing and the proposed dwelling units thus making the project a duplex (Planning Area 9). October 11. 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0096 Planning Application PA02 -0096 — Site Development Permit for John Laing Homes to develop a model home sales complex in Tract 16407. Sales complex includes a sales office, parking for 13 vehicles, landscaping, entry monument, directional signs, and pennant flags (Planning Area 3B). October 24, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0105 Planning Application PA02 -0105 - Site Development Permit for Taylor Woodrow Homes to develop a model home sales complex in Tract 16421. Sales complex includes three model homes, a sales information center located in a temporary sales trailer, parking for 11 vehicles, landscaping, signage, trap fencing, and pennant flags (Planning Area 3B). October 25, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0097 Planning Application PA02 -0097 — Site Development Permit for Brookfield Homes to develop a model home sales complex in Tract 16269. Sales complex includes a sales office, a temporary sales information office, parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, entry monument, directional signs, and pennant flags (Planning Area 313-2c). Page 2 of 13 202 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 November 25, 2002 — Changed Plan CP02 -0069 Changed Plan CP02 -0069 — Changed Plan to SP900416000A/CP00 -0042 to allow the use of an existing auxiliary tent approved for use under CP99 -0007 and modified by CP00 -0042 to continue use for an additional two year period, ending February 4, 2005 (Planning Area 13C). November 26, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0119 Planning Application PA02 -0119 — Site Development Permit for Standard Pacific Homes to develop a model home sales complex in Tract 15919. Sales complex includes a sales office, a portable handicapped accessible restroom, parking for 13 vehicles, trap fencing, signs, and flags (Planning Area 3B). December 10, 2002 — CP02 -0075 Changed Plan CP02 -0075 — Changed Plan to PA02 -0119 for revision to the Standard Pacific model home sales complex parking lot resulting in a reduction of three parking spaces to the minimum required number of 10 spaces and the inclusion of a turn -a -round space (Planning Area 38). December 23, 2002 — Planning Application PA02 -0126 Planning Application PA02 -0196 — Site Development Permit for an access road from the Coyote Canyon Landfill to Coygen /Laidlaw Switching Station. 2003 February 18, 2003 — Changed Plan CP03 -0007 Changed Plan CP03 -0007 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0049 to add a tot lot with pedestrian paths, turf and landscape areas, play equipment, and a seating wall at Lot E of Tract 16408 (Planning Area 3B) February 20, 2003 — Changed Plan CP03 -0001 Changed Plan CP03 -0001 — Changed Plan to PA00 -0111, PA00 -0113, and PA00 -0114 for minor changes to the grading and the approved product mix for the projects approved under Planning Applications PA00 -0111, PA00 -0113, and PA00 -0114 (Planning Areas 2C, 5, and 6). March 13, 2003 — Planning Application PA02 -0112 Planning Application PA02 -0112 — Coastal Development Permit for the construction of storm water drainage improvements within the Caltrans right -of- way on both sides of State Route 1 between Los Trancos Creek and Muddy Creek in Newport Coast. March 24, 2003 — Changed Plan CP03 -0013 Changed Plan CP03 -0013 — Changed Plan to PA01 -0066 to add a temporary trailer at the Marriott Resort for a men and women toilet facility adjacent to the Page 3 of 13 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 pool during Phase 3A construction. The trailer will be removed in approximately six months when the permanent toilet facility is finished during Phase 3B construction (Planning Area 3A). April 7 2003 — Changed Plan CP03 -0018 Changed Plan CP03 -0018 — Changed Plan to PA02 -0119 to revise the Standard Pacific Homes Model Complex to delete the gazebo structure and add an open court yard area, modify the parking lot, and delete the portable handicapped accessible restroom (Planning Area 3B). May 8, 2003 — Changed Plan CP03 -0021 Changed Plan CP03 -0021 — Changed Plan to PA02 -0097 to allow modifications to the Brookfield Homes model home sales complex consisting of a reconfiguration of the parking area, the relocation of the toilet for the handicapped, and the removal of temporary sales trailer (Planning Area 3B -2c). July 25, 2003 — Planning Application PA03 -0055 Planning Application PA03 -0055 — Site Development Permit for Taylor Woodrow Homes to develop a model home sales complex for the first sale of homes in Tracts 16494 and 16462 (Planning Area 2C). September 2, 2003 — Planning Application PA03 -0070 Planning Application PA03 -0070 - Site Development Permit for Shea Homes to develop a model home sales complex for the first sale of homes in Tract 15811 (Planning Area 5B). September 23, 2003 — Planning Application PA03 -0083 Planning Application PA03 -0083 — Site Development Permit for Greystone Homes to develop a temporary model home sales complex for the first sale of homes in Tract 16464 (Planning Areas 2C and 5A). November 21, 2003 — Changed Plan CP03 -0039 Changed Plan CP03 -0039 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0139 for proposed minor changes to the subdivision design and the construction of additional loffel walls (Planning Areas 4A and 4B). December 4, 2003 — Planning Application PA03 -0089 Planning Application PA03 -0089 — Coastal Development Permit to construct a 2.6 -acre private recreational facility in Tract 15918 including a swimming pool with spa and pool cabana, three tennis courts with night lighting, a 1,982 square feet community building, a 1,408 square feet multi - purpose building, a /z -court basketball court, and parking for 46 vehicles (Planning Area 4B). Page 4 of 13 204 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 2004 January 16, 2004 — Planning Application PA03 -0114 Planning Application PA03 -0114 — Site Development Permit for Taylor Woodrow Homes to develop a model home sales complex including four models, two guest parking lots, a handicap bathroom and trap fencing (Planning Areas 2C and 5A). March 12, 2004 — Changed Plan CP04 -0006 Changed Plan CP04 -0006 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0070 to change the parking and to install a sales office at the Shea Homes model home sales complex (Planning Area 5B). April 08, 2004 — Planning Application PA04 -0018 Planning Application PA04 -0018 — Site Development Permit for Irvine Community Development Company to develop and operate a sales and information complex for the sales of the custom lots in Planning Areas 4A and 4B. The complex will consist of a 2,160 square foot sales office, a temporary 10 -space parking lot with onsite lighting, landscaping, irrigation and temporary signage (Planning Area 4A). May 05, 2004 Changed Plan CP04 -0014 Changed Plan CP04 -0014 — Changed Plan to PA97 -0005 to add an additional generator and propane tank to an existing wireless telecommunications facility located on Signal Peak in Tract 14487 (Planning Area 2C -7). May 27, 2004 — Changed Plan CP04 -0016 Changed Plan CP04 -0016 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0139 to accommodate a minor modification to the subdivision design and Planning Areas 4A and 4B to allow the following: (1) addition of eight residential lots within Planning Area 4A by adjusting lot widths within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15613; (2) the addition of entry gates on the intersection of Deep Sea and Reef Point Drive in Development Area 4A -1 and the intersection of Waves End and Reef Point Drive in Development Area 413-2; and (3) improvements to the recreation /park Lot 304 with the addition of a rest room, covered outdoor kitchen, tot lot, basketball court, 14 -space parking lot, bio- swales, passive play area, park entry pilaster sign and landscaping. The Changed Plan supersedes the previously approved Changed Plans CP00 -0064, CP02 -0046 and CP03 -0039 (Planning Areas 4A and 413). August 10, 2004 — Planning Application PA04 -0032 Planning Application PA04 -0032 — Site Development Permit for three freestanding pads in a previously approved shopping center consisting of: (Pad 1) a 5,100 square foot multi- tenant retail building; (Pad 2) an 8,000 square foot restaurant with up to 1,780 square feet for outside dining; and (Pad 3) a 9,000 Page 5 of 13 205 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 square foot "Ocean Club" restaurant with up to 1,200 square feet for outside dining. Approval of the Site Development Permit satisfies Condition of Approval No. 7 of PA98 -0101 (Planning Area 3B- 1d/14). August 31, 2004 — Planning Application PA03 -0073 Planning Application PA04 -0073 — Site Development Permit to allow the establishment of a wireless telephone site for AT &T at the Marriott Resort (Planning Area 13A and 13B). September 9, 2004 — Changed Plan CP04 -0038 Changed Plan CP04 -0038 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0070 for the Shea Homes Model Home Site in Tract 15811 to allow a design center to be located within the garage of one of the model units (Planning Area 5). November 09, 2004 — Planning Application PA03 -0075 Planning Application PA03 -0075 — Coastal Development Permit for the fractional ownership of 76 one -story and two -story casitas with 3 or 4 bedrooms in each unit. The Planning Application includes a 9,750 square foot recreation center for use of casitas' guests and an applicable sign program (Planning Areas 13D and 13E). November 09, 2004 — Planning Application PA03 -0076 Planning Application PA03 -0076 — Coastal Development Permit for a 364,000 square foot destination resort hotel consisting of 204 overnight/visitor accommodations, day spa, pool, restaurants and bars, conference and meeting areas, retail commercial and a 2 -level parking garage. The existing golf course clubhouse will be converted to accessory uses in support of the resort. An applicable sign program is included in the Planning Application (Planning Area 13C). November 09, 2004 — Planning Application PA03 -0077 Planning Application PA03 -0077 — Coastal Development Permit for a 36,500 square foot 2 -story golf clubhouse facility, including a pro shop, locker rooms, restaurant, office, a new golf cart bridge over Pelican Hill Road South and a 3- level parking structure. An applicable sign program is included in the Planning Application (Planning Area 13F). November 09, 2004 — Planning Application PA03 -007& Planning Application PA03 -0078 — Coastal Development Permit for a 52 fractional ownership, 2 -story "stacked flat" casitas with 4 units per each building. An applicable sign program is included in the Planning Application (Planning Area 13D). Page 6 of 13 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 December 12, 2004 — Changed Plan CP04 -0050 Changed Plan CP04 -0050 — Changed Plan to PA02 -0062 to add another provider to the existing wireless telecommunications facility (Planning Area 1C). December 13. 2004 — Changed Plan CP04 -0047 Changed Plan CP04 -0047 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0139 for the relocation of an existing Southern California Edison overhead transmission line approved in Planning Application PA98 -0139. The transmission line was originally approved to be constructed in Planning Areas 12A and 12E, but will be relocated underground in the public trail along the northerly edge of Development Areas 4A -2 and 4A -3 (Planning Area 4A). December 20. 2004 — Changed Plan CP04 -0053 Changed Plan CP04 -0053 — Changed Plan to SP900416000A/CP99- 0007 /CP00- 0042/CP02 -0069 for a 2 year extension to February 4, 2007 for a Special Event Tent at the Pelican Hill Golf Club (Planning Area 13C). 2005 January 20, 2005 — Planning Application PA04 -0089 Planning Application PA04 -0089 — Site Development Permit for the establishment of an AT &T wireless telecommunications facility inside of the 42' high cupola of the Crystal Cove Promenade Shopping Center (Planning Area 3B -1 d/14). January 26, 2005 — Planning Application PA04 -0108 Planning Application PA04 -0108 — Site Development Permit for John Laing Homes to develop a model site for new home sales in Tract 16482. Includes parking for 10 automobiles, signs, flags, and fencing (Planning Area 4B). February 2, 2005 — Changed Plan CP05 -0001 Changed Plan CP05 -0001 — Changed plan to PA04 -0032 to allow a revision to the parking lot for pad #1 at the Crystal Cove Promenade Shopping Center including the replacement of two excess handicapped parking stalls, and the re- routing of the pedestrian access (Planning Area 3B- 1d/14). April 5. 2005 — Planning Application PA05 -0001 Planning Application PA05 -0001 — Site Development Permit for Standard Pacific Homes to develop a model site for new home sales in Tract 15918. Includes parking for eight automobiles, a handicapped accessible portable restroom, and signs (Planning Area 4B). Page 7 of 13 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 May 17, 2005 — Changed Plan CP05 -0009 Changed Plan CP05 -0009 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0101 to allow the conversion of a portion of the Crystal Cove Promenade Shopping Center walkway to a fully roofed walkway (Planning Area 3B- 1d/14). May 18, 2005 — Planning Application PA04 -0102 Planning Application PA04 -0102 — Site Development Permit to allow a custom single- family dwelling, a 2ntl residential unit, a gatehouse, stable, and other accessory structures on Lot 1, Tract 15376 as required per PA96 -0163, Condition #27 (Planning Area 1C). July 15, 2005 — Planning Application PA05 -0015 Planning Application PA05 -0015 — Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a golf cart bridge across Pelican Hill Road South for the Pelican Hill Golf Course per PA03 -0077, Condition #39. (Planning Areas 10A, 13C and 13F). August 18, 2005 — Planning Application PA05 -0038 Planning Application PA05 -0038 — Site Development Permit amending Coastal Development Permit PA94 -0172 to allow the re- grading of Lots 12 -13 of Tract 15346 and grading into the County Scenic Easement for developing a single - family dwelling and detached two -story garage /recreation building with employee quarters. Existing approved fuel modification zone and planting remain unchanged (Planning Areas 1C). September 14, 2005 — Planning Application PA05 -0033 Planning Application PA05 -0033 — Site Development Permit to allow the operation of 12 wireless facility antennas (three sectors of four each) within the second story penthouse of the tennis building at the Marriott Resort (planning 13A and 13B). November 3, 2005 — Planning Application PA05 -0039 Planning Application PA05 -0039 — Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a single- family dwelling on Lot 48 of Tract 14063 adjacent to an existing dwelling on Lot 47 and the construction of a covered walkway /bridge between the existing and the proposed dwelling units thus making the project a duplex (Planning Area 9). November 21, 2005 — Changed Plan CP05 -0022 Changed Plan CP05 -0022 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0077 to allow the following changes to the Pelican Hill Golf Club: a structure design change the footprint from an "L" shape to a "U" shape, an increase in the gross floor area of 5,000 s.f. from 36,500 s.f. to 41,500 s.f., a vehicular approach and turn -a -round design change from an ellipse to a square, the addition of Golf Ball Wash Page 8 of 13 202 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 House, modifications to the Golf Cart Bridge, and revisions to the design elements of the Golf Club exterior (Planning Area 10A and 13F). November 21, 2005 — Changed Plan CP05 -0023 Changed Plan CP05 -0023 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0076 to allow the following changes to the Pelican Hill Inn: revise the orientation of the bungalows and the east parking structure, a reduction in the gross floor area of 18,000 s.f. from 364,000 s.f. to 345,800 s.f., enlarge the pool diameter 50 feet from 70 feet to 120 feet, the addition of a lower level to the Pool Grille, the addition of a gate house at the bungalow entry, an increase in height to some buildings, and the revision to the design elements of the exteriors of the Inn structures (Planning Area 13C). November 21, 2005 — Changed Plan CP05 -0024 Changed Plan CP05 -0024 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0075 to allow the following changes to the Pelican Hill Lower Casitas: an increase in the gross floor area of the recreation center of 450 s.f. from 9,750 s.f. to 10,200 s.f., an overall reduction in gross floor area for the Lower Casitas of 17,550 s.f. from 251,750 s.f. to 234,200 s.f., an increase in height of 2 feet for some of a buildings to the maximum height of 30 feet, and the revision to the design elements of the exteriors of the Lower Casitas structures (Planning Area 13D and 13E). November 21, 2005 — Changed Plan CP05 -0025 Changed Plan CP05 -0025 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0078 to allow changes to the Pelican Hill Upper Casitas design elements of the exteriors of the Upper Casitas structures (Planning Area 13D). December 15, 2005 — Planning Application PA05 -0072 Planning Application PA05 -0072 — Site Development Permit for Lot 26 of Tract 15604 to allow grading for a single - family residence in excess of 500 c.y. on a slope greater than 30% including terraced retaining walls (Planning Area 1 C). K11111 June 28, 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0006 Changed Plan CP06 -0006 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0076 for revisions to the square footage for the Pelican Hill Inn, architectural modifications to the Event Center tower, modifications to the pool, and modifications to onsite signage (Planning Area 13C). June 28. 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0007 Changed Plan CP06 -0007 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0077 for revisions to the square footage for the Pelican Hill Golf Club, the re- orientation of the parking structure for improved ingress /egress to Pelican Hill Road South, and modifications to onsite signage (Planning Areas 10A and 13F). Page 9 of 13 209 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 August 21, 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0026 Changed Plan CP06 -0026 — Changed Plan to PA04 -0032 to allow for increased outdoor dining use for existing buildings at the Crystal Cove Promenade Shopping Center (Planning Area 3B- 1d/14). October 6, 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0019 Changed Plan CP06 -0019 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0075 for revisions to the Pelican Hill Lower Casitas. The Plan 2 unit will deleted from the project and replaced by additional Plan 1 and Plan 3 units, the number of units remains at 76 with the gross floor area decreasing from 223,836 square feet to 220,328 square feet, the Lower Casitas entry will be modified to facilitate emergency vehicle access, a gatehouse will be added including associated landscaping and signage, and the turn -a -round at the front of the recreation center will be reconfigured (Planning Areas 13D and 13E). October 6, 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0020 Changed Plan CP06 -0020 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0076 for revisions to the Pelican Hill Inn. A cart path will be added from the Events Center to the Lower Casitas, the Event Center service yard will be reconfigured, and the landscaping will be revised as a result of the changes to the service yard. (Planning Areas 13C). November 9, 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0037 Changed Plan CP06 -0037 — Changed Plan to PA04 -0073 to add six new antennas and three new BTS cabinets at the Cingular Wireless Site located at the Marriott Resort (Planning Areas 13A and 13B). December 7, 2006 — Changed Plan CP06 -0040 Changed Plan CP06 -0040 — Changed Plan to PA01 -0066 for the Marriott Resort including a minor building adjustment, color and landscape enhancement, and statistical summary adjustment to improve the view shed from Newport Coast Drive (Planning Areas 13 and 13B). 2007 January 31, 2007 — Planning Application PA06 -0100 Planning Application PA06 -0100 — Site Development Permit for Laing Luxury Homes to develop a model home sales complex for the first sales of homes in Tract 16605 (Planning Area 4A). February 16, 2007 — Changed Plan CP06 -0036 Changed Plan CP06 -0036 — Changed Plan to CD91 -M02P for changes to the Newport Coast Community Identification and Design Program including the re- Page 10 of 13 270 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 furbishing and re- lettering of existing signs and the installation of new signs and monuments. September 6, 2007 — Planning Application PA07 -0045 Planning Application PA07 -0045 — Site Development Permit to establish a new Cingular Wireless telecommunications facility at the Pelican Hill Resort. The new wireless facility will consist of three panel antennas located within an existing tower facility to be integrated within the existing architectural framework and out of public view. The supporting equipment will be located in existing attic space adjacent to the tower approximately 65 feet away (Planning Area 13C). September 11, 2007 — Planning Application PA07 -0026 Planning Application PA07 -0026 — Site Development Permit for the addition of 6 antennas at the Marriott Resort wireless telecommunications facility located within the existing cupola and the equipment enclosure located on the ground (Planning Areas 13A and 138). 2008 February 7, 2008 — Changed Plan CP07 -0016 Changed Plan CP07 -0016 — Changed Plan to PA98 -0139 to revise the Statistical Summary for Planning Area 4A to reflect a reduction of the three lots in Development Area 4A -1 due to lot mergers and an increase of four lots within Development Area 4A -2 due to a subdivision redesign and to provide for the processing of a parcel map to subdivide an existing lot in Development Area 4A -1 into two lots resulting in an increase in the number of lots in Planning Area 4A from 202 to 203 and the total number of lots within PA98 -0139 from 310 to 311 (Planning Area 4A). February 14, 2008 — Planning Application PA07 -0053 PA07 -0053 — Use Permit for a driveway, an exit stair, site retaining walls over 8' in height, and architectural feature over 28' in height for Lot 16, Tract 14063 (Planning Area 9). July 14, 2008 — Changed Plan CP08 -0007 CP08 -0007 — Changed Plan to PA01 -0066 to add a freestanding pool bar at the Marriott Resort swimming (Planning Areas 13A and 13B). 2009 July 22, 2009 — Changed Plan CP07 -0009 Changed Plan CP07 -0009 — Changed Plan to PA03 -0075, PA03 -0076, PA03- 0075, and PA03 -0077 for minor revisions to Pelican Hill Lower Casitas, Inn, Club Page 11 of 13 2;- DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 House, and Upper Casitas as detailed below (Planning Areas 10A, 13C, 13D, 13E, and 13F). PA030075 — Lower Casitas 1. The floor area of the recreation center decreased from 10,200 square feet to 9,729 square feet. 2. The floor plan and exterior architecture for the recreation center, housekeeping, and gatehouse buildings were revised to improve aesthetics and functionality. The geometry of the gated entry drive was redesigned. 3. The document grading exhibits were revised to provide clarification of the proposed offsite grading adjacent to the project and to reflect changes in the grades onsite. 4. Additional street lights were added along the private drive aisles. 5. The dimensions of the individual project entry monuments and pilasters were revised. A secondary monument was added at project entry. PA030076 — Inn 1. The floor area of the Event Center building increased from 42,300 square feet to 42,907 square feet. 2. The floor area of the Pool Grille building increased from 15,433 square feet to 15,683 square feet. 3. Table 3 -A, Pelican Hill Inn Project Summary was revised to correct an error in the floor area for the Hotel Core from 96,616 square feet to 89,032 square feet. 4. The floor plan and exterior architecture of the Event Center, Pool Grille, and Hotel Core buildings were revised to improve aesthetics and functionality. 5. The grading exhibits were revised to provide clarification of the proposed offsite grading adjacent to the project. 6. The Pool Grille exhibits were revised to provide clarification of the awning around the pool and the trellis features for the outdoor patio. 7. A Rotunda was added to the Event Lawn for outdoor venues at the Event Center. 8. The Event Center service yard was redesigned resulting in an increase in surface parking of 4 spaces for the Event Center from 12 spaces to 16 spaces. 9. A Rotunda was added to the Event Lawn to provide an outdoor venue for weddings, conferences, seminars, and other large group functions. 10.Additional street lights were added along the Bungalow private drive aisles. 11. Building identification /business signs were added to the Hotel Core and Pool Grille buildings identifying the restaurant components of these buildings. 12.The dimensions of the individual project entry monuments and pilasters were revised. Three individual project entry monuments and two Page 12 of 13 272 DESCRETIONARY APPROVALS 2002 -2010 secondary monuments were added at the two entries into the Inn complex. 13.A steel frame & bar grate extension was added to the loading dock of the Hotel Core to provide additional unloading space. PA030077 — Golf Club 1. The floor plan and exterior architecture of clubhouse building were revised to improve aesthetics and functionality. 2. The dimensions of the individual project entry monuments and pilasters were revised. 3. A building identification /business was added to the clubhouse building identifying the restaurant component of the Golf Club PA030078 — Upper Casitas 1. The geometry of the gated entry drive was redesigned to increase functionality. 2. Additional street lights were added along the private drive aisles. 3. The dimensions of the individual project entry monuments and pilasters were revised. July 28, 2009 — Changed Plan CP09 -0016 CP09 -0016 — Changed Plan to PA04 -0018 to extend for one year the expiration date of PA04 -0018 for the sales and information complex for the sales of the custom lots in Planning Areas 4A and 4B (Planning Areas 4A and 413). December 24, 2009 — Administrative Site Development Permit PA09 -0039 PA09 -0039 — New Site Development Permit to replace PA04 -0018 to continue the operation of the temporary sales office, parking lot, site landscaping and irrigation, site lighting, and signage for the sales of the custom lots in Planning Areas 4A and 4B. (Planning Areas 4A and 4B): 2010 May 5, 2010 — Changed Plan CP10 -0006 CP10 -0006 — Changed Plan to PA01 -0104 to change the Sprint wireless telecommunications facilities to three panel antennas, two 2' microwave dishes and one GPS antenna at the Marriott Resort (Planning Areas 13A and 13B). July 14, 2010 — Coastal Development Permit PA10 -0011 PA10 -0011 — Coastal Development Permit/Use existing lots to improve views and marketability over height walls over the maximum of six feet 1 C). Permit for the regarding of eight and for rear property line walls in Tract 16547 (Planning Area Page 13 of 13 ��3 SECTION III - COMMUNITY -WIDE INFORMATION The Community -wide and Planning Area Information Update provides a summary of the changes that occurred for land use (gross acreage and square footage), population, dwelling unit, and em- ployee information for the entire community from 2002 through 2010. Following the summary, the same statistical information is provided for the individual Planning Areas that were the source for the changes from 2002 through 2010. Following is a list of the Planning Areas that experi- enced change. • Planning Area IA • Planning Area 113 • Planning Area I C • Planning Area 2C • Plamring Area 3A • Planning Area 313 • Planning Area 4A • Planning Area 413 • Planning Area 5 • Planning Area 9 • Planning Area 13A • Planning Area 13B • Planning Area 13C • Planning Area 13D • Planning Area 13E • Planning Area 13F Pelican Hill Pelican Hill Pelican Crest Trovare, Altezza, Ocean Heights, Los Trancos, Pacific Ridge, Campobello Crystal Cove Crystal Cove Crystal Cove Crystal Cove Pacific Ridge Pelican Point Marriott Newport Coast Villas Marriott Newport Coast Villas Pelican Hill Resort Pelican Hill Resort Pelican Hill Resort Pelican Hill Resort COMMUNITY -WIDE INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 3,843 1 5,425 1 5,850 C. Dwelling Units /Accommodations AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 513 513 Residential - Detached 785.6 1;439.5 1,632.6 Residential - Attached 242.2 242.2 242.2 Commercial 0.0 10.0 10.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 125,000 125,000 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 7,407.8 7,407.8 7,407.8 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 10.7 201.3 201.3 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 8,446.3 9,300.8 9,493.9 B. Residential Population' 1 3,843 1 5,425 1 5,850 C. Dwelling Units /Accommodations Single - Family Detached 1,195 1,898 2,087 Attached (Including Rental) 513 513 513 Ot her - Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 11.7 1,104 1,104 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS' 1,825 2,411 2,600 TOTAL ACCOMMODATION S3 117 1,104 1,104 D. Employees Commercial4 0 283 283 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 75 75 75 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 5 50 994 994 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 125 1,352 1,352 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Depl of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 z The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodations Is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodations is 1,108. " Employees based on existing count for golf course 5 Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation Source: General Employment Generation Factors - County of Orange 27,5 PA 1A PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2003 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2010 B. Residential Population' 1 56 1 65 1 65 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131/05 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 22.0 25.5 25.5 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0,0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 22.0 25.5 25.5 B. Residential Population' 1 56 1 65 1 65 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 25 29 29 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS/ACCOMMODATIOW1 25 1 29 29 D. Employees Commercia13 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort " 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 27LO PA1B PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 259 1 259 1 259 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Allached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 133.7 133.7 133.7 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 133.7 133.7 133.7 B. Residential Population' 1 259 1 259 1 259 C. Dwelling Units Single-Family Detached 115 115 115 Allached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS/ACCOMMODATIONS 115 115 115 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort" 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 P The maximum allowable number of residential units Is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. a Employees based on existing count for golf course ° Employees based on 0.9 1accommodation - 27L7 PA 1C PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 286 1 356 1 356 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 138.1 179.4 179A Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 138.1 179.4 179.4 B. Residential Population' 1 286 1 356 1 356 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 127 158 156 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITSIACCOMMODATIOW1 127 1 158 1 158 D. Employees Commercial 3 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 4 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation PA 2C PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 8. Residential Population' 1 763 1 1,126 1 1,128 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 42 42 Residential - Detached 169.5 259.9 259.9 Residential - Attached 24.0 23.8 23.8 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 193.5 283.7 283.7 8. Residential Population' 1 763 1 1,126 1 1,128 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 297 459 459 Attached (Including Rental) 42 42 42 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /ACCOMMODATIONS 339 1 501 1 501 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort " 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. l Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 1accommodation 279 PA 3A PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 8. Residential Population' 1 403 1 403 1 403 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 100.3 100.3 100.3 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other -Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 100.3 100.3 100.3 8. Residential Population' 1 403 1 403 1 403 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 179 179 179 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS/ACCOMMODATIONS-1 179 1 179 179 D. Employees Commercial ] 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort " 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential . units is 2,599. Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 1accommodation 220 PA 3B PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002.2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 189 1 655 1 655 C. awaiting Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12/31/05 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 84 84 Residential - Detached 0.0 107.2 107.2 Residential - Attached 43.5 43.5 43.5 Commercial 6.8 6.8 6.8 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 50.3 157.5 157.5 B. Residential Population' 1 189 1 655 1 655 C. awaiting Units Single - Family Detached 0 207 207 Attached (Including Rental) 84 84 84 TOTAL DWELLING UNITSIACCOMMODATIONS-1 84 .291 291 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort° 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. J Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 2g1 PA 4A PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 230 1 457 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131/10 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 119.9 237.4 Residential- Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0,0 0.0 0.0. Commercial Square Footage 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 119.9 237.4 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 230 1 457 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 102 203 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /ACCOMMODATIONS 0 102 203 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort' 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 - 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,000. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. 3Employees based on existing count for golf course 4 Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 222 PA 4B PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002.2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population 0 1 135 1 243 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12/31102 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 1 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 56.0 100.8 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 56.0 100.8 B. Residential Population 0 1 135 1 243 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 60 108 Attached (Including Rental) 0 1 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITSIACCOMMODATIONSl 0 1 60 1 108 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort' 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 r Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic. Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of residential units Is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course ' Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 22S PA 5 PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 297 1 385 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12/31/10 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 104.2 135.0 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage. 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 104.2 135.0 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 297 1 385 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 132 171 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS/ACCOMMODATIOW1 0 1 132 1 171 D. Employees Commercial 3 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 4 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 Z The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 224 PA 9 PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 110 1 124 1 124 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12/31/10 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 45.1 50.6 50.6 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 45.1 50.6 50.6 B. Residential Population' 1 110 1 124 1 124 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 49 55 55 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS/ACCOMMODATIONS'l 49 55 1 55 D. Employees Commercial ] 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 4 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 0 0 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 x The maximum allowable number of residential units is 2,600. The current number of approved residential units is 2,599. Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 225 PA 13A PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12/31/10 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 0.0 0:0 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 6.2 6.2 6.2 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 10.7 48.8 48.8 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 16.9 55.0 55.0 B. Residential Population 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 0 0 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 117 532 532 TOTAL DWELLING UNITSIACCOMMODATION S' 117 532 532 D. Employees Commercia13 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 4 106 478 478 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 106 478 478 r Residential population based on 2,25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 6 The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodations is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodations is 1,108. 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 220 PA 13B PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY/PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 9 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 27.2 27.2 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 27.2 27.2 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units Single-Family Detached - 0 0 0 Attached (Including Rental) 9 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 0 164 164 TOTAL DWELLING UNITSIACCOMMODATIONSl 0 1 164 164 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort " 0 148 148 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 148 148 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 t The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodations is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodations Is 1,108. Employees based on existing count for golf course Employees based on 0.91accommodation PA 13C PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12131/10 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Allached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 5.6 5.6 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 31.4 31.4 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 37.0 37.0 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 0 0 Allached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 0 204 204 TOTAL DWELLING UNITSIACCOMMODATIONS2 0 204 204 D. Employees Commercial J 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort ° 0 184 184 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 184 184 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodations is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodations is 1,108 Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 222 PA 13D PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Attached 0.0. 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other. Open Space and Recreation 0.0 2.6 2.6 Other Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 35.4 35.4 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 38.0 38.0 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 0 0 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 0 132 132 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /ACCOMMODATION S2 0 132 132 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort ' 0 119 119 TOTAL. EMPLOYEES 0 119 119 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 z The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodafons is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodations is 1,108 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course " Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 229 PA 13E PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITYIPROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131102 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 46.0 46.0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 13.4 13.4 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 59.4 59.4 B. Residential Population' 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 0 0 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 0 72 72 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /ACCOMMODATIONS 0 72 72 D. Employees Commercial 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort ' 0 65 65 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 65 65 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodations is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodations is 1,108. 3 Employees based on existing count for golf course Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 290 PA 13F PLANNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 -2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: Newport Coast ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: 2015 B. Residential Population 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units AS OF 12131/02 AS OF 12131110 AT BUILDOUT A. Developed Acres by Land Use Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 Residential - Detached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residential - Attached 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial Square Footage 0 0 0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0.0 13.6 13.6 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES 0.0 13.6 13.6 B. Residential Population 1 0 1 0 1 0 C. Dwelling Units Single - Family Detached 0 0 0 Attached (Including Rental) 0 0 0 Other- Tourist Commercial Resort Accommodations 0 0 0 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /ACCOMMODATIONS 0 0 0 D. Employees commercial 0 283 283 Industrial 0 0 0 Office 0 0 0 Other - Open Space and Recreation 0 0 0 Other - Tourist Commercial Resort ° 0 0 0 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 0 283 283 ' Residential population based on 2.25 PPDU Source: CA Dept of Finance and Center for Demographic Research, CSU Fullerton as of June 2001 2 The maximum allowable number of tourist commercial accomodations is 2,150. The current number of approved tourist commercial accommodation is 1,108. ' Employees based on existing count for golf course ° Employees based on 0.9 /accommodation 29- SECTION IV — DEVELOPM-E, NT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS In 1988 Irvine Company and the County entered into a Development Agreement which required Irvine Company to prepare an AMR for Newport Coast. Exhibit D — Benefits to County and Its Residents (Exhibit D) of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement (Appendix 4) listed the benefits secured by the County as conditions of approval of the Development Agreement. Following is a list of these obligations. o Sheriff Substation • Library • Fire Facility • Standby commitment for 1990 Action Plan for South County Road Iruprovements • Participation in Traffic Signal Fee Program • Security of Performance of Work • Child Care • San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor • Dedication of Open Space • Enhanced Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan (San Joaquin Hills Road, Pacific Coast Highway, Pelican Hill Road) The obligations listed in Exhibit D were addressed in the inaugural AMR which was prepared for year 1997. Periodically, Irvine Company would include updates addressing the status of Compli- ance with the obligations of out] ined in Exhibit D. Also, Irvine Company included in the AMR the status of park improvements for Newport Coast. Updates to the obligations in Exhibit D was pro- vided to the County by Irvine Company in the AMR for the year 2003 and reproduced herein. Also included in this AMR for the years 2002 — 2010 is an update docunnenting the completion of the final Exhibit D obligation and the completion of the last park in Newport Coast. 292 2003 AMR UPDATE OF OBLIGATIONS — EXHIBIT D IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The following information was submitted as Part of the year 2003 AMR to provide an update of the obligations listed in Exhibit D of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement. A letter dated March 19, 2004 from Roberta Marshall; Irvine Community Development Company, to John Buzas, County of Orange, submitting the AMR for the year 2003. The letter also identified the status of road and park improvements within Newport Coast. A letter dated October 12, 2004 front Roberta Marshall, Irvine Conununity Development Company, to Alan Gamson, County of Orange, submitting an update of the obligations listed in Exhibit D. The format for reporting the update is Attachment 9, pages 1 6 of the County's 2002 Annual Monitoring Report Format (Appendix 1). Also included at the County's request was Attachment 10 which was the Five Year General Plan Review for Development Agreements, also from the County's 2002 A inual Monitoring Report Format. 2002 — 2010 AMR UPDATE OF OBLIGATIONS — EXHIBIT D IRVINE COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The following information is submitted as part of the year 2002 — 2010 AMR to provide au update of the obligations listed in Exhibit D of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement. The AMR for year 2003 reported that the widening of Newport Coast Drive (formerly Peli- can Hills Road) from San Joaquin Hills Road to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Cor- ridor would begin in mid- September of 2004 and complete in mid- February, 2005. The Notice of Completion for the widening was recorded on March 10, 2006. The completion of the Newport Coast Drive widening represents the last obligation listed under Exhibit D (item K— Enhanced Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan)of the Irvine Coast Develop- ment Agreement. The last park in Newport Coast, Coastal Peak Park which is located in Planning Area 6, was conveyed to the City of Newport Beach on August 25, 2009. 293 IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AsuWtary of THE IRVINE COMPANY March 19, 2004 John Buzas County of Orange 300 N. Flower St. Santa Ana, CA 92703 -5000 Re: 2003 Annual Monitoring Report Dear John: Attached please find the Aimual Monitoring Report for 2003 (AMR). In addition to the materials presented in the submittal, Leine Community Development Company (ICDC) has prepared the following summary of accomplishments for 2003: Newport Coast Drive Widenine (SJH Rd. to SJHTC) — Plans for the widening of Newport Coast Drive are being finalized. ICDC will submit working drawings to The City of Newport Beach by the end of this month. Pending approval from the City, we expect to begin construction this summer and complete construction in early 2005. (2) Los Trancos View Parks — The Los Trancos View Parks were completed and turned over to Harbors, Beaches and Parks for maintenance. (3) Vista Ridge Road View Park — The Vista Ridge Road View Park was completed and honed over to the Newport Coast Community Association for maintenance. (4) Crystal Cove — Ocean Garden Park — Ocean Garden Park was completed and turned over to the Crystal Cove Community Association (CCCA) for maintenance. (5) Crystal Cove — Reef Point Entry — The Reef Point Entry was completed and was turned over to the CCCA in March 2004. (6) Crystal Cove — Tot Lot on Sidney Bay at Tidelines — The tot lot in PA3B was completed and horned over to the CCCA for maintenance in March 2004. (7) Crystal Cove — Grading and street improvements are on -going in PA4A/4B. 8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, California 92610 -2902 • (949) 720 -2550 294 Mr. John Buzas March 19, 2004 Page 2 of 2 (8) Pacific Ridge — Grading, street and landscape improvements and the entries /recreation facility are under construction in PA2C and 5. Please extend my appreciation to the County Planning Staff for their assistance in 2003! Sincerely, Roberta Rand Marshall Vice President Attachment cc: Paul Shaver, CAA (w /out att.) 295 �� IRVINE COMMUNITY TY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Asubsidiary of THE IRVINE COMPANY October 12, 2004 County of Orange Resources & Development Management Dept. Attn: Alan Gainson, Third Floor P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 Re: 2003 Amtual Monitorhrg Report Dear Mr. Gamson: Attached please find the addition information as requested in John Buzas' June 17, 2004 letter to me. Please note that the construction schedule for Newport Coast Drive Widening is as follows: Obtain Constructior Permits and CalTrans Encroachment Permit - 8/31/04 Commence Construction— 9/15/04 Construction Complete — 2/15/04 Please let me know if you require additional information. Sincerely, Roberta Rand Marshall Vice President Attachments: (1) Updated Discretionay Approval Summmeries (2) Aerial Photo 1" = 1,000 scale (3) Attachment 9 and 10 cc: Joltu Buzas (w /out attachments) 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Californla 92660 -7011 (949) 720 -2000 290 ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE I 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY/PROJECT NAME" Newport roast Planned Community:i I' I.��.RM._'_'z�?TOF�S HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? ❑ 6/5/90 El 1-1 YES DATE NO NOT APPLICABLE WHICH FIRE STATION _ #54- Foothill Ranch (formerly #38) _ #57 -Aliso Viejo (formerly #39) #40 - Coto de Caza #42 - Portola Hills #45 - Santa Margarita 1147 - Laguna Laurel 1149 - Bear Brand X 1152 -'Newport Coast HOW WAS THE FERE STATION OBLIGATION MET/ Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ 29 non nno Date Executed: 6 / 5 / 9 n Construction Agreement Security Posted: $ 2,500,000 Perf Date Executed: 5/90 Community Facilities District(s) Bond issues: $ 166.7M 88 -1 $11.845M 92 -1 Cash/fees paid/subdivision fee agreement: $_250J00 - F cash payment Bond 297 ATTACHMENT 99 PAGE 2 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT ]DEVIILOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY/PROJECTNAME:Newport Coast Planned Community HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? YES DATE WHICH LIBRARY: Saddleback Branch _North Aliso Viejo Branch —Crown Valley Branch _South County Canyons Branch NO NOT APLICABLE IIOW WAS THE LIBRARY OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement- Security Posted: $ Date executed: Constriction Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed: Community Facilities District(s) Bond Issues: $ Cash/fees/paid/subdivision fee agreement $ 422,500 (cash paid) racy ayments 292 y. � ^c+^m �4, c.:aem+.1 rvruxc vnuxrccva�onravcn �� awamw. wo °.`wro K x LLwyrvn m m LEGEND County OS Offered & Accepted County OS Offered Conservation Easement IJNCPC OS Others NCCP Special Linkage Y , Newport Coast Planning Communities: County of Orange Open Space dp91RN�NECOMMwIfY OEVEIDPMENt COMPANY urmn P6vWnpa PCJyn GmpMO '�y O' 25W' 5,000' xniw:� no- w.v or.• _ N -ry. Napa li Myq• W�rr�xny a PoM r+^P' A W�L1uJeW �� �q �Wn eo Ovnu wuaiw n:W.i .GAx Mfe91 .. 4mO.un ��. �y drfJxOa w''p" Mw GN FVNV/N fOP Rk.n W iMC.i L�] vw y ewwr aou aad.o O ra+ro e, L A unwcoa f-n Ni✓n•Vm CS LLwyrvn m m LEGEND County OS Offered & Accepted County OS Offered Conservation Easement IJNCPC OS Others NCCP Special Linkage Y , Newport Coast Planning Communities: County of Orange Open Space dp91RN�NECOMMwIfY OEVEIDPMENt COMPANY urmn P6vWnpa PCJyn GmpMO '�y O' 25W' 5,000' ATTACHMENT 91 PAGE a 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET7 ❑ El 1:1 YES DATE NO NOT APPLICABLE WHICH TRANSPORTATION HOW WERE THE TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN MET? OBLIGATIONS MET? Road Fee Program: CARITS/Traf f ic Signal. Pees Implementaflonand Security Agreement SJHTC Pees Security Posted; $ (see below) Date executed: SJHTC -Off0r of Dedication San Joaquin Hills Road Other Roads: Pacific Coast Highway Pelican Hill Road (Newport Coast Drive) Traffic Signals: Number required: Number completed: Road Improvement: Bond Amt. San Joaquin Hills Road $15,927,176 Pacific -Coast Highway $13,679,323 Pelican Hill Road (NCD) $47,480,760 Construction Agreement Security Posted: $ Dated executed: Community Facilities District(s) Bond issues $ 166.7M 88 -1 78. M 01 -1 Cash/fees paid /subdivision fee agreement: Note: EIR 569 - Required widening of Newport Coast Drive (Pelican Hill. Road) betty en Sair Joaquin Hills Road and Nhe San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Constru do documents have been submitted to the City of Newport Beach for Approval. Construe ion woro] ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 5 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY/PROJECTNAME: NeTannrr rnacr ytauiecl Community CHI1 p ;;SAYE HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? HOW WAS THE CHILD CARE OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ 52, 000 Child Care Plan Date executed: 1 j / 19/o 1 Cash/fees paid /subdivision fee Bond No. 087414 released on 2'/5/02 agreement: $52,000 Child Care IIAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? ❑ F-1 YES DATE NO NOT NO - NOT APPLICABLE HOW WAS THE CHILD CARE OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ 52, 000 Child Care Plan Date executed: 1 j / 19/o 1 Cash/fees paid /subdivision fee Bond No. 087414 released on 2'/5/02 agreement: $52,000 Child Care IIAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ YES DATE NO - NOT APPLICABLE HOW WAS THE SHERIFF SUBSTATION OBLIGATION MET? Luptementation and Security Agreement Connuunity Facilifies Dish-icts(s) Security Posted: $ 392,310 Bond Issued: $- Date executed 6/95 Cash payment of $392,310 (6/95) Bond No. 087413 ($343,875) released on 7 /18/95 SO- ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 6 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUMTX/PROJECTNAME; AeS,pc r r�,sr p ,,tied CommunL'iy HAVE EXHIBITS "E" MILESTONES AND PHASING CRITERIA BEEN MET? See attached DUs RELEASED: CUMULATIVE DUs: NON -RES. SQ. FT; CUMULATIVE SQTT: DUs RELEASED CUMULATIVE DUs: NON- RES.SQ.FT: CUMULATIVE SQ.FT: MILESTONE: DUs Released: CUMULATIVE DUs: NON- RES.SQ.FT: CUMULATIVE SQ.FT: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) WHAT ASSIGNMENTS OF RIGHTS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED: DATE Assigniee DUs and/or Square Feet 302 ATTACHMENT 10 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FIVE YEAR GENERAL PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMUNITY/PROJECT NAME; Newport Coast Planned Community The development agreements include a section (typically 5.2) requiring a five -year review of the General Plan As it applies to each project. The following questions have been prepared to assist you in complying with this requirement. 1. Have there been any amendments to the Orange County General Plan that have occurred since [lie execution of your Development Agreement which have impacted the approved uses for your property? YES x NO 2. If yes, please specify which General Plan E.ement, the date that the amendment was adopted and those issues which you believe are relevant to Question 1. hl/ A 3. Have ('here been any amendments to your Development Plan since your Development Agreement was executed? x YES NO 4. If so, please identify these amendments by project number, date and any issues relating to your Development Agreement. Newport Coast Local Coastal Plan - Second Atendment - Certified by Board of Supervisors on December 3, 1996, Resolution No. 96 -861 and QrAino_ncello. 096 -3974. ..Resulted in the First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Development greeutenti recorded 19970149745 on .''.2 97. 5. Do you have any suggested modifications to the General Plan based on your review of the General Plan as it applies to your Development Agreement and/or Development Plan? Please be specific. N/A A 303 SECTION V — APPENDIX 2002 Annual Monitoring Report Format (County of Orange) 2. Exhibit W, Planned Community Development Map (Newport Coast LCP) Planned Community Statistical Table — 6 °i Revision (Newport Coast LCP) 4. Exhibit D — Benefits to County and Its Residents (Irvine Coast Development Agreement, County of Orange) 30-4 15 d �,� ��� a: o M 11 I M I I Prepared by Planning and Development Services Department Community and Advance Planning Services Division Contact: Kahne Crane (714) 834 -2102 . 305 2002 ANNUAL MONITOROING REPORT PREFERRED FORMAT All Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) must include the following information outlined below. Be inning with your 1997 AMR sumittal, a permanent AMR was compiled by Planning and Development Services Department staff for each project and kept on file at County offices. Future updates of AMR sections which require revision are the following. BACKGROUND A. Project Description Statistical summary /land use mix overview as contained in most recent Planned Community (P.C,) text and /or Area Plan (Attachment 1) 2. Map indicating project location and size (Attachment 2) List any discretionary approvals, if any, which have occurred since your previous AMR submittal including: Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, Subdivision Committee or Administrative Approvals (Director, Planning & Development Services or Director, Public Facilities and Resources) SOCIOECONOMIC DATA B. Community/Project -Wide Data (Attachment 3) 1. Land Use (gross Acreage and Square Footage) 2. Population 3. Dwelling Units 4. Employees Soo AMR Format Page 2 C. Data by Planning Area (Attachment 4) 1. Land Use (gross acreage and square footage) 2. Population 3. Dwelling Units 4. Employees D, Affordable Housing (Attachment 5) 1. Compliance with Housing Opportunities Program (not applicable to those developments which have no affordable housing requirements or which have an approved Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHI) E. Arterial Highway Phasing (Attachments 6 and 7) 1. Phasing map depicting improved lanes 2. Intersection Geometrics F. Aerial Photo (Attachments 8) 1. Scale must be 1" = 1,000' 2. Flighf date must be no earlier than December 31,2002 3. Photos must be annotated to depict project boundaries, County Circulation Plan roads, and public facility improvements 4. Oblique angle and /or section photos are acceptable if they provide complete coverage of the community /project and the location and extent of the development is easily identifiable SO7 AMR Format Page 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS G. Compliance with Development Agreement (DA) Obligations or Conditions of Project Approval (Attachment 9) I.' Summary of public and transportation obligations and status .Of project compliance 2. Status of DA phasing plan 3. List of assignments of development. rights H. Five -year general plan review of Development Agreements (Attachment 10) SOR ATTACHMENT I PROJECT STATISTICAL SUMMARY �_ ii�� t "IFS- a h, r� » 2i �'i^t[sa (�T„pdate.d if�nIc "essaxyby,A�yI�R��'reparer 30°g ATTACIIIMENT 2 PROJECT LAND USE MAP �TJ� �1 ,�v °=--- .�c�...•_- .,.��.:,.��� .�,�„•.- .�.��:,.,. -�• ter• YEA "iVII'ep'r p�ated`if�neeessa fb. _. ,,,,,�z, 310 ATTACHMENT 3 COMMUNITY -WIDE INFORMATION 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMIVrUNITY /PROJEDT NAME: ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: O>?"�m :12/31/2002 ry =,1 2/3 112 0 0 5.z BUMDOUM A. Developed Gross Acres by Land Use Residential- Detached Residential-Attached Commercial* Industrial* Office Other* Total Developed Acres B. Residential Population C. Dwelling UNITS PPDU Factor Single- family detached Attached- including rentals Total dwelling Units D. Employees Commercial* Industrial* Office* Other* Total Employees Notes: All numbers should be cumulative *Include, in parenthesis below the acreage figure, the total building square footage for these items. * *If the project contains significant land uses which do not adequately fit into the above categories (such as recreational, resort, or urban activity center) please specify these uses within the `other' category. 3i- ATTACHMENT 4 PLA1NNING AREA INFORMATION 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COMMUNITY/PROJECT NAME: ESTIMATED BUILDOUT YEAR: PLANNING AREA: ,:AS'OF:;; 12[31/2002 ,t12/3:Lk2005 f:i &ILD OUTV LSJ: j•.�IR`niaj -. O, \N:[:7 Lvi� \�IFtY _l4.F•V�'ry A. Developed Gross Acres by Land Use Residential - Detached Residential-Attached Commercial* Industrial* Office* Other ** TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES B. Residential Population C. Dwelling Units (PPDU Factor) Single - family detached Attached - including rentals TOTAL DWELLING UNITS D. Employees Commercial* Industrial* Office* Other ** TOTAL EMPLOYEES Notes: All numbers should be cumulative *Include, in parenthesis below the acreage figure, the total building square footage for these items. * *If the project contains significant land uses which do not adequately fit into above categories (such as recreational, resort, or urban activity center) please specify these uses within the "other" category. 312 ATTACHMENT 5 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT COKNIUNITY -WrDE AFFORDAB LB HOUSING INFORMATION COYINIUNITY/PROT)CT NAIVIF: ESTIYIriTED BUILDOUT YEAR: Total Units PERMITED: Total Affordable Units Required: DEFINITIONS: For Sale: Single family attached or detached unit intended for individual ownership. Rental: Multiple- family unit intended for rental. M: Mandatory unit required by condition of approval under the IHP OR HOP. V:. Voluntary unit in excess of mandatory requirements. NOTES: (1) Income Category as defined in Housing Element Appendix D. (2) Inclusionary Housing Program requirements. (3) Housing Opportunities Program requirements. All numbers should be cumulative. 313 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ;HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. :SPROGRRivf(3).'_:;:._, AS OF DATE INCOME (1) CATEGORY FOR SALE RENTAL FOR SALE RENTAL yl V HI V M V M V Low Income 12/31/2002 Moderate I Moderate H Total Units Low Income 12/31/2005 Moderate I Moderate 11 Total Units Low Income Buildout Moderate I Moderate H Total Units DEFINITIONS: For Sale: Single family attached or detached unit intended for individual ownership. Rental: Multiple- family unit intended for rental. M: Mandatory unit required by condition of approval under the IHP OR HOP. V:. Voluntary unit in excess of mandatory requirements. NOTES: (1) Income Category as defined in Housing Element Appendix D. (2) Inclusionary Housing Program requirements. (3) Housing Opportunities Program requirements. All numbers should be cumulative. 313 ATTACHA'IENT 6 2002 AMR ARTERIAL HIGHWAY PHASING MAP "COMMUNITY NAME" Please depict the number of improved lanes in each direction for each arterial highway segment within the project for; December 31, 2002, December 3l, 2005 and the County's Circulation Plan as shown on the example map above. For example, 1 -2 -3 would depict a segment that is currently I lane, will be improved tot lanes by 2005 and will ultimately be improved to 3 lanes. 31'4 ATTACHMENT 7 2002 AMR INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS MAP "COMMUNITY NAME" Indicate street names and show geometries at all roadway intersections with an arterial highway within the project boundaries and, if available, in the immediate project vicinity, This should be done on separate sheets for: December 31, 2002, December 31, 2005, and buildout. Please also indicate whether right turns or stripped right turns by noting an E or S, as appropriate, as shown on the sample map above. S-15 ATTACII 4ENT 8 2002 AMR AIR PHOTO One vertical color aerial photograph of the project (oblique and/or section photos acceptable), at a scale of l °= 1000', must be submitted with the AMR package. The photograph should be annotated to depict project boundaries and should identify areas where new public facilities or improvements to existing public facilities have been made. Road names from the County's Circulation Plan should be identified. Per the example above, improvements should be identified on the photo with a numerical indicator. A detailed description of such improvements, on a separate attachment must accompany the photo as an appendix of the AMR. The Flight dates of all photographs should be as current as possible, but must be at least after December 31,2002. A north arrow indicator should also be included on the photo. S10 ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 1 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: TI�RESTA;xZQNS HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? YES DATE NO NOT APPLICABLE WHICH FIRE STATION #54 — Foothill Ranch (formerly #38) _ #57 — Aliso Viejo (formerly #39) #40 — Coto de Caza #42 — Portola.Hills #45 — Santa Margarita #47 — Laguna Laurel #49 — Bear Brand #52 — Newport Coast HOW WAS THE FIRE STATION OBLIGATION MET/ Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ Date Executed: Construction Agreement Security Posted: $ Date Executed: Community Facilities District(s) Bond issues: $ Cash/fees paid/subdivision fee agreement: 317 ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 2 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY/PROJECT NAME: HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? FI YES DATE WHICH LIBRARY: Saddleback Branch North Aliso Viejo Branch _Crown Valley Branch _South County Canyons Branch NO NOT APLICABLE HOW WAS THE LIBRARY OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed: Construction Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed: Community Facilities District(s) Bond Issues: $ Cash/fees /paid /subdivision fee agreement 3 -g ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 3 2000 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? F-1 F-1 F-1 YES DATE NO NOT APPLICABLE WHICH PARK: HOW WAS THE REGIONAL PARK/OPEN SPACE OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed: Construction Agreement Security Posted: $ _ Date executed: Community Facilities District(s) Bond issues: $ Cash /fees paid /subdivision fee agreement: W Sig ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 4 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS TM N NO HAVE EXI- IIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? El F] F] YES DATE NO NOT APPLICABLE WHICH TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN MET? Road Fee Program: Other Roads: Traffic Signals: Number required: Number completed: HOW WERE THE TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATIONS MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted; $ Date executed: Construction Agreement Security Posted: $ Dated executed: Community Facilities District(s) Bond issues Cash/fees paid/subdivision fee agreement: 32.0 ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 5 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: CHILD :CARI; HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? YES DATE HOW WAS THE CHILD CARE OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed: Child Care Plan Cash/fees paid /subdivision fee agreement: HAVE EXHIBITS 1-1 NO NOT APPLICABLE HOW WAS THE CHILD CARE OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed: Child Care Plan Cash/fees paid /subdivision fee agreement: HAVE EXHIBITS "D" OBLIGATIONS BEEN MET? YES DATE NO NOT APPLICABLE HOW WAS THE SHERIFF SUBSTATION OBLIGATION MET? Implementation and Security Agreement Security Posted: $ Date executed Community Facilities Districts(s) Bond Issued: $ 321 ATTACHMENT 9, PAGE 6 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: HAVE EXHIBITS "E" MILESTONES AND PHASING CRITERIA BEEN MET? MILESTONE: DUs RELEASED: NON -RES. SQ. FT: DUs RELEASED NON- RES.SQ.FT: MILESTONE: DUs Released: CUIvfULAT1VE DUs: CUMULATIVE SQ.FT: CUMULATIVE DUs: CUMULATIVE SQ.FT: CUMULATIVE DUs: NON- RES.SQ.FT: CUMULATIVE SQ.FT: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) WHAT ASSIGNMENTS OF RIGHTS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED: DATE Assignee DUs and/or Square Feet 322 ATTACHMENT 10 2002 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FIVE YEAR GENERAL PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMUNITY /PROJECT NAME: The development agreements include a section (typically 5.2) requiring a five -year review of the General Plan As it applies to each project. The following questions have been prepared to assist you in complying with this requirement. 1. Have there been any amendments to the Orange County General Plan that have occurred since the execution of your Development Agreement which have impacted the approved uses for your property? YES NO 2. If yes, please specify which General Plan E.ement, the date that the amendment was adopted and those issues which you believe are relevant to Question 1. 3. Have there been any amendments to your Development Plan since your Development Agreement was executed? YES NO 4. If so, please identify these amendments by project number, date and any issues relating to your Development Agreement. 5. Do you have any suggested modifications to the General Plan based on your review of the General Plan as it applies to your Development Agreement and/or Development Plan? Please be specific. 323 ctry of Nevrport Beach .tee 7B 10A 9C 9a 1 i 1 Pellcann Polnt.� 97 91' Crystal !ZrA / aA 7 '129 3B �. 3B Moro Cove\\ Abalone Paint aC (SR) a e 17 Pork .. 6 a9c 218 0 6 a1A city of Laguna Beech —1 he Newport Coast Local Coastal Program LEGEND F---7Z--9 COASTAL ZONE BOLINIUM GOLF COLIRSE FiE�q MAJOR PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY F�q FLOOD KAN 2 F=�COUECFOR F-IF-ILOCAL' ROAD CONNECTIONS TO P.C.H. f =p=f7 SCENIC HIGHWAY DIST. BIKE TRjAJL RD C W1 MED -LOW DENSITY RMDe AL(23.15) O ® MEDIUM DENSITY REMDe AL (S.684 ® HIGH DearTYRE &Dem& (e.61B) ---- - -- -tad DDMTbet 3. IM 324 ^O^I NEWPORT COAST LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM- SECOND AMENDMENT 16 PLANNED COMMUNITY STATISTICAL TABLE -SIXTH REVISION (As Approved By OC Planning Commission on November 6, 2001) (� 1me sq A.m 0.1903. mpetlreM1 1 m5+ww3lw.uamNwmin 009 a a c.miq wu+,.3mq rw =.•.xn+en y>n+ rlNµ gvAi100LlAme,kaln,uNeWa Saws as or O cmbor 2000 ESTIMATEO(1( MMIMUM(2) OWELUNG UNITS ON BUILDING PERMITS LAND USE PLANNING GROSSACRES GROSSACRES DWELLING UNITS[ DWELLING UNITS[ APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS ISSUED OR UNITS CATEGORYICODE AREA: NON'COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ACCOMMODATIONS T3nta0V0 Maps 1 FIRal Mars UNDER CONSTRUCTION RFSIDFNIIAL' MiOmX n1o9uMA IA 10 Z.5 R1.1 - 29 ff1 IW 110 M 117 20 ur 29 lu Rem tC 179A (al n) trt (4).10 970 171 171 w MMUNAI 2A 100.1 m 202 (4).(9 200 2M 202 156 MWNmIM 22 2013 m AN 520 40e P00 W M3dwNM x "7 IN 517 (d). l3). 10 05 07 159 2ra Mo4ivNM U, 1003 (3) In (b) 120 102 In - 121 MMhaNM 20 10.7 n) . NLIv),10 165 US As t5 NnNMM AP v?A te0 oa 7" le0 0 0 Me4luMM a6 1M.e - ICO oo 'Ar +00 O O N.eQlumi0xM6 5 155.0 Ib) - +2➢ (0), le), 10 200 +50 o O La 0 22e (4) - 0 (4) r5 0 0 0 lu n rA 25.0 - 0 to +6 0 0 0 Le�A. 20 25.0 0 (4) 10 0 0 0 His" 0 25.1 r21 as M) w 00 05 06 M.I..LbvRA 0 $0.0 n 55 m 55 ss +1 TOTAL RESIOENTIPL 1.060.0 10.0 z600.0 Vasa 2560 1AH 1,116 OpFN SpPC ��P CR ATION' GOLF COURSNG 10A 2s.6 100 569 RECPFATIOWIi: 8u[k Gully, LOe TmI+aY IIA 2016 MWdy Can Po0cunl 11a 66.5 YNNGMHIIIPIDPO 12A 5719 (d) 120 50.0 2C as 0 120 As 12E 2119.6 (d) - - EIMemEI3m4nI3RSCMa f2F 145 MON 56vW In 510 1:X 9S 8 t0b ulgulal CWmy wal 0Uda IL 0.0 ' C1ya31C3w Smm P3h tr ze07A (5) - .. Call .Md. le su.61a) R`sB "(+) 19 no (a) W WW PM11 A1yWI 200 +20 - - .. unu Ca'.Rmd 2pG All CONS"VATONIC Cmurvgnan PnRL +M;ecem 10A 10.0 bWuno COr ROW ras IMm CmNWAdl 21AR10 1.05"0 (6) H bwl Pah 15, 21=10 TOTAL OPENSPACCPRECREATON r 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOUWST t1% OS M 40.G 546 (0) 1.% 0 A0 ' COmmE0.CIPUfC 120 D.2 1.N le) 000 1. 13C 5.0 (0 31.4 Tao m 70 450 nO z6 (0 5s.4 No 65o - 13E 40.0 (1) 13.4 150 206 ' 13F 12.6 (r) - 0 0 - 14 - 27.7 a (0 0 10 20A %14 a 0 TOTAL COMMERCLIL 24.3 Ml 150 2110 1150 0 0 GIt DT0TPL 92110 2119 BOOR 150 Se00R 150 2.25Yt,150 1.710 tOrO 1me sq A.m 0.1903. mpetlreM1 1 m5+ww3lw.uamNwmin 009 a a c.miq wu+,.3mq rw =.•.xn+en y>n+ rlNµ gvAi100LlAme,kaln,uNeWa CLI 88-272903 ,T INE CQAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D BENEFITS TO COUN'd'_Y AND ITS _RESIDENTS I. BENEFITS SECURED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: This Exhibit D sets forth public benefits to be received by COUNTY and its residents as conditions to the approval of the Agreement ( "Agreement ") to which this Exhibit D is attached including, without limitation, the.undertakings with respect to the provision of public facilities described below. A. Sheriff Substation. _ The Implementation Agreement shall provide that within twelve (12). months from the date of written notice by COUNTY to OWNER that COUNTY desires construction of such facility to commence, OWNER shall make the financial contributions required pursuant to Paragraph I.A.3. below toward the construction of the.sheriff facility described below (the "Sheriff Substation "). 1. Description of Facility. The term, "Sheriff Substation" shall include: the land; building or buildings; parking areas; driveways; sidewalks; walls and fences; landscaping; water, sewer, gas and electricity pipelines, transmission lines and facilities; and other ancillary and incidental buildings, fixtures, structures and improvements necessary to provide sheriff and related services to ihe.then present and future residents, populations and public of and within the Property and the area of benefit for such Sheriff Substation, which area of benefit will be determined at a later date ( "Sheriff Substation Area. of Benefit ") ; provided, however, that said term shall not include equipment and furnishings. The standards utilized in making the foregoing determinations as to the size, quality and nature of the facilities required shall be the customs, practices and standards in effect on the Effective Date, as determined by COUNTY. 2. OWNER's Obligation. Subject to the Maximum Amount set forth'below, SLMEXD.023 /110 D -1 04/20/88 -2 320 r x;88- ZTZytJ OWNER shall bear and pay its "Pro- rata" Share of the costs of the Sheriff Substation determined in accordance with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3570. For purposes of this Section. and - Section 3.8.b.(1)(C) of the Agreement, OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of the Sheriff Sub - station shall equal the lesser of (i) OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the actual costs _ of the Sheriff Substation or (ii) OWNER "s Pro -rata Share (expressed as a percentage) multiplied by $6,382,750, as such number is adjusted annually after the Effective Date for inflation utilizing the most recent- quarterly report of the Real Estate Research Council of Southern California's Office . Building Construction Cost Index. (the "Index "). In addition to its Pro -rata Share, OWNER shall also bear and pay an additional portion of. said costs, as partial consideration for this Agreement, which are necessary to• cover the . remainder of-the costs of said facility; provided,:howevdr,: _ that in no event shall the aggregate of. said Pro -rata Share and said additional portion of such costs exceed $343,875 (subject to adjustment annually for inflation utilizing the _ Index) .( "Maximum Amount "). Such additional portion in excess of OWNER's Pro -rata Share shall be subject to contribution and reimbursement as provided below. Based upon uncertainty currently existing regarding the actual size of the sheriff facility required, a high Maximum Amount has been established. _ 3. As a condition precedent to OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Paragraph I.A.3.; COUNTY shall use its best efforts to cause all other developers of undeveloped lands within the unincorporated portion of the COUNTY lying within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit to contribute to the costs of the Sheriff Substation and to: (i) require that all future development within the unincorporated area of the COUNTY lying within the _ Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit pay its Pro -rata Share of the costs'o.f said facility; (ii) cause compensation to be paid to COUNTY during the term of this Agreement for sheriff services provided to incorporated areas within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit in an amount attributable to the value of the - use of said facility in connection with the provision of such services; and (iii) require that any developer of lands within the Sheriff Substation Area of Benefit entering into a development agreement with COUNTY, pay an•additional sum to SLMEXD.023 /110 D -2 04/20/88 -2 827 3- 272903 COUNTY, which additional sum bears the same ratio'to the Pro - rata Share of such developer as the additional sum required to be paid by OWNER-(including amounts to be advanced subject to reimbursement as provided below) bears to OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of said facility. In the event the cost of the Sheriff Substation exceeds $6,382,750, any amounts collected by COUNTY which were not taken into account in computing OWNER's contribution shall first b.e used to fund the excess cost. After the excess cost is completely funded, any such remaining fees* shall be paid by COUNTY to OWNER and other contributors under development - agreements or other contributors of more than their Pro -rata Share in proportion gb their individual Pro -rata Shares as reimbursement for, and to. the extent of; the amounts, if any, paid by them 'in excess of-their respective Pro -rata Shares but only to the extgnt, however, that OWNER has not previously been reimbursed by-COUNTY or a CFD. B. Library. Within twelve (12) months of written notice by COUNTY, but not prior to recordation of the first development tract map, OWNER shall pay to COUNTY $422,500. Such funds will be used for the enhancement-or construction of library _ facilities which will serve the. Project and adjacent areas. COUNTY shall use such funds only for such purposes (including -but not limited to provision for - administration and overhead), and may provide all or a portion of •such funds to another public agency to be used for such purposes. C. Fire Facility. Prior to the recordation of the first development subdivision map covering lands inland of Pacific Coast Highway-which results in the creation of one or more building sites, COUNTY and OWNER shall enter into an Implementation' Agreement,.'in COUNTY's customary form, to provide for the construction of the Is Fire Facility. The Fire Station shall be 'operational on July 1, 1990, or prior to the issuance of the 500th certificate of occupancy or prior to' the occupancy of the first hotel, whichever occurs first. If it is apparent the 500th certificate of occupancy or occupancy of the first hotel will be more than 180 days after the July 1, 2990 date the COUNTY agrees to a' fire station construction schedule which will provide an operational facility prior to the issuance of the 500th certificate of occupancy, or prior to occupancy of the first hotel, whichever occurs first. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -3 04/20/88 -2 S22 6- 2T2903 1. Description of Facility. The term "Fire Facility" shall be a facility to provide fire protection services to the Property and the area described in COUNTY's.Development Fee Program for Fire Stations and Branch Libraries dated December, 1987, for Fire station 52 ( "Fire Facility Area of Benefit ") and shall include: the land; building or buildings; parking areas; driveways; sidewalks; walls and fences; landscaping; water, sewer, gas and electricity pipelines, transmission lines and facilities; and other ancillary.and incidental buildings, fixtures, structures, equipment and improvements necessary to provide fire and.related services to the then present and future residents, populations and public of and within the property and the Fire Facility Area of Benefit. The standards utilized in making the foregoing determinations as to the size, quality and nature of the facilities and equipment required shall be the customs, practices and standards of COUNTY in effect on the Effective Date. Plans and specifications shall be prepared by OWNER in accordance with the requirements promulgated by COUNTY and set forth in said written notice from COUNTY to OWNER described above and in consultation with COUNTY General Services Agency and Fire Chief. OWNER shall expeditiously commence, prosecute and complete the construction thereof; provided, however, that the commencement of construction of said facility shall be subject to the prior written approval of said plans and specifications by COUNTY General Services Agency and Engineer Division. 2. OWNER'S Obliaatio OWNER shall bear and pay its Pro -rata Share of the costs of the Fire Facility determined in accordance with COUNTY''Ordinance Number 3570. For purposes of this Section and Section 3.6.2.(C) of the Agreement, OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of the Fire Facility, as owner of the Property, shall equal 33% of the actual costs of the Fire Facility. In addition to. its Pro -rata Share, OWNER shall also bear and. pay an additional portion of said costs, as partial consideration for this Agreement, which is necessary to cover the remainder of the costs of said facility ( "Maximum Amount "). Said Additional portion of the costs in excess of OWNER's Pro -rata Share shall be subject to contribution and reimbursement as provided below. SLMEXD.023 /110 04/20/88 -2 D -4 S29 27DW 3. Contribution and Reimbursement to the As a condition precedent to OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Subsection I.C., COUNTY shall use its best efforts to cause all other developers of undeveloped lands within the unincorporated portion of the County within the Fire Facility Area of Benefit (which may include OWNER) to contribute to the costs of the Fire Facility in accordance with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3570 and to: a: require that all future development within the unincorporated area of'the County lying within the Fire Facility Area of Benefit to pay its Pro -rata Share of the -costs of said facility, and b. require that any developer of lands within the Fire Facility Area of Benefit entering into a development agreement' with COUNTY pay an additional sum to COUNTY, which additional sum bears the same-ratio to said Pro -rata Share of such developer as the.additional.sum required _ to.be paid by OWNER (including amounts to be advanced subject to reimbursement as provided below)-bears to OWNER's Pro -rata Share of the costs of said facility. Any amounts collected by COUNTY which were not taken into account in computing OWNER's contribution shall be paid by COUNTY to OWNER and other contributors under development agreements in proportion to their individual Pro -rata Shares.as reimbursement for, and to the extent of, the amounts,' if any, paid to'them in excess of their respective Pro -rata Shares but,only to the extent, however, that OWNER has not been previously reimbursed by COUNTY, a CFD, a special assessment district, or similar entity. D. Standby Commitment for 1990 Action Plan for South County Road Improvements. In the event COUNTY adopts a fee program to complete the roadway improvements pursuant to and in accordance with the Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors adopted on December 15, 1987, for South County Roadway Improvements (the 11199 -0 Action Plan ") OWNER shall pay its Pro -rata share of the costs of the 1990 Action Plan as and when building permits are SLMEXD.023 /110 04/20/88 -2. D -5 .330 8 -272903 -%­0 issued; provided, however, that OWNER's maximum - contribution under any such program shall not exceed $1,200 per equivalent dwelling unit, and provided further that said contribution (fees) shall be expended on roadway improvements identified in the 1990 Action Plan. E. Participation in Traffic Signal Fee Program. In the event COUNTY adopts a Traffic Signal Fee Program which includes the'Property in the area of benefit to pay for the design and installation of _ traffic signals, OWNER shall participate in the payment of such fees, on a Pro -rata basis as determined in accordance with COUNTY Ordinance Number 3.570 and based upon the benefits thereof to the Property or' portions - thereof which remain subject to-this Agreement, concurrently with the issuance of building permits; provided, however, that OWNER's maximum contribution - under any such program shall not exceed $75 per equivalent dwelling unit. OWNER shall receive a credit against.the first fees due under any such program for _ the cost of the design ana installation of the signal on Pacific.Coast Highway at Los Trancos to serve the existing and future state park facilities and for other off -site signals installed by OWNER or at its cost, - provided that such installation, payment.and credit is approved in advance in writing by'the Director of the Environmental Management Agency for COUNTY. F. Security for Performance of Work. The obligations of OWNER under any.Implementation Agreement to complete any facility shall be secured by a surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, cash, negotiable bonds or other security, or combination of security, acceptable, to COUNTY, in a sufficient sum (not to exceed the Maximum Amount in connection therewith ) to assure completion and the faithful performance of - OWNER's obligations under 'this section. The amount of such security shall be reduced by the availability of CFD, special assessment district' or similar entity, _ bond proceeds available to satisfy the obligations of OWNER under this section. G. Satisfaction of Obligations. . Performance by OWNER of its obligations set. forth above will fully satisfy all of the obligations of OWNER and its successors and assigns to COUNTY with respect to the Property relating to the construction, - dedication, equipping and furnishing of sheriff, library or fire _ SLMEXD.023 /110 D -6 ' 04/20/88 -2 33- (K-i-.88-2729m facilities or to participate in any fee programs of COUNTY in connection therewith,' subject to and except is-- provided in Sections 3.6.2(c) and 4.3 of the Agreement. H. Child Care. OWNER agrees to participate in the establishment and funding'of an entity for the provision of child -care facilities by entering into an agreement with COUNTY, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, to provide a"fee of $20.00 per applicable dwelling unit to be paid to COUNTY or such entity for the establishment of a child -care facility. . I. ,San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor_(SJHTC). 1. Riaht- Of- WayDedication. OWNER shall record ar, irrevocable Offer of Dedication of the ultimate MPAH width right -of -way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between future Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard within ninety days (90) of the Effective Date of this Agreement. (The offer shall provide for the dedication of sufficient right -of -way owned by the Company determined by COUNTY.to fully satisfy the needs therefor and'to fully comply with•applicable Regulations (including full compliance with the California - Environmental Quality Act- .("CEQA ") and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA). The right of COUNTY or the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency ("TCA") by COUNTY's designation, to accept OWN ER's Offer of Dedication shall be subject to securing the required approvals in accordance with applicable Regulations (including full compliance with CEQA and, if applicable, NEPA) and, the first to occur of the following: (a) recordation of the first development tract 'map; or (b) .'approval by COUNTY or TCA of plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of the SJHTC between Sand Canyon and MacArthur Boulevard. Said Offer of Dedication shall provide that the lands shall be used only for transportation purposes and, on an interim basis, open space purposes. If OWNER.-is unable to convey title by the date on which COUNTY has the•right to and accepts OWNER's Offer of Dedication, through no fault of OWNER, said date may be extended as agreed by OWNER and- - Director of EMA.of COUNTY. Notwithstanding the provisions of this - Agreement, OWNER shall receive from COUNTY fee credits in satisfaction of its SLMEXD.023 /110 D -7 04/20/88 -2 SS2 8-272903 existing obligations to pay fees under the SJHTC Fee Program for the conveyance of the dedication. The amount of said credits shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the SJHTC Fee Program. COUNTY acknowledges that OWNER would not have entered into this Agreement but for the fact that the dedications to the SJHTC by OWNER as required by this Agreement are agreed to be in excess of what would otherwise'be OWNER's - obligations pursuant to the SJHTC.Progsam. 2. �SJHTC Fee Program. Project development and _ construction funding for the SJHTC provided by OWNER pursuant to agreement with the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) (including the value of dedicated right-of-way-in excess of 120 feet in ` width, and the creditable value of Pelican Hill Road improvement's within the SJHTC right-6f-way, all as approved by the "TCA") shall be counted as a - credit toward fees to be paid under the SJHTC Fee Program. Any remaining fees owed under that Program shall be secured by financial instruments _ (or other-agreements provided the COUNTY or TCA in accordance with OWNER's agreement to provide reasonable assurances of its performance) upon recordation of first tract map and payable upon - demand by TCA. Building permits for which corridor fees are - paid in advance-pursuant to the financial instruments or other agreements shall not'be required to pay for any fee increases made after _ the funds are advanced. J. Dedication of Open Space. Owner shall proceed -to record the offer of Dedication for the 2;666 acre dedication area, as provided in, in accordance with and subject to-the - provisions of Chapter 3 of the 1988 Local Coastal Program. K. Enhanced Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan. The roadway phasing program specifically provided in the 1988 LCP, Chapter 3, Section E, will be enhanced by acceleration of the construction schedule and /or additional road improvements as follows: - SLMEXD.023 /110 D -8 04/20/88 -2 333 rod -d nud 1. San Joaauin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills . Road will be improved an additional two (2) lanes, a-length of one and one -half miles. 2. Pacific Coast Highway. The north -bound travel. lane of Pacific Coast Highway will be constructed as one project and in advance of the phasing defined in LCP Exhibit Q. 3. Pelican Hill Road. Pelican Hill Road will be constructed to ultimate width (six lanes) from Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road prior to the use and occupancy of the Pelican Hill Frontal Slope Development (PA13A, PA13B). II. PREVIOUSLY EXACTED BENEFITS: The previously exacted'public benefits, to be.received by COUNTY and its residents as a result of the Project are described in more detail in the 1488 Local Coastal Program, Part I, Chapter 2, entitled "Coastal Act Consistency and Overall Findings and Conclusions," Chapter 3, entitled "Resource Conservation and Management Policies," and Chapter 4, entitled "Development Policies." Such benefits include, without limitation: A. Early dedication of 2,666 acres of open space, with . an.accelerated and simplified incremental'. acceptance schedule; B. Dedication'of over 1,100 acres'of additional open space in Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon and Muddy Canyon; C. Dedication-of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor right -of -way; D. Early construction of four lanes of Pelican'Hill Road from Pacific Coast'Highway to MacArthur Boulevard; _ E. Extension of two (2) lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road from its eastern terminus to the new Pelican Hill Road; F. Widening of Pacific Coast Highway along the frontage of the development areas; G. Phased completion of all internal road improvements; and SLMEXD.023 /110 04/20/88 -2 us= 33-4 . 88 ®272903 H. Strengthened emphasis on visitor - serving facilities, including the provision of a destination .'resort. The following is a description of the significance and extent of these public benefits: Transportation Improvements. a. Pelican Hill 'Road. The COUNTY desires to encourage the ear- liest possible construction•of'Pelican Hill Road because, in the time'period prior to the .construction of the SJHTC, Pelican Hill Road is the only regional. transportation facility capable of contributing to the achievement of certain regional traffic objectives established by the COUNTY. Under the 1988 Local Coastal Program, Pelican Hill Road will be constructed at four lanes from Pacific . Coast Highway to MacArthur instead of the two lanes provided for under the 1982 Land Use Plan. The COUNTY will thus achieve this benefit in advance of both the Project needs• and the time at which it would have been achieved under the 1982 Land Use Plan. The early construction of Pelican Hill Road will provide the following significant public benefits: (i) Relieves congestion on and allows for a significant diversion,of traffic from Pacific Coast Highway and sections of MacArthur Boulevard by providing a bypass route around Corona del Mar in Newport Beach, with the attendant-commute and recreational access benefits discussed in EIR 460'and noted in the Irvine Coast Area Traffic Analysis. The analysis indicates that approximately twice as much, traffic could be diverted from Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach onto Pelican Hill Road as may be added to Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the Project. This diversion of traffic will provide a substantial benefit for Corona del Mar residents and businesses and SLMEXD.023 /110 D -10 04/20/88 -2 335 << 88- 72903 will substantially benefit other. users of Pacific Coast Highway living elsewhere in the region. (ii) Improves access from inland areas to visitor - serving and public recreation facilities such as Crystal Cove State Park. - (iii) Establishes a route compatible with existing and ultimate regional circulation needs in accordance with the MPAH and all adopted plans of the City, COUNTY and State agencies which have jurisdiction or interest in the area. (iv) Enables a highway design compatible with the terrain. .(v) Establishes a major new access to the University of California at - Irvine campus, which is expected to experience significant future growth. (vi). Creates a regional air quality benefit by reducing driving distances for users of the new roadway, thereby incr (pasing -the overall'system efficiency. - (vii) Contributes to implementation of Development Plan land uses and corresponding benefits. b. "Circulation Improvements Phasing Plan. This roadway phasing program is intended to assure both that Project generated circulation needs will be met and that additional capacity to serve local and regional transportation needs will be provided above and beyond the Project's needs. As is specifically provided in the 1988 Local Coastal Program, Chapter 3, Section E, Transportation Policy 22: "The highway improvements and phasing as defined in this Section E and on Exhibit Q, which are required by this LCP, have been determined to be of significance beyond normal SLMEXD.023 /110 D -11 04/20/88 -2 33 o 572903 project requirements so as.to meet.the objectives of the COUNTY's Growth Management _e Program. Consistent with this LCP, highway -- improvements-and implementation of the Growth Management Program identified above will be incorporated into subsequent agreements, if _ any, between the landowner and the COUNTY." This Agreement is intended to carry out the policy direction set forth in the Development Plan in' relation to the objectives of the COUNTY's Growth Management Program. C. Pacific coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway will be.improved-to _ five lanes from Corona del Mar to Muddy Canyon, .a length of about two and one -half miles. It will be widened by one north -bound travel lane with appropriate transitions along Planning Areas 3A, 3B, 10B, and 14. Additionally, PCH will be widened along Planning Area 10A to create a transition from three lanes north -bound to the two existing lanes. Along Planning Area 9, it will be widened by one south -bound lane with _ appropriate transitions. 2. Habitat Area Protection. The Development Plan provides for the transfer of ownership -to the COUNTY of major riparian areas on the Property. In addition to the 2,666 acre open space dedication area, these areas include the approximately. 1,100 acres of large scale canyon habitats in Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon and _ Muddy Canyon. Residential areas have been pulled back from the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill and along the ridges to further protect the coastal _ viewshed and to increase setbacks from Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully habitat areas. specific habitat protection benefits resulting from this residential clustering and from road re- alignments - include: a. The realignment of Sand Canyon Avenue out of Muddy Canyon. b. The realignment of Pelican Hill Road away _ from the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -12 04/20/88 -2 337 . U­`-272903 C. The conversion of portions of Planning Area 6 from development to open space in areas adjoining Moro Canyon and Muddy Canyon. d. The reduction of development areas - bordering Los Trancos Canyon. FF�FF�, .Active recreational'needs will be met by the dedication of a ten -acre site located at the Coyote Canyon Landfill with improvements to be provided - through assessment district financing. If that site is determined to be infeasible, a combination of land and improvements to equal ten acres will be identified on a site-within the boundaries of the Irvine Coast Planned-Community. The precise location of the site will be determined, subject to the approval.of the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the recordation of the first development tract map within the Irvine Coast Planned Community. The first increment of local park requirement shall be met through dedication of public special - use open space. 'The second phase shall include the improved public.local park.' This credit can be used to' satisfy the local park code requirements for an appropriate number of dwelling units. 4. Major Public Benefits In Excess of Those Provided For In Prior Plans. . The Property has been the subject of cooperative planning efforts by the OWNER, the COUNTY, environmental groups and other interested parties for a " number-of years.- The Development Plan contains significant modifications to the earlier approved 1982.Land Use Plan. The modifications were made by the OWNER with the cooperation of the Coastal Commission staff and local environmental groups. They are contained in - an amended Land Use Plan which is included in the 1988 Local Coastal Program. The COUNTY has found that the modifications achieve significant public - benefits and further both COUNTY and Coastal Policy Act Objectives. The significant public benefits in the 1988 Local Coastal Program above and beyond those in the 1982 Land Use Plan are summarized below. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -13 04/20/88 -2 334 r. 88 (? ?2903 a, Enhanced Open Space Dedication Program. The significant benefits over the Open Space program approved in the 1982 Local Coastal Program include: (i) The.1988 Local Coastal Program will provide an additional approximate 1,100 acres of public open space - (for a total of approximately 5,500 acres of contiguous open space area), increasing total plan area _ open space.from 61% under the 1982 Local'Coastal Program to 76% under the 1988 Local Coastal Program. _ Approximately 1,100 acres of new special use park lands, comprised primarily of parklands in Los Trancos Canyon, Buck Gully, and - Muddy Canyon, which were designated as private recreation areas under the 1982 Land Use Plan, and 16 acres _ of land near Laurel Canyon previously designated for development will be added to the approximate 2,650 acres of public recreation area required under the 1982 Land Use Plan. Dedicating this land as special use park.recreation areas provides opportunities to link them with Crystal Cove State Park trails.. Muddy Canyon, which would _ have been significantly altered under the 1982 land Use Plan, will also be preserved. (ii) The 1988 Local Coastal Program contains an offer of dedication for the entire approximate 2,666 acre - dedication area to be recorded prior to initial development grading (other than grading for Pelican Hill - Road). The Offer may be accepted in four phases,. constituting four large management units, as contrasted with _ the twenty or more management units /phased dedications and complex access and utility easement reservations provided for in the - 1982 Land Use Plan. SLMEXD.023 /110 D -14 ; 04/20/88 -2 _ S39 r 8 `272903 (iii) The 1988 Local Coastal Program' provides for acceptance of the remaining phases of the dedication program to occur in clearly defined increments in advance of completion of the Project and has been simplified to facilitate COUNTY management, (iv) The 1988 Local.Coastal Program provides for completion of all phases of the open space dedication program after fifteen years (as contrasted with twenty -seven Years under the 1982 Land Use Plan) even if the Project is not completed within that time so long as the Project has not been delayed in. obtaining entitlements. (v) The 1988 Local Coastal Program enables significant early public access both to the coastal ridges and to the Laurel Canyon dedication. This early.public access results from the triggering of the first phase acceptance at initial development grading (other than grading for Pelican Hill Road). b. Signifca int Visitor - Serving Facties. One of the focal points of the 1988 Local Coastal Program is a series of land use plan - modifications intended to foster the development of•a future destination resort providing a variety of public benefits. The frontal slopes of Pelican Hill have been redesigned to permit the development of two 18 -hole golf courses in an area that was designated for residential - development under the '1982 Land-Use Plan. Related commercial uses and extensive recreational amenities have been added for use in conjunction with a broad array of overnight accommodations. ,Office uses allowed under the 1982 Land Use Plan have been deleted. This increased emphasis on _ visitor-serving 'facilities carries out strong Coastal Act priority policies for the provision of day use and overnight facilities to accommodate coastal visitors who do not SLMEXD.023 /il'0 D -15 04/20/88 -2 S40 r �7Z903 live in close proximity to the ocean., The golf course greenbelt is an intregal part of the destination resort. In addition to the increase in open space,. the COUNTY, will also _ benefit from the additional overnight - accommodations and day -use retail uses provided for in the 1988 Local coastal Program. _ c. Traffic Implications of ChaSflae In Land Uses. (i) The 1988 Local Coastal Program represents a- decrease in average daily trips.from that which would result from the.1982 Land Use Plan. - (ii) The 19$8 Local Coastal Program represents a significant decrease in peak hour _ traffic allowed in the 1982 Land Use Plan, primarily due to the deletion of commercial office uses. (iii)'The emphasis in the 1988 Local Coastal Program on a destination resort further decreases both peak hour and overall - traffic intensity. d. Protection of Coastal Viewshed. The reduction in building heights from that. permitted in the 1982 Land Use Plan and the addition of the two golf Courses will create a - greenbelt along Pacific Coast Highway, thereby contributing..to a landscaped foreground for the visitor serving areas. - III. MISCELLANEQUS PROVISIONS. A. The terms used in this `Exhibit shall-be defined as provided in the Development Agreement to which this Exhibit is attached. . r SLMEXD.023 /110 D -16 04/20/88 -2 — S41 City ��'c•��a �cil l� \tt�acl�lT��er7i �-: List of Obligations Satisfied: Development Agreement No. 14 Orange County and the Irvine Company Development 342 NEWPORT COAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - COUNTY OF ORANGE M EXHIBIT D OBLIGATIONS � OBLIGATIONS STATUS DATE FUNDING CFD 88 -1 CFD 92 -1 Fire Station - Newport Coast Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR Cash Payment - $250,000 Library Obligation met Reported 1997 AMR Cash Payment - $422,500 Parks— Irvine Coast Wilderness Open Space Obligation met Reported 1997 AMR 2,666 Acres Transportation - Road Fee Programs CARITSTTraffic Signal Fees Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR SJHTC Fees Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR CFD 88 -1 SJHTC Offer of Dedication Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR CFD 01 -1 San Joaquin Hills Road Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR - Other Roads Pacific Coast Highway Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR Newport Coast Drive Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR Child Care Obligation met Reported 2003 AMR Cash Payment - $52,000 Sheriff Substation Obligation met Reported 1997 AMR Cash Pa rent - $392,310 (CFD = Community Facilities District) S44 Attachment F Planning areas Transferred to City S45 S40 1i yy 3 J'��r' ' ��� � , �/�zC�� � ors C j 13E i►o 1C 13C 9 13F 13A 13B 4A at \; 4B S � � 'y `: e M Planning we cam unity Ma Ma +c vauca•Ueu x + Pewin Megnm z sem. was w + Pe an roeq. 2 P .I, RCq E.. x � roan 2 anew 5 PPUM1C Itgp 0 GmptVefP x 4a. GwY w.e M,48 5 vwnc Pblp 9 Rusin Ppm +x taa a, ammmewPenr"..yaz 1JC.,2p. Ne MAI Pemn JE. IV LEGEND ❑ County Res TransfenaE to Qty of Newport Beata I F�tn 5011 Remmw at Courdy owssaam ] SuGareas CAA PLANNING NEWPORTICOAST COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF ••- . S42 \ ;0- f ak _` CAA PLANNING m M :ferted to mch it County School Ivr-vvrum I Iauur COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2003 - February 2009 C� ry IA YBUw IA +c YFN z �+ z• xYUw s asam 6 nti.an ldYrSUmmu � rawon aqv vaua a.n w•..oan M1do.•Yx�.�n u xwmm q vrre ti mo I• G1gYY 15 L tt 21C O. mC NbP NO.O'•'�MM�T zz noin w..os+wsa. Yror>�Yrwrs \ ;0- f ak _` CAA PLANNING m M :ferted to mch it County School Ivr-vvrum I Iauur COUNTY FILES TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2003 - February 2009 Sso