Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 - Correspondence - Newport Beach Country Club Inc.pdfCHATTEN -BROWN Bt CARSTENs TELEPHONE:(310) 314 -8040 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD FACSIMILE: (310) 314 -8050 SUrM 205 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 www.cbcearthlaw.com February 9, 2012 Honorable Mayor Gardner and Honorable City Councilmember c/o City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 "`' ,DVED pRER AGEP4DA E -mail: DPC®CBCEARTHLAW.COM Re: Opposition to Approval of Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152), Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 1600 East Coast Highway and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -010; Requests for Notices and Public Records Honorable Mayor Gardner and Honorable Councilmembers, On behalf of the Friends for Good Planning, we objected to the approval of the International Bay Club (IBC) proposed project (hereinafter "IBC Project')' also known as the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc (NBCC Inc.) proposal, at your hearing on January 24, 2012. Because we had been very recently engaged at the time of the hearing, we had not had time to put the objections we presented in writing, but we now provide this letter in the hope that your further consideration of the second reading of the ordinance will result in your denial of approval of the second reading of the ordinances for the IBC Project. The IBC Project should not be approved until such time as adequate environmental documents can be prepared and an election to ratify the general plan amendment associated with the IBC Project is held. As Friends have stated before in their November 2010 letter, and we stated at the hearing of this matter in January, the entire 145 acre site should be comprehensively planned in a coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive manner and in accordance with the dictates of good planning.Z We incorporate but we do not here restate all the objections 1 The "IBC Project' includes all the approvals associated with the project including but not limited to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -010, General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -005, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PC2008 -001, Site Development Review No. SD2011 -003, Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -005, and Development Agreement No. DA2010 -005 .2 We reiterate our support for the proposal of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community (PA2005 -140) presented by the owners of the property at the January 24, Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 2 made in our November 2010 letter. We do not believe they have been adequately addressed. We also agree with the comments of Gold Realty Fund, including but not limited to their letters of March 21, 2011 and December 10, 2010 objecting to the proposed IBC Project, and the comments made by other people in opposition to the IBC Project. A. Request for Notices and a Copy of the Notice of Determination. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2 and the Public Records Act, we request a copy of any notices regarding the above - entitled IBC Project. In particular, but without limitation, we request a copy of the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the above entitled IBC Project if one has been filed, and that the City send us a copy of any NOD that is filed in the future. As provided for by Public Resources Code section 21092.2, we request such notices by email at the address dpc @cbcearthlaw.com if they are available by email. B. Voter Ratification of the General Plan Amendment is Required. The General Plan amendment portion of the IBC Project increases the maximum allowable development on the site from a 35,000 square foot limit (approved by voters in a 2006 General Plan amendment) io a 56,000 square foot limit.3 This is a major amendment of the General Plan that requires voter approval under Charter section 423 because of the increased traffic generation associated with clubhouse and public banquet facilities. Charter section 423 states: "A "major amendment' is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or intensity. "Significantly increases" means over 100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity)." By increasing the maximum allowable development to 56,000 square feet, and allowing a change in use to a commercial public banquet facility that would generate more than 100 peak hour traffic trips, the IBC Project amendment represents a major 2012 hearing. This proposal, with a 35,000 square foot golf clubhouse (already approved by the voters) and fewer tennis courts, would significantly reduce traffic generated by from the project site, would not require importation of 34,000 cubic yards of dirt or a significant general plan amendment as the proposed IBC Project does. 3 In fact, the proposed amendment would increase development on the IBC Project site up to 70,038 square feet if accessory buildings are counted within the square footage total, as they should be. (Initial Study, p. 2.) Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 3 amendment within the meaning and intent of Charter section 423. Through adoption of Charter section 423, also known as the Greenlight Initiative, the voters intended to rein in major traffic increases in the City, especially in the heart of the City. The IBC Project, and the MND prepared for it, rely upon defective rationalizations to circumvent that voter intent to limit traffic and avoid voter review of this major amendment. Additionally, we disagree with the assertion in the Initial Study (p. 2), that the increase of over 12,000 square feet of facilities related to bag storage and a maintenance building would be exempt from the General Plan development calculation for purposes of evaluating if the IBC Project is a "major amendment." Charter section 423 does not distinguish between various types of floor area in setting its floor area increase limit of 40,000 square feet before an election is required. Furthermore, Charter section 423 states "these thresholds shall apply to the total of: 1) Increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years." We are not aware of other amendments in the Newport Center neighborhood, but if there have been any in the past 10 years, they should be included in the calculation for comparison to the threshold. With the additional 33,000 square feet of development that the proposed Project includes (above and beyond the current limit of 35,000 square feet), if no election is held to ratify this amendment, it will be much more likely that future proposed amendments for properties in the Newport Center area will require voter approval. In short, the General Plan Amendment for the IBC Project is a major amendment. Before it is valid, it must be approved by the voters. C. Potentially Significant Impacts of the IBC Project Require Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Before Project Approval. The California Environmental Quality Act requires an Environmental Impact Report be prepared whenever.a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21151). "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be 'fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of 'B "Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001.) "Section 21151 [of CEQA] creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." (League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 896, 905.) Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 4 1. The Traffic Analysis in the MND is Deficient. The traffic generated by the proposed IBC Project is likely to be significant, but the City has not prepared adequate environmental review to support its approval of the IBC Project. Despite the analysis contained in the MND asserting no significant project - related traffic impacts (MND, p. 81), the MND does not sufficiently analyze the traffic that would be generated by the proposed IBC Project. Instead, the MND asserts there would be no increase in traffic because, relying upon the ITE traffic tables for golf course facilities, since the size of the golf course itself does not change, the calculation of traffic generation for the golf course allegedly remains the same. (MND p. 68) This analysis is too simplistic to fulfill the full informational disclosure requirements of CEQA. The proposed use of the facilities will change significantly as the public is allowed to use them, thus will significantly increase traffic activity. A traffic count of the existing facility should be done to establish the existing baseline traffic conditions. Then, an appropriate analysis based on the ITE manual should be chosen to analyze the increase in traffic that would be associated with changing the clubhouse use from a facility for members only at 23,460 square feet into a 56,000 square foot facility that would be open to usage by members of the public and would include a fitness center. An appropriate way to evaluate the different sizes and uses of the clubhouse may be by using the ITE Manual's Recreational Community Center designation (Land Use category 495).4 Because public access would be allowed, viewing the IBC Project as analogous to a Recreational Community Center may be appropriate since such centers include club facilities, meeting rooms, weightlifting and gymnastic equipment, locker rooms, and restaurants or snackbars, just like the proposed IBC Project. (Enclosure 1.) If the Recreational Community Center designation were used, the ITE Manual shows trip generation for a 56,000 square foot facility is 1,288 daily trips. 5 This projection is calculated as 22 trips for every 1000 square feet in accordance with the ITE Manual. (Encl. 1, p. 881.) It is a commonly accepted rule of thumb that 10% of daily trips generated would occur in the peak hour. Thus, there would likely be 128 trips generated in a peak hour. This peak hour trip generation exceeds the threshold of significance that requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. It also exceeds the Charter section 423 threshold for requiring an election to approve the amendment. Furthermore, there should be an analysis of peak traffic that would occur when special events are held. While the City's traffic consultants may disagree, credible testimony that a project may have a significant impact is generally dispositive, even if contradicted. (City of Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 531, 541 -542; City of Carmel -by- the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 247 -249.) 4 We attach as an enclosure the relevant pages of the ITE Manual. (See Enclosure 1.) 5 Additionally, 12,000 square feet of facilities related to bag storage and a maintenance building would generate 264 additional trips. Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 5 Therefore, an EIR must be prepared and certified before the Amendment may be regarded as validly approved. 2. The Air Quality and Traffic Impacts of Construction Traffic Are Not Sufficiently Analyzed, Acknowledged, or Mitigated. The IBC Project would require the import of enormous amounts of dirt- up to 39,055 cubic yards. (MND p. 80). This importation of dirt would require 2,604 heavy truck trips, apparently assuming the use of large 18 wheel vehicles. However, assuming the more likely case, that a rear -dump truck (with a capacity of 10 cubic yards) would be used rather than a bottom -dump truck (with a capacity of 14 cubic yards), analysis shows that 3,906 heavy truck trips would be required. (Enclosure 2.) Thus, the MND significantly understates the potential impact of heavy truck traffic. The Response to Comments dated May 2011 and contained in the City Council Staff Report for the January 2012 hearing states that the air quality analysis in the MND was based on an assumption of a 7 -month construction schedule, but then for purposes of responding to a comment assumes the grading phase is reduced to 4 months. As a result, the Responses report, heavy truck trips could range from three trips per hour based on a 7 month schedule to five trips per hour based on a 4 month schedule. (Staff Report, p. 448.) That would represent 26 two way trips per day with a four month schedule- or 52 truck trips per day for four months. Such extensive truck usage of local streets could have extensive air quality, traffic, and public safety impacts. Air quality impacts of the truck traffic for dirt importation could be significant. The diesel emissions from these trucks were not calculated in Air Quality Analysis technical appendix. In Brentwood Association for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, the trial court found that "... there would be `some adverse environmental implications' because as many as four truck trips per day would be added to the Los Angeles public streets to undertake this temporary drilling project.... Based on the truck traffic, the court held the ... negative declaration, in effect, acknowledged that 'there is some impact on the environment which can be reduced'; accordingly, the court held the City had not proceeded in the manner required by law. (Id. at 499, emphasis added.) To a far greater extent than in Brentwood Association with its four truck trips per day, construction traffic associated with the IBC Project at 52 truck trips per day would have adverse environmental implications for traffic, air quality, and public health in and around the IBC Project site. No haul route maps are provided to show where dirt comes from and how it gets to site, and which areas are likely to be most heavily affected by the truck traffic. An EIR must be prepared to address and mitigate this impact. Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 6 The MND purports to mitigate this potentially significant impact by prescribing MM -10 (MND, p. 83), which requires "the applicant or contractor to prepare a Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan." (Responses to Comments, p. 11; City Council Staff Report, p. 448.) This reliance on future preparation of a construction traffic control plan constitutes impermissibly deferred mitigation. CEQA requires all mitigation measures for a project to be formulated during the environmental review process so their efficacy can be analyzed during environmental review. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.AppAth 645, 669 -670.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation measures because "[t]here cannot be meaningful scrutiny [of an environmental review document] when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Ca1.App.3d 872, 884.) Additionally, any mitigation measure must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instruments." (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).) The requirement of MM -10 for preparation of a Construction Staging, Parking, and Traffic Control Plan at some future point does not comply with CEQA's requirement that mitigation measures be formulated and set forth at the time of project approval. 3. Mitigation for Potentially Significant Access and Circulation Issues Is Impermissibly Deferred. The MND does not sufficiently address and mitigate the potentially significant access and circulation issues that could occur. Mitigation Measures MM -8 and MM -9 are impermissibly deferred. MM -8 requires the circulation conflict at Irvine Terrace/Country Club Drive to be resolved by "Some combination or modification of both plans" that would reconcile the discrepancy between the two plans for use of the intersection. (NfNTD, p. 83.) Plan modifications must be developed and set forth now, not at some future point. That analysis, since it is intended to analyze and resolve a potentially significant environmental impact, should be done as part of an environmental impact report. Similarly, MM -9 states "the existing access easement shall be revised so as to relocate its intersection with Irvine Terrace 85 feet northerly of where it currently exists." (MND, p. 83.) It is our understanding that there is no currently existing access easement. It appears the access easement was terminated by a "Termination of Access Easement" as shown on County Records and recorded December 8, 1997. (Enclosure 3.) Apparently, IBC believes, and the MND relies on this misinformation, that there is still an easement in existence. This is the type of factual issue that should be fully aired in an environmental impact report. The potentially significant land use impacts of requiring the tenant IBC to provide public access to an adjoining property over property that IBC Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 7 does not own should be analyzed and mitigated as part of an E1R. That analysis should be done now before IBC Project approval, not deferred to a future review process. The easement was eliminated because the City had requested that it be abandoned "because the Second Access creates a hazardous traffic condition at the entry to Newport Beach Country Club and contributes to an unsightly condition along Pacific Coast Highway." (Encl. 3.) Requiring provision of the same, or an even larger easement, would thus have potentially significant traffic and visual quality impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated in EIR. 4. Water Quality Impacts Could be Significant. The MND's analysis and mitigation of potential water quality impacts is not adequate because the formulation of actual mitigation measures is impermissibly deferred. All surface runoff from the IBC Project site eventually discharges to Newport Bay to the west of the site. (MND, p. 57.) Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. (MND, p. 59.) Given the massive amount of imported fill that is required by the IBC Project, the MND confirms that "Changes in surface runoff are anticipated as a result of the development of the subject property as proposed that could result in potential. impacts to water quality." (MND, p. 59.) To address these potentially significant impacts, the MND proposes two options: (1) individual drainage area treatment or (2) entire project drainage area treatment at one downstream location. However, the MND does not require either as a condition of approval of the IBC Project, nor address the efficacy of either measure. The MND defers the choice of mitigation measures to address potentially significant water quality impacts and does not require a "drainage and erosion control plan" to be prepared until the final plan check stage. Thus, the MND fails to comply with the requirement of CEQA for identification and mitigation of potentially significant water quality impacts before project approval. If the City relies upon use of detention basins and filtering (which normally captures the first Y4 inch of rainfall during storm events) to reduce impacts from discharge of these contaminants into Newport Bay, that would not address the possibility that a storm event that exceeds 3/4 of an inch may occur, thus overwhelming the mitigation measures. Since this MND provides no standard or retention goal, it is possible that mitigation measures designed in the future would fail to protect Newport Bay in the event of a large storm that exceeds 3/ inch of rainfall, or whatever retention goal is determined in the future. The IBC Project parking lot may be designed to direct all sheet flow to the municipal storm drain system and eventually into Newport Bay. Urban runoff typically contains oil, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals that would adversely impact Newport Bay upon discharge. Thus, the Project's increased permeable surfaces could have significant water quality impacts. In fact, in the legal proceedings that Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 8 culminated in the formation of Rio de Los Angeles State Park, the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles found that parking lot runoff would cause significant water quality impacts. (Friends of the Los Angeles River et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Superior Court case no. BS 067338. We incorporate the ruling in that case by reference.) The potentially significant impacts to water quality could be reduced — possibly below a threshold of significance — by adopting Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. As explained by the Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by infiltrating rainfall water to groundwater, evaporating rain water back to the atmosphere after a storm, and finding beneficial uses for water rather than exporting it as a waste product down storm sewers. The result is a landscape functionally equivalent to predevelopment hydrologic conditions, which means less surface runoff and less pollution damage to lakes, streams, and coastal waters. (Stormwater Strategies, Natural Resources Defense Council, available at hLtp://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ston-n/chU 12.asp, herein incorporated by reference.) Given the impaired status of Newport Bay, it is crucial that the IBC Project incorporate strategies that allow for runoff to percolate through landscaping. Other potential mitigation measures that should be incorporated into the MND include: • Reduction and disconnection of impervious surfaces from one another; • Vegetated swales, buffers, and strips that allow runoff to percolate into the ground (see, e.g., "Water Saving Solutions;" NRDC, p. 2, available at http: / /www.nrdc.org /water /lid/files /flid.pdf) ; • Use of green roofs (Id., p. 4.); • Permeable pavers and asphalt; and • Soil amendments, where needed to allow percolation. Additional information on LID strategies and mitigation is available on the LID website maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hq: / /www.epa.gov /owow/NPS /lid/ #guide. Extensive documentation touts the comparative environmental and economic benefits of Low Impact Development. Environmentally, LID - associated vegetation increases quality of life by greening communities, improves wildlife habitat, and decreases thermal pollution. ( "Low Impact Development," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available at httu: / /www.e,oa.gov /owow/NPS /lid /; Stormwater Strategies.) LID effectively reduces both runoff and pollution that enters downstream waterbodies. According to an NRDC study, "Researchers have shown the practices to be successful at removing common urban pollutants including nutrients, metals, and sediment." (Stormwater Strategies.) From an economic standpoint, LID costs less than conventional stormwater management Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 9 systems because LID strategies rely on fewer pipes and less subterranean infrastructure that requires maintenance. (Ibid. 6) They also reduce energy use, decrease flooding, and improve property values. (Ibid.) Conversely, if Low Impact Development techniques are not used, the potentially significant impacts could remain significant .7 D. The IBC Project Violates the Coastal Act. The City requires as a project condition that "Prior to issuance of any permit for development, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required." (City Council Resolution No._, page 9 of 14; see page 49 of City Council Staff Report for January 24, 2012 hearing.) Thus, the City contemplates that the Project will not go forward unless the Coastal Commission approves a Coastal Development Permit for it. The General Plan's Land Use Element limits development on the project site to 35,000 square feet, (General Plan Land Use Element, p. 3 -19.) The City should be careful that its approval of a General Plan Amendment for the project does not interfere with its future ability to obtain approval of its Local Coastal Program. The City has already carefully crafted, and its voters approved, the General Plan that set a development limit of 35,000 square feet on the Project site. Raising that limit for one particular location might require lowering the development limit for other locations- but such analysis of tradeoffs should only be done in a comprehensive fashion, rather than piecemeal at the request of a single project proponent. As we stated at the hearing, the Project is not consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Coastal Act. Coastal Land Use Plan policies would be violated by the approval of development and creation of traffic in excess of what is contemplated by the General Plan's limitation of site development to 35,000 square feet. The legislative policies expressed in the Coastal Act for development include: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, [and] to minimize the alteration of natural land forms... 6 See also, Prince George's County, Maryland Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning Division, Low- Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach, June 1999; Shaver, E., Low Impact Design Manual for the Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Council, New Zealand, April, 2000; httu: / /www.epa.gov /owow/NPS /lid/lid hydr.pdf. 7 The owner's plan noted in footnote 2 of this letter (PA2005 -140) proposes extensive infiltration, which could substantially reduce runoff. Friends for Good Planning February 9, 2012 Page 10 (Public Resources Code § 30251.) Courts have upheld the denial or conditioning of a coastal development permit based upon its impact on views and landforms. (Paoli v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 544, 551-554,223 Cal.Rptr. 792; Bel Mar Estates v. California Coastal Com. (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 936, 940 -942.) Approval of the Project in this case as proposed is contrary to the requirement of section 30251 of the Coastal Act to site and design development to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, and to preserve natural landforms. The project would adversely impact the visual quality of the coastal zone. Visual simulation B shows and existing clear view of Newport Bay that would be obscured by the proposed IBC Project. (Responses to Public Comments, pp. 24 -25; City Council Staff Report, pp. 435 -436.) The IBC Project's inclusion of a private gatehouse - guarded entry would restrict public access in the Coastal Zone when efforts should be made to increase public visual and physical access instead. With its requirement for massive importation of 34,000 cubic yards of dirt to the project site to create an elevation of 10 feet over existing grade, the Project would violate the Coastal Act's protection against alteration of existing landforms. This landform alteration of landforms and massive importation of dirt appears to be unnecessary (other than perhaps to elevate the clubhouse above the level of the parking lot) since a different design of the IBC Project could eliminate this substantial landform alteration and dirt importation. Conclusion We request urge the City to deny approval of the Project. If the City proceeds with considering approval of the Project, we urge you to require the preparation of legally sufficient environmental impact report, and to obtain voter ratification of the general plan amendment that is part of the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these views. Sincerely Do P. Carstens Enclosure: 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7'h Edition, pages 880 -881 2. Chart showing comparison of dump truck types 3. Excerpt of "Termination of Access Easement" document V-11 Enclosure I Land Use: 495 Recreational Community Center Description Recreational community centers are stand -alone public facilities similar to and including YMCAs. These facilities often include classes and clubs for adults and children; a day care or nursery school; meetlgrcoms; swimming pools and whirlpools; saunas; tennis, racquetball, handball, basketball and volleyball courts; outdoor athletic fields /courts; exercise classes; weightlifting and gymnastics equipment; locker rooms; and a restaurant or sna2!. ar. Typically public access is allowed, but a fee may be charged. Racquet ten ins club (Land Use 491), health /fitness club (Land Use 492) and athletic club (Land Use 493) are related land uses Additional Data One surveyed site recorded significant pedestrian trips. The sites were surveyed throughout the United States. Source Numbers 281, 410, 443, 571 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 880 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 495 Recreational Community Center Independent Variables with One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data. Users are cautioned to use data with care because of the small sample size. Trip Size of Number Generation Independent of Independent Variable Rate Variable Studies Directional Distribution MP_mhErs Weekday a.m. Peak 0.01 14,000 1 62% entering, 38% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street 2.66 32 1 72% entering, 28% exiting Traff ic Weekday p.m. Peak 0.01 14,000 1 28% entering, 72% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street 2.44 32 1 27% entering, 73% exiting Traffic Weekday a.m. Peak 0.03 14,000 1 58% entering, 42% exiting Hour of Generator 3.50 32 1 38% entering, 62% exiting Weekday p.m. Peak 0.02 14,000 1 39% entering, 61 % exiting Hour of Generator 3.16 32 1 44% entering, 56% exiting Saturday 0.07 14;000 1 50% entering, 50% exiting Saturday Peak Hour of 0.01 14,000 1 47% entering, 53% exiting Generator 2.59 32 1 53% entering, 47% exiting Sunday 0.15 14,000 1 50% enterin , 50% exiting Sunday Peak Hour of 0.02 14,000 1 60% entering, 40% exiting Generator 1.66 32 1 43% entering, 57% exiting Fmninvrne Weekday 27.25 32 1 50% entering, 50% exiting Weekday a.m. Peak 2.66 32 1 72% entering, 28% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street Traff ic Weekday p.m. Peak 2.44 32 1 27% entering, 73% exiting Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic 1\ Weekday a.m. Peak 3.50 32 1 38% entering, 62% exiting Hour of Generator Weekday p.m. Peak 3.16 32 1 44% entering, 56% exiting Hour of Generator Saturday 18.34 32 1 50% entering, 50% exiting Saturday Peak Hour of 2.59 32 1 53% entering, 47% exiting Generator Sunday 12.03 32 1 1 1 50% entering, 50% exiting Sunday Peak Hour of 1.66 32 1 43% entering, 57% exiting Generator 1.000 Souare Feet Gross Floor Trip Generation, 7th Edition 881 Institute of Transportation Engineers . `6 Enclosure 2 Dump Trucks with Dirt on PCH 8 Hours a Day 3.25 to 2035 Months Truck Type Rear Dump Truck Bolftom DUMP, Truck Yards Per Truck 10 -Cu yds .14 cu yds Tota] Truck Trips 3.9,06 .2,..7'9;0 Dally Trips - Assumes 15 Trucks. 4,cyc.les per day GO 60 Total Work Days 65 47 Total Mo.nths 3-25 2-36 Enclosure 3 P9 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NBCC LAND One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Recorded in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk /Recorder 11111f1119 1111111111111ll IIH111111111 III lIllifi1111Jill 21.00 19970630399 4;29pm 12/08/97 005 22033011 22 42 T01 6 6.00 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TERAUNATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT THIS TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT is made as of November 30 ' 1996, by ARNOLD D. FEUERSTEIN and ALLAN FAINBARG (collectively referred to as "Owners "), who are the fee owners of the property located at 1500 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property ") ARTICLE I RECITALS A. The Property is partially served for ingress and egress by a secondary access road which runs parallel and adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and is located upon the adjacent Newport Beach County Club property (the "Secondary Access "). B. The Property's rights to use the Secondary Access is by way of that certain non -exclusive easement and right of vehicular and pedestrian. ingress and egress set forth in that certain instrument entitled "Declaration of Access Easement" dated as of September 29, 1992 and recorded on October 1, 1992 as Instrument No. 92- 662452 in the Official Records of Orange County, California, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Declaration of Access Easement dated as of October 15, 1992 and recorded March 1, 1993 as Instrument No. 93 -0139175 in the Official Records, such easement being described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ( "the Existing Easement "). C. The City of Newport Beach has requested that the Existing Easement be abandoned because the Secondary Access creates a hazardous traffic condition at the entry to Newport Beach Country Club and contributes to an unsightly condition along Pacific Coast Highway, and Owners concur and are willing to comply with the City's request to abandon the Existing Easement. tennimt.am 1 D. Owners of the adjacent Newport Beach Country Club property intend to remove the Secondary Access through a portion of the Newport Beach Country Club property described in Exhibit "C" and replace it with landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway per Newport Beach Country Club Master Plan, Tentative Tract 15348, and a landscape plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. The result will be a significant aesthetic improvement along Pacific Coast Highway. ARTICLE 11 TERMINAUON OF ACCESS EASEMENT 1. Owners hereby terminate and relinquish their rights in the Existing Easement. 2. Owners' termination of the Existing Easement is conditioned on the City of Newport Beach not prohibiting ingress and egress to the Property primary and direct access from the existing two Pacific Coast Highway curb cuts in front of the Property which have been in use for many years. IN WITNESS WFIEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument as of the date fast above written. OWNERS: Arnold D. Feuerstem D-un To,...Rls Anan Fain arg tnmimt.aw RFC,Fl.\/EL 2012 FEB 14 Ph 5 1 t A A PLANNING __9_ - lld- OFr10EE OF TrHi_ . n CLERK I�FI OW Februar�CU, 2012 Honorable Mayor Gardner and Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard City of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Beach Country Club, PA 2008 -152 Dear Ms. Gardner: The following responds to comments in the February 13, 2012 letter from Tim Paone regarding the City Council actions on January 24, 2012 concerning the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community. On January 24'" the City Council approved two separate applications for development 142 acre Newport Beach Country Club property— one for the reconstruction of the golf clubhouse (IBC project) and one for the tennis bungalows /villas (GRF project). Mr. Paone states that the approved IBC plans include a "frontage drive" for public use on property which the lessee (IBC) does not have the right to dedicate to the City or otherwise convey. He further states that the frontage drive was negotiated by the owners of the adjoining nursery property for the benefit of the nursery. An existing frontage road exists on the property proposed for the reconstruction of the Newport Beach Country Club golf clubhouse and parking lot. The frontage road serves to link the existing Armstrong Nursery with the signalized intersection of Irvine Terrace and East Coast Highway. The City's Planning Commission considered two site plans submitted by IBC — one with and one without the frontage road. Regardless of the existence of an easement, the Planning Commission determined that their preferred design was a one -way frontage road since it was an existing access between the Armstrong Nursery property and Irvine Terrace /East Coast Highway. Based upon review of the connection of the frontage road to Irvine Terrace, the City Traffic Engineer recommended design modifications that will move the connection of the frontage road to Irvine Terrace 85 feet inland of East Coast Highway and limited the traffic flow over the frontage road to one -way traffic. The City Council approved the site plan recommended by the Planning Commission which also will improve the existing point of ingress to the Armstrong Nursery from East Coast Highway with a deceleration lane and a widening of the existing driveway entrance to the Nursery from East Coast Highway. The frontage road is an existing access road, and has been utilized as such for many years; the use was established prior to an application for reconstruction of the golf clubhouse. The site plan recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 • Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581 -2888 • Fax (949) 581 -3599 Mayor Gardner February 14, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Council will substantially improve the safety of the operation of the Irvine Terrace /East Coast Highway intersection, allow for continued convenience of Nursery patrons to safely access southbound traffic on East Coast, and improve safety for motorists on East Coast Highway. No property rights have been given away as suggested by Mr. Paone. The frontage road was determined to be necessary whether or not the easement was found to be in place. The City's approval does not require preservation of the existing easement or the recordation of a new easement. Rather, the site plan approved by the City Council will improve ingress and egress to the Newport Beach Country Club, allow for the continued use of an existing frontage road for the Armstrong Nursery and greatly improve safety for motorists on East Coast Highway. The City has accommodated several requests for delays in project approval by Mr. Paone on behalf of his client, GRF in order to present the GRF proposal for the reconstruction of the Newport Beach Country Club. The Planning Conm,nission and City Council approval of the IBC site plan for Newport Beach Country Club is a superior plan considering existing land use and all adjoining properties and will greatly improve traffic safety at the existing intersection of Irvine Terrace and East Coast Highway. GRF's position that it cannot enter into a Development Agreement with the City is an issue separate and apart from the City Council approval of the IBC golf clubhouse reconstruction site plan. GRF's request for a continuance of the second reading for their project does not impact IBC and we have no objection to such a continuance. Any request to delay the IBC project should be denied. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. G Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer c: Ms. Kimberly Brandt Ms. Lennie Mulvihill Mr. David Wooten RECEIVED , � "RECEIV D AFTER AG' ti` K "[012 FEB 14 PrWITED:" tXX PLANNING C ; ICE OF r, C-YCLERK February 14, 20 �1 r " ' " ".IT E AO i Honorable Mayor Nancy Gardner and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) - Response to Chatten -Brown & Carstens February 9, 2012 Letter Dear Ms. Gardner: We apologize for sending a letter on the day of the City Council meeting. However, we received the letter from Mr. Douglas Carstens of Chatten -Brown & Carstens on February 13 and felt it warranted a detailed response. The late attempt by the Mr. Carstens, on behalf of Friends for Good Planning, to delay the Newport Beach Country Club project is frivolous. No new issues were raised and the City Council should not delay the second reading. Following are responses to the letter requesting that the Newport Beach City Council deny approval of the Newport Beach Country Club project at the Council's second reading of the ordinances. The responses are in the order and are lettered as they appear in the letter. A. Request for Notices and a Cony of the Notice of Determination The City of Newport Beach posted the Notice of Determination on the City's website on January 30, 2012. An interested party can sign up for automatic notices through the City's website. B. Voter Ratification of the General Plan Amendment is Required The 2006 General Plan and Charter Section 423 do require voter approval for a major amendment increasing square footage by over 40,000 feet. The proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the development limit from 35,000 sq. ft. to 56,000 sq. ft., which is a 21,000 sq. ft. increase. Reconstruction of the cart barn, snack bar, restroom facilities, maintenance facilities and starter shack are ancillary to the golf clubhouse and are specifically exempt from the development limits established in the General Plan. Page 3 -17 of the General Plan indicates that uses in the Parks and Recreation category may include "... parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation and similar facilities" The General Plan also states: "Private uses in this category may include incidental buildings, such as maintenance equipment sheds, supply storage and restrooms, not included in determining intensity limits. For golf courses, these uses may also 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 • Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581 -2888 • Fax (949) 581 -3599 Mayor Gardner February 14, 2012 Page 2 of 6 include support facilities for grounds maintenance employees." The General Plan is very clear that these incidental buildings are not counted against the intensity. In addition, the City has very broad discretion in interpreting its own General Plan and other planning documents. "A city's determination that a Project is consistent with the City's general plan `carries a strong presumption of regularity. "' Courts accord great deference to a local agency's determination of consistency with its general plan "because the body which adopted the general plan policies in is legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. "Z It has been clearly stated in the MND and subsequent responses to comments that the existing facility does not have the capacity to meet current demand of existing members, that annual charitable and member events allow for very limited additional usage for meetings, luncheons and dinners and that the increased capacity is intended to serve and meet the needs of those events which have occurred regularly over the years. Regardless, the project does not exceed the thresholds in Charter Section 423 requiring voter approval. A representative listing of tournaments and special events from previous years is included as Attachment 1. C. Potentially Significant Impacts of the IBC Proiect Require Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Before Project Approval The letter provides no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. California courts have held that a "significant effect" is a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in physical conditions which exist within the area as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21060.5" (Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 122 Cal.App. 4 "' 572(2004).) While the fair argument test is a low standard of review, "it remains the [commenter's] burden to demonstrate by citation to the record the existence of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact" (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. Of Sups., 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1348 (1990).) The commenter has failed to point to substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument of significant adverse environmental impact from the project. (Porterville Citizens v. Porterville, 157, Cal.App. 4 °i 885, 899 (2007).) The commenter's assertion that an environmental impact report is required is not supported by the facts of the project, the analysis contained within the Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Responses to Comments, no new information has been presented, and a fair argument has not been raised. ' Clover Vallee Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011), 197 Cal.App.4 °i 238 and Segnot�ah Hills Homeowners Association v. Ci(v of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4ih 704 719 -720 ( "It is, emphatically, not the role of the courts to micromanage these development decisions. Our function is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies, whether the city officials made the appropriate findings on this issue, and whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence. ") Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Presenntion Group (2006) 139 Cal. App.41" 249, 273 fn. 23 Mayor Gardner February 14, 2012 Page 3 of 6 1. Traffic Analysis in the MND is Deficient The applicant is not proposing any uses that would result in an increase in trip generation as compared to the existing uses. The traffic analysis correctly utilized the ITE traffic tables specifically for golf course facilities. The Newport Beach Country Club golf clubhouse and the ancillary facilities are typical and appropriate for all major golf courses. Newport Beach Country Club is a private club and the public is permitted access to the golf course and facilities through the regular professional and charitable tournaments held there. Banquet facilities are available to participants and attendees of these functions. To the extent that the banquet room is available to the public, it would be inappropriate to evaluate traffic and parking impacts based on the ITE Manual's Recreational Community Center designation as the use is clearly that of a golf club. We are not introducing a new public use component. There will be no change relative to pubic use from the way the club is operating today. The golf clubhouse currently contains pro shop, meeting rooms, locker rooms and restaurant facilities. The addition of a 1,700 sq. ft. fitness facility is for the exclusive use of members. Therefore, the traffic analysis remains valid for the continued use of a golf course and updated golf clubhouse. For the reasons stated above the comment fails to raise a fair argument that the project will result in potentially significant traffic impacts and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted. 2. The Air Quality and Traffic Impacts of Construction Traffic Are Not Sufficiently Analyzed, Acknowledged or Mitigated The commenter states that it is more likely that a rear -dump truck with a capacity of 10 cubic yards would be used than the 14 cubic yard capacity truck analyzed in the MND. There is no support provided for this assumption and a fair argument is not presented for the likelihood that commenter's assumption should be the basis for analysis. Since the public review of the MND, the project has been refined and the total importation has been reduced by 5,000 cubic yards. A four month schedule is anticipated for the grading /importation phase of the project. Specifically, the importation phase will last 21 days. Table 1 on page 33 of the MND contains daily estimated emissions and specifically notes that analysis of emissions from 39,055 cubic yards of import was included. The Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan required in the MND will mitigate potential impacts to local streets. Dirt hauling trucks will be limited to off -peak travel hours and haul routes will be identified in the Plan. The City requires preparation of a Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan as part of the City's approval process at a time closer to actual start of construction when a determination can be made about where imported soil is available and a specific route can be established. For the reasons stated above the comment fails to raise a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant air quality and traffic impacts and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted. Mayor Gardner February 14, 2012 Page 4 of 6 3. Mitigation for Potentially Significant Access and Circulation Issues Is Impermissibly Deferred Mitigation Measure 9 is no longer applicable because the Planning Commission directed that regardless of the easement, the frontage road was the preferred arrangement with respect to achieving adequate circulation. Final design plans for the access easement were approved by the City Council in January 2012. The continuation of the access road was the preferred plan of the City after the applicant prepared plans showing the site plan with and without the easement. The road will be one -way out of the adjacent nursery providing a safer egress onto East Coast Highway via the signalized intersection at Irvine Ten-ace and East Coast Highway. Re- alignment of the intersection of the access road and hvine Terrace was suggested and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer to address safety concerns. The access road has been in place for many years and its continued availability is not a new use requiring environmental review. For the reasons stated above the comment fails to raise a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant access and circulation impacts and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted. 4. Water Quality Impacts Could Be Significant In accordance with local requirements, a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared to address potential water quality impacts related to construction and operational phases of the project. The WQMP is required to be updated prior to the issuance of grading permits and is not considered "deferred" mitigation because the Conceptual WQMP identified specific treatment options for the project. The City will review the WQMP prior to pen-nit issuance to insure that the project will not violate any water quality standards during construction. Additional local and regional regulatory compliance will be required during construction and operation to further protect water quality. The measures proposed in the MND also include Best Management Practices, a standard practice for regulatory compliance. Existing drainage was analyzed in the MND and the storm drain system has adequate capacity to handle the slightly increased storm runoff due to the project. The Final WQMP required prior to grading penrut issuance will identify the option that will be incorporated into the project and the City will review the WQMP. Contrary to the cornment in the Carstens letter, the project will be required to comply with all local and regional water quality regulations. Specifically, the MND states: The applicant has prepared a Conceptual WQMP that identifies a range of BMPs and related water quality features to ensure that water quality impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced to an acceptable level. In addition, implementation of BMPs that will be included in the SWPPP will ensure that construction impacts are minimized. Similarly, BMPs will also be refined and incorporated into the project design to avoid post - construction impacts to water quality. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mayor Gardner February 14, 2012 Page 5 of 6 The MND also states: As part of the final plan check review, the applicant is required to prepare an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable City standards. Therefore, the proposed measures incorporated into the project will protect water quality and prevent either construction or operational impacts. For the reasons stated above the comment fails to raise a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant water quality impacts and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted. D. The IBC Project Violates the Coastal Act The City has determined that the project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and has approved a General Plan Amendment that allows for a 21,000 sq. ft. increase in the development intensity for the reconstruction of the golf clubhouse. Since the City does not have a fully certified Local Coastal Plan, the proposed project will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and approval. With regard to consistency with the Coastal Act and the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, the MND states: Although East Coast Highway is not designated as a Coastal View Road between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a Public View Point is identified within Irvine Terrace Park, which is located south of that arterial and the subject property in the Corona del Mar service area. Views from this location are oriented to the west and not inland to the subject properly. Designation of the location as a Public View Point is intended to preserve views of the harbor and ocean. Specifically, new development must restore and enhance the visual quality and protect and restore public views. The proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). No amendment to the CLUP is required and the CLUP does not contain a development limit similar to the General Plan. In addition, the CLUP includes policies that are also intended to ensure that coastal views and development within the coastal zone is protected and enhanced. The MND stated that the proposed project will not result in a substantial visual impact, and would not result in any significant changes to views from Newport Center Drive north of Farallon, which is identified as a Coastal View Road, because of the existing intervening development and heavy landscaping. Moreover, the proposed reconstruction of the golf clubhouse incorporates design features including clubhouse building height, varying roollines, setbacks, and landscape materials to protect the views intended by the Natural Resource Element policies. The view simulation referenced in the Carstens letter shows turf landscaping, a clubhouse and a parking lot. No coastal views are depicted in the view simulation, and not coastal views will be impacted. Regarding landform alteration, it is generally accepted that landforms are naturally occurring features such as coastal bluffs, shoreline and hills. The Newport Beach Country Club has been in Mayor Gardner February 14, 2012 Page 6 of 6 existence since 1954, at which time grading occurred to develop the existing facilities. The reconstruction of the golf clubhouse will not impact "natural landforms" as none exist on the previously developed site. The gatehouse- guarded entry will only be utilized for tournaments and special events to direct traffic and participants. As no public access to the shoreline exists via the golf course property, none will be restricted. The same opportunities for visual and physical access will remain as have existed since the property was developed. In fact, the raising of the building pad will allow for the provision of ocean views from the second floor where no views currently exist. There are no coastal resources, no view of the coast and no access impacted by the reconstruction of the golf clubhouse. Finally, the height of the new golf clubhouse is proposed at 49' 6. ", within the City of Newport Beach height limit for the site. Conclusion No fair argument has been raised that the project may have a significant impact. The commenter has provided no specific information analogous to the project supporting the need for additional environmental analysis. The MND and Response to Comments were available for adequate public review. No new issues have been raised and it would be inappropriate to further delay the project. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. l Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer Attachment: Toumament/Special Event List c: Ms. Kimberly Brandt Ms. Leonie Mulvihill Mr. David Wooten o Business Model for NBCC Unchanged Increase from existing banquet room by approximately 1,500 square feet Need for 250 -Seat Banquet Room Based on Current Demand • Tournaments - 144 players (maximum) plus spouses /guests — approximately 250 seats • Special Events and Club Functions (including Member Tournaments) o Holidays (e.g., Easter, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving) DATE EVENT 1/24/11 Toshiba Sponsor Day 3/7/11 Toshiba Classic 3/2 t/ I I Cystic Fibrosis 4/25/11 Skipper Dick Memorial 5/2/11 Juvenile Diabetes Research 519 /11 Child Help 6/13/11 Class Fund 6/27/11 Survivor's Memorial Fund 8/15/11 RMJ Golf Classic 8129/11 O.C. Alumni Association/ Ernst Young 9/12/11 Drive for a Cause 9/19/11 Sage Hill School 1013 1I1 St. Margaret's School 11/14/11 Mariner's Christian School BENEFITS (Charity /Orsanization) Hoag Hospital Foundation Hoag Hospital Foundation Fundraiser Fundraiser Non - profit fundraiser — child abuse Scholarship Fund Fundraiser— Offer financial assistance to families of officers killed in the line of duty Richard Myles Johnson Foundation — funds Meaningful youth financial education projects /provides scholarships Scholarship fundraiser 100° o volunteer organization - all monies go to community charities Fundraiser for school Fundraiser for school Fundraiser for school DATE EVENT 1/ 15/11 Kick -Off Tournament 2/9/11 Men's Guest Day 3/5 -14/11 Toshiba Tournament 3/16/11 Men's Toshiba Super Guest Day 3/20/11 Couples St. Patrick's Day Event 3/26 - 27/11 Partners hour Ball Spring Classic 4/30 -5/1 /11 Member - Member 5/6/11 Couples 'Twilight Golf 5/11/11 U.S. Open Qualifying 5/15/11 Couples Championship 5/21 -22/11 Sr. & Super Sr. Club Championship 6/4. 5, 11, 12/11 Club Championship 6/17/11 Couples Twilight Guest Day 7/8./11 Couples Twilight 7/14-16/11 NBCC Regatta Nlember -Guest 8/10/11 Men's Guest Day 8/12/1) Couples Twilight Guest Day September President's Cup Month 10/26/11 Men's Breast Cancer Awareness Guest Day 10/30/11 Ghosts & Goblins Couples Tournament 11/5111 Junior Club Championship 11/23/11 Turkey Shoot 12/7/11 PGA Pro -Am LADIES' 2011 TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE DATE EVENT 1/4/11 Installation 2/3/11 Sadie Hawkins Invitational 2/17/11 General Meeting Play Day 3/20/11 Couples Sr. Patrick's Day Event 3/31/11 Ladies Guest Day 4/28/11 WSCGA Foundation Guest Day 516/11 Couples Twilight Golf 5110, 12, 17. 19/11 Ladies Club Championship 5111111 U.S. Open Qualift ing 5115111 Couples Championship 6/17/11 Couples Twilight Guest Day 6/21/11 Ladies Guest Day 7/8/11, Couples Twilight Golf 8/12/11 Couples Twilight Guest Dav 8/17 -19/11 Ladies Seahorse Classic 91%8/11 General Meeting Play Day 9/13, 15111 Merv- K. Browne 10/25/11 Breast Cancer Awareness Day 10/30/11 Ghosts & Goblins 11!3/11 Fall Guest Day 11/5/11 Junior Club Championship 11/15, 17/11 Ladies President's Cup 11/22/11 Turkev Shoot 12,16/11 Holiday Tournament SPECIAL EVENTS 2010 DATE GROUP EVENT 1/12/10 British American Assoc. Luncheon meeting 1/23/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 2/6/10 Helpmates Reception 2/17/10 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 3/17/10 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 3/17/10 CDM Flower Club Luncheon meeting 4/24/10 Memorial Service Member celebration of life 4/30/10 Mrs. Phillips Social reception 5/2/10 Ortega Family Birthday party 5/8/10 Newkirk Family Anniversary dinner reception 5/19/10 Memorial Service Member celebration of life 5/22/10 Cal Poly Pomona Fraternity Banquet 5/26110 USC Fraternity Luncheon 5/26/10 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 5/26/10 CDM Cheerleading Annual banquet 6/121/10 Beacon Bay Association breakfast meeting 6/16/10 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 6/26/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 6/27/10 Baroque Dinner Party Dinner 7/12/10 Price Waterhouse Cooper Employee party 7/29/10 British American Mixer Networking mixer DATE GROUP EVENT 8/1/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8/141/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8111,8(10 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 8/1 6/10 501h Anniversary Dinner 8/20/10 Wedding Ceremony/reception 9 /11/110 Wedding Ceremony /reception 9/18/110 Estancia Reunion High School Reunion 9/29/10 7 C's Breakfast OC .Gentlemen's networking group 10/6/10 British American Assoc. Luncheon meeting 10/13/10 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 10/23/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 10/26/10 7 C's Breakfast OC Cientlemen=s networking group 11/3/10 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 11/13/10 Memorial Service Member celebration of life 11/19/10 Wedding Rehearsal Dinner 12/2/10 IISNO Corporate Holiday Party 12/4/10 NB Newcomers NB Social Holiday Party 12/11/10 Horizon Tech Corporate Holiday Purdy 12/18/10 Meridian Link Corporate Holiday Party 12/20/10 Northwestern Mutual Corporate Holiday Party a pQOadddo MWC20 3,243 250 3,800 16,600 7,920 7,450 250 400 636 500 D] 5D(m(A add(d mQ9@w McMpod a aR.@a MW CKOd, Baric, Tran & Minesinger " `' _ - -- ATTORNEYS AT ��7" ;D. rj�4f� BJSBJESS•TT •f:LBO ONS•GOVERNt+ 1•RETI. FSIRTE"� �" Ll P Kevin M. Muldoon, Esq. 2603 Main Street Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92614 February 8, 2012 Honorable Mayor Gardner & Honorable City Councilmember City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 LN FEB 13 AM h. 47 OF 7 IC_ OF THE l -TY CLEF;4 CITY OF' - "I ?um BEACH Re: Request for Rehearing of Newport Beach Country Club Site Development Dear Madame Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers: The Founding Members have the right of first refusal to acquire the leasehold interest in Newport Beach Country Club for which significant consideration was paid. IBC is for sale. My group of Founding Members believe, hopefully sooner rather than later, that the Founding Members will be the eventual leasehold owners of Newport Beach Country Club and would like to get a new golf clubhouse compatible with a private "equity club" built without significant unnecessary and costly delay by having to go through the Site Development Plan approval process all over again. As stated when addressing the Council at the January 24th meeting, the group of Founding Members I represent support the golf clubhouse and parking lot plans which were designed many years ago with the input of the Founding Members. Therefore, we very respectfully request the City Council at its February 14th meeting rehear and approve both IBC's and Property Owner's /Founding Members' Site Development Plans. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerer Kevin M...._._ .. Orange County Office: 2603 Main Street, Suite 1050 • Irvine, CA 92614 • Phone: 949 - 468 -1047 • Fax: 949 - 251 -1886 Inland Empire Office: 4046 Chestnut Street • Riverside, CA 92501 • Phone: 951- 200 -4098 • Fax: 951- 848 -9549 www.bamlawyers.com TLLE�C ID"OP � ®��8ILU GHER COUNSELORS AT LAW February 13, 2012 Mayor Nancy Gardner and Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O. Box 176 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 .rf+, f1h s1 %�r�;nr iLJ', THEODORA ORINGHER PC 535 Anion Noulcvard, Ninth Floor Corm Munn. Calitontiv 92626 -7109 T (714) 5.19 -6200 • P (714, 549 -6201 www.rocuunscLnnn TIM PAONE tpaonc tt mcounncl.com (714) 549 -61.15 Re: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) / Application of Golf Realty Fund Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) / Application of Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. Mayor Gardner and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Golf Realty Fund ( "GRF ") with respect to the actions taken by the City Council on January 24, 2012, concerning the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community. Obviously, GRF was quite disappointed in the Council's decision not to provide greater flexibility for potential builders of the golf clubhouse by authorizing either of the proposed site plans to be implemented without further review by the Planning Commission. This was a compromise proposal urged by GRF to minimize future costs and delays if the future builder of the golf clubhouse preferred GRF's less impacting golf clubhouse and parking lot design. It also would keep alive GRF's plans to establish a boutique hotel of the highest quality within the Planned Community. While the Council has not yet approved the minutes of the January 24 meeting and we, therefore, have not had the opportunity to fully understand all details of the final actions taken, it is apparent that the Council has approved a site plan the golf course property (the "Golf Property ") which requires the dedication to the City of a deceleration lane and the creation of a "frontage drive" for public use across the Golf Property. It is remarkable that the project applicant failed to share with the Council that it does not have the right to simply give away portions of the Golf Property. The inclusion of this frontage drive was negotiated by the owners of the adjoining nursery property for the benefit of the nursery. There are serious implications under the existing golf course lease to the City's requiring that the public be allowed to cross the Golf Property for purposes wholly unrelated to the operation of a country club. GRF, as Managing Owner of the Golf Property, is compelled to advise the City that the tenant does not THEODORA ORINGHER �J1.YIi5pLP5 �T 4M Mayor Nancy Gardner and Members of the Newport Beach City Council February 13, 2012 Page 2 have the right under its lease to dedicate to the City or otherwise convey, in any form, portions of the Golf Property for public use. (Please see the attached exhibit.) We believe that the City Council was not provided complete information with respect to these facts and, therefore, a critical factual mistake was a material factor in the Council's decision. Unfortunately, the substance of the draft Development Agreement between GRF and the City has materially changed from GRF's proposal. GRF was agreeable to signing a Development Agreement under which its proposed comprehensive site plan would be vested (if necessary as a compromise, in addition to the site plan proposed by IBC). It cannot, however, agree to a Development Agreement that requires the conveyance of private property within IBC's leasehold for public use and vests a development plan for the Golf Property which GRF opposes. For that reason, GRF is not able to sign the Development Agreement in its present form. Therefore, GRF asks the City Council to take the following actions at its February 14, 2012, meeting: 1. Place on the agenda for your February 28, 2012, City Council meeting consideration of GRF's compromise proposal (the "Compromise Proposal ") to: a. Add Section 4.8 below to the now - approved Planned Community Development Plan, and b. Approve GRF's proposed site plan for the Golf Property as an additionally "pre- approved" site plan. 2. Continue the second reading of the ordinance approving the GRF Development Agreement to a date which will accommodate consideration and approval of the Compromise Proposal as described above. By placing these actions on your February 28 agenda, GRF will be able to demonstrate to the City Council (1) the absence of any tenant right to convey any portion of the Golf Property for public use or for the benefit of the adjoining nursery, (2) the practical benefits to all parties, including the City, of approving GRF's Compromise Proposal, and (3) the City's ability to avoid any confusion over the pre - approval and vesting of two site plans for the Golf Property. Although GRF's proposed site plan for the Golf Property was before the Council on January 24, no specific motion was made to deny that site plan. Therefore, that item may be revisited by the Council at its pleasure without the need for formal "reconsideration" under Robert's Rules of Order. The proposed revision to Section 4.8 of the Planned Community Development Plan is as follows: THEODORA ®RINGHER C��:� IIG�I lltV Mayor Nancy Gardner and Members of the Newport Beach City Council February 13, 2012 Page 3 4.8 Concurrent Site Plan Approval Concurrent with the approval of this Planned Community Development Plan, the City Council completed Site Development Review of two applications for two alternative site plans for the Golf Club portion (see Section 3.1 above) of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community and found that each is in substantial compliance with the requirements of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 above. The City Council has approved each of these alternative site plans which are attached as exhibits to this Planned Community Development Plan. Development of the Golf Club property may be completed using either of these alternative site plans, provided that all development is in substantial conformance with the site plan selected by the applicant for grading, building, and other permits required to complete development of the Golf Club property. Any proposed amendments to either of these approved site plans shall be subject to further Site Development Review under this Section 4.0. Clearly, this entitlement process has been difficult for all involved. There are complicated relationships and disagreements about rights and obligations among the parties. GRF understands that the Council cannot resolve all of the issues between the parties. It can, however, choose to move these matters closer to resolution, rather than introduce into the mix even more complications. It is for these reasons that we ask the Council to continue the second reading of the ordinance approving GRF's Development Agreement and consider at its next meeting GRF's Compromise Proposal. GRF appreciates Council Member Selich's efforts to help the parties find a workable compromise. We also share the disappointment he expressed at the hearing that the compromise between the parties which he and we thought had been reached over a year ago didn't hold. We hope that the proposal offered by this letter can move all of the parties closer to resolution. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Paone tp:tp 889842.4180981.10002 13 I 4I 18-It IBC Golf Club Parking Lot Plan [IdW RETAINING , 3: 1 ZI) 0- - WALL, . 11 0 , CL L m (130) 1' 12� 4 - USLOPED EMBANKN New sidewalk Deceleration lane New Curb Cut jerminated Aqkitss Northeast Side F $ F) T, 336 TOTAL PARKING SPACES HIGH FENCE o (56) J L 4j'HIGHi3EIiM COAST HIGHWAY '. 1001��91P ro CONSTRUCT NEW CURB RETURN THIS SIDE A91 Sf of Public Access to and from Armstrona Nurst A j Palisades T E N N I S C L U B February 10, 2012 Ms. Nancy Gardner, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Tennis in our City and NBCC Dear Mayor Gardner: RECEIVED A2 FEB 13 AM Ii: 51 C lnr M THE CFY CLERK Cm' CF ' 71117CT B-Y,H I know you share my desire to keep Newport Beach a Mecca for tennis players. As you know several years ago we lost the Marriott Tennis Club to residential uses. Unless the City Council Vote of January 24 is somehow altered I am convinced that The Tennis Club at Newport Beach Country Club will be lost to residential. I have eight years remaining on my land lease at Palisades Tennis Club, which is on two separate parcels of land. The Hyatt Hotel has indicated they are going to extend my sub- lease with them until 2048 and the Hyatt parcel has 6 of my 15 courts and 100% of the parking. Additionally, the only ingress and egress to my facility is through the Hyatt. The owner of the second parcel of land, Russ Fluter, has given me signals that he intends to seek residential which would eliminate 9 tennis courts and the tennis clubhouse needed for our 600 members at Palisades. Robert O'Hill grew up playing golf and tennis in our City. His plan is to spend nearly $5 million on a new tennis clubhouse with a fitness area, new stadium court for tennis events in our City as well as to re- fence, relight and resurface all the courts. Millions of dollars of improvements will not only reenergize that club, which it definitely needs, but will save it from meeting the fate of the Marriott Tennis Club which is what Mr. O'Hill's co- owners want to do with the property in question. I would like to summarize my comments to you and the City Council regarding the tennis aspects of the proposed redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club Racquet Club (The Tennis Club) facility and perhaps clarify a few items that were brought up during the session and mentioned the next day in the Daily Pilot. Namely, existing tennis members' displacement and concerns about traffic. I submit the following: 1. Comments that there would be "displacement" of current members, ladies league teams and tournaments. ❑ Two existing Tennis Club members publicly stated that there are currently approximately 300 members, however, I have also been told there are less 1171 Jamboree Road • Newport Beach • California • 92660 • Tel: 949.644.6900 • Fax: 949.644.2329 www.palisadestennis.com than 250 Members. Either way, using the Tennis Industry Associations guidelines for private clubs of 45 memberships per court it would interpret into 315 memberships. Therefore if all the existing members were to continue as members of the proposed facility none would be displaced. o One gentleman commented that ladies leagues would be lost to the facility forever. The current facility has only two Pacific Sun League teams and one Hill & Canyon team. Here at Palisades we have eight ladies league teams and our facility is one -half the size. All ladies leagues use four courts at one time and one team always plays at home while the other is playing away from the facility as well as on different days. Therefore, not one team nor one person would be affected by the change. In fact with a new facility I would guess that more women would be inclined to choose to represent their club in these leagues. • This same person made public continent that there were 100 tournaments that could be displaced. That is absurd in that there are only a handful of tournaments in the city none of which would be affected. The single largest charity tournament, the Adoption Guild, uses the Newport Beach Tennis Club as its base and all other clubs in the area contribute about a half dozen courts to the charity as ancillary venues. I would assume that this practice would certainly continue at the new facility. • As to the traffic impact of the reduced size of the tennis facility and the addition of the bungalows and five single family homes I believe it would be far less than the city had planned for and approved when the tennis court expansion moved forward in the 1970's from 12 courts to 27 courts. Using the club membership guidelines and allowing for the number of people using or residing in the homes or bungalows the traffic impact would not come close to the previously planned and allocated levels appro—A and plsr:ned for when the facility expanded in the 1970's. I firmly believe that the re- development proposed by Mr. O Hill will significantly reduce traffic. ❑ Part of the almost $1 million in City revenue from the proposed bungalows could find a children summer tennis camp in the city. And there will be no shortage of courts for children summer academies in Newport Beach. As I mentioned at the Council meeting if the proposal had been to completely eliminate the facility I would have appeared before the City Council in a completely different light, fighting to keep it alive and operating. I commend Mr. O'Hill for his vision of maintaining the tennis club and significantly enhancing the facility for the members, prospective members and the City for years to come. Please call me if I can be of assistance or if you have any other questions. I appreciate your time. Please do what you can to not delay any longer and to save the promised millions of dollars of improvement to The Tennis Club from being lost along with the tennis club itself. Sincer KEN STUART, Owner