Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Newport Beach Country Club_PA2005-140CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 17, 2011 Agenda Item: 2 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008 • Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002 • Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 • Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 • Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 • Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 • Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001 APPLICANT: Golf Realty Fund, Property Owner PLANNER: Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner (949)644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov INTRODUCTION On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application submitted by the Golf Realty Fund to redevelop the existing golf clubhouse and tennis club. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission expressed general acceptance of the proposed development located on the tennis club portion of the project site (bungalows, villas, tennis courts and tennis clubhouse). The Commission did not provide specific direction regarding the applicant's proposal as it relates to the golf clubhouse and associated parking lot. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment PC1) recommending to the City Council: a) Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, an Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b) Approval of Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the entire 145 -acre project site; c) Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 as proposed by the applicant; d) Approval of Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund November 17, 2011 Page 2 improvements to the 12 -acre tennis club portion of the project site reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the 133 -acre golf course portion of the project site; e) Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and f) Approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. DISCUSSION Environmental Review— Mitigated Negative Declaration The draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, responses to comments received, an Errata to the MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached to the prior reports. The Commission requested clarifications as to whether there would be potential significant impacts to land use compatibility and aesthetic impacts of the two (2) projects as proposed by the applicant and NBCC, Inc. The potential land use conflicts between the two (2) projects have been adequately addressed through NBCC's redesign of the project, which includes increased physical separation between the proposed structures as well as enhanced landscaping to provide adequate screening. The architectural styles proposed for the applicants' golf clubhouse ( "California Coastal" versus "Americana Prairie ") are distinctly different and a matter of preference, and they do not constitute a significant land use conflict nor create incompatibility between land uses under CEQA guidelines. No significant land use conflicts or incompatibility is anticipated. Response to Commission's comments have been revised and attached as Attachment PC2. Staff believes that the environmental record is adequate, complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and all potential impacts of the project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. If the Commission concurs, staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the environmental document. Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) — Adoption of Staff Alternative The draft PCDP encompasses the entire 145 -acre golf club and tennis sites (Attachment PC3). It provides use and development standards for the golf course, a 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse including ancillary maintenance facilities, 27 hotel rooms (Bungalows) including the ancillary spa and meeting rooms, five (5) single - family homes (Villas), seven (7) tennis courts, and a 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse. The draft PCDP does not set forth an architectural style for any development and it does not fix the design of the parking lot for the golf course and clubhouse. The final architectural Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund November 17, 2011 Page 3 design and the parking lot configuration would be a component of a Site Development Review application. Transfer of Development Intensity During the October 20, 2011, hearing on the project, the owner of the Marriott Hotel property, Host Hotels and Resorts, proposed a "use conversion solution" as an alternative to the applicant's request for a transfer of development intensity. The alternative approach was based upon the eliminated tennis courts' (17) development intensity being converted to hotel rooms or building floor area. Although traffic is not an issue, staff does not believe the conversion of tennis courts to building floor area is consistent with the General Plan, as there is no available building floor area or hotel room allocation in this General Plan Anomaly area. The attached memorandum provides additional detailed analysis (Attachment PC4). Site Development Review The applicant has prepared two (2) comparison site plans (with and without a guard house and perimeter fencing) to illustrate that the applicant's parking lot layout would work with the larger clubhouse proposed by NBCC, Inc. (Attachment PC5). These comparison site plans are not proposed or requested for approval by the applicant. Both comparison plans provide for the larger NBCC, Inc. clubhouse and required parking. It is not known whether the grades would work and additional information would be necessary to potentially implement such a plan. These plans have been forwarded to NBCC, Inc. and they have indicated that these plans would not work for them. If the Commission wishes to consider NBCC's application for a proposed golf clubhouse and parking lot at a subsequent public hearing, staff recommends that the Commission approve the applicant's Site Development Review application as it relates to the tennis club portion of the site. It would include the 27 hotel rooms (Bungalows) including the ancillary spa and meeting rooms, five (5) single - family homes (Villas), seven (7) tennis courts, and a 3,725 square -foot clubhouse. The golf course, including its ancillary maintenance facilities, the golf clubhouse, including its associated parking lot, the entry drive, and landscaping along Coast Highway would be reserved for future consideration. Vesting Tentative Tract Map The applicant's proposed vesting tentative tract map subdivides tennis club site portion of the project site. It would create separate lots for the five (5) single - family homes, a lot for the proposed hotel, a lot for the tennis club facility, several open space lots, and a lot encompassing the proposed private street that would serve the hotel and homes. Findings for approval of the map are provided in the draft resolution for Planning Commission to consider. Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund November 17, 2011 Page 4 Limited Term Permit Should the Planning Commission choose to approve only the tennis club portion of the project site, the approval of limited term permit would only be applicable to the temporary modular buildings proposed to accommodate on -going tennis club operation during the 18 -month construction period. Development Agreement The draft development agreement and a discussion of its contents are provided in a separate report, Prepared by: r%jsalinh Ung. Ass ate Planner Submitted by: James Campbell, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution PC 2 Revised Response to Planning Commission on Draft MND PC 3 Draft Planned Community Development Plan PC 4 Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area or Hotel Rooms Memorandum PC 5 Comparison Site Plans F: \USERS \PLN \Shared\PA's\PAs - 2008\PA2008- 152 \PC Staff Report.docx Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2010 -008 AND APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION NO. PC2005 -002, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY NO. 2010 -003, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 2005- 003, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD2011 -002, LIMITED TERM PERMIT NO. 2011 -004, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2008 -001, FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 & 1602 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2005 -140) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Golf Realty Fund, with respect to property located at 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway, and legally described as Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704 and a Portion of Back Bay Drive as Shown on Parcel Map No. 79 -704, requesting an approval to redevelop the existing private golf course and tennis club of the Newport Beach Country Club. The following applications are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. A Planned Community Development Plan adoption to provide development standards and design guidelines for the golf course and tennis club and their ancillary uses, pursuant to Chapter 20.63 of the Municipal Code. b. Transfer of Development Rights to transfer 27 hotel units from Anomaly No. 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa site) to Anomaly No. 46 (the Tennis Club site), pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policies LU4.3 and LU6.14.3. C. A Site Development Permit to allow the construction of 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse and parking lot, twenty -seven (27) hotel units with a 2,170 square - foot concierge and guest meeting facility and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness center, five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, a 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse, and one lighted stadium - center tennis court, pursuant to the Section 4.3 of the Newport Beach Country Planned Community Development Plan. d. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate lots for five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, twenty (27) hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and a private street, pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. e. A Limited Term Permit (Temporary Structures and Uses) to allow temporary use of structures during construction pursuant to Section 20.60.015 of the Municipal Code. Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 32 f. A Development Agreement pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.c of the Municipal Code which requires a development agreement as the project includes a zoning code amendment and new non - residential development in Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center /Fashion Island) and General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.14.8 which requires a development agreement since the proposed project is a mixed -use development project and the proposed five (5) single - family units will be drawn from the 450 residential units allocated for the Newport Center /Fashion Island. 2. The application was deemed complete on November 5, 2009; and pursuant to Ordinance No. 2010 -21, the application is being considered and evaluated pursuant to the Zoning Code in effect prior to November 25, 2010. 3. The subject property is designed by the General Plan Land Use Element category of Parks and Recreation (PR) for the Golf Club site and Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) for the Tennis Club site. The project site is zoned Planned Community (PC -47) Zoning District. 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone and has the Coastal Land Use Plan designates the site Parks and Recreation (PR) for the Golf Club site and Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) for the Tennis Club site. 5. Public hearings were held on August 4, 2011, October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on September 20, 2010, and ending on October 19, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 3. An Errata has been prepared which clarifies and augments data in the document in responses to comments, and supports the conclusions reached in the draft MND. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c), recirculation of the MND is not required when new information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 32 4. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. 5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as follows: a. The project site is located within Newport Center /Fashion Island. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the golf club site Parks and Recreation (PR) and the tennis club site Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3/PR). The PR designation allows active public or private recreational uses including parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The MU -H3 /PR designation on the Tennis Club site provides for the horizontal intermixing of regional commercial office, hotel, single - family and multi - family residential and ancillary commercial uses. b. The General Plan limits total development at the Golf Club site to 35,000 square feet (Anomaly No. 74) and 3,725 square feet and 24 tennis courts at the Tennis Club site (Anomaly No. 46). Residential is also permitted in Anomaly No. 46, in accordance with MU -3 /PR designation. The proposed new golf clubhouse is consistent with the General Plan development limit of 35,000 square feet. The existing 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse will be replaced with a new tennis clubhouse of same the square footage established for Anomaly No. 46. The five (5) single -unit dwellings will be drawn from the maximum 450 dwelling units that are allowed in the Newport Center /Fashion Island Statistical Area (there are unallocated 20 units remaining at this time). Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 32 d. In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 hotel -unit development (bungalows), the applicant is requesting a transfer of 27 un -built hotel units from Anomaly No. 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa site) to Anomaly No. 46 (Tennis Club site). The proposed transfer is permissible in accordance with General Plan Land Use Policies LU4.3(d) and LU16.14.3. e. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Golf Club portion of the project site as Parks and Recreation (PR), and the Tennis Club portion of the project site is designated as Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR). The MU -H3 /PR designation recognizes the private recreational tennis courts and the potential development of short-term rental visitor accommodations and single - family residential units. Policy 2.1.8 -1 allows the horizontal intermixing of short - term rental units and single - family homes with the expanded tennis club facilities. Permitted uses include those permitted by the MU -H3 and PR categories. MU -H3 allows horizontally distributed mix of uses, which may include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, and /or buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses. PR category allows active public or private recreational use including parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The adoption of planned community district development plan (PCDP) will ensure building design and siting regulations will protect coastal resources, including protection of views, and public access through height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, building bulk, and improved pedestrian access in accordance with Policy 2.2.2 -4. The proposed project will provide visitor - serving and recreational facilities as required in Policy 2.3.2 -2. The proposed redevelopment of the project site is therefore consistent with the Coastal Land Use designations. f. The subject property has a zoning designation of Planned Community (PC -47). This PC zoning designation was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10, as a part of the City -wide amendment to the districting maps, in order to be consistent with the 1988 General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code. The City later assigned the PC with a number of 47 for tracking purposes. A Planned Community Development Plan (development regulations), was not adopted when the PC District zoning designation was assigned to the subject property. The Tennis Club is governed separately by Use Permit No. 1492 and its' subsequent amendments, which is typical when a PC does not have development standards. No use permit was issued on the Golf Club site. g. The applicant proposes a PCDP to provide use regulations, density, and intensity of the proposed uses and very specific development regulations (building height, square footage, setbacks, and parking standard) for each use, including architectural styling and a complete internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system for both the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites. Because the proposed PCDP contains detail and design regulations that are too specific and Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 5 of 32 provide inflexible standards that are inappropriate for the project implementation and long -term administration, an alternative PCDP has been prepared. h. The alternative PCDP contains necessary development regulations to accommodate the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites as a single, cohesive and comprehensive large -scale planned development. The alternative PCDP also provides a requirement that a site development review process be completed for construction of any new major building structure (i.e. clubhouse, residential dwelling unit, hotel unit, spa facility, etc.), and would require consideration and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of grading or building permit to ensure new development proposals within the PCDP are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the standards set for in the adopted PCDP. 2. Transfer of Development Intensity. General Plan Land Use Policy LU4.3 lists a number of criteria for transfer of development rights. In particular, transfer of development rights in Newport Center /Fashion Island (Statistical Area L1) is governed by Policy LU6.14.3. In accordance with General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.14.3, development rights may be transfer within the Newport Center /Fashion Island with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the finding that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Finding: A. The transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The transfer of 27 hotel rooms from Anomaly Area 43 to Anomaly Area 46 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan as follows: a. The donor site (The Marriott Hotel) has a General Plan Land Use designation of CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) and the site is developed with 532 -room resort hotel. The transfer of 27 un -built hotel units would reduce future development potential from 611 hotel units to 584, without some future transfer of development intensity in Anomaly No. 42. The recipient site (the Tennis Club site) is designated MU -H3 /PR that allows commercial uses including hotels, residential uses and recreational uses. The transfer is consistent with the MU -H3 and PR designations and doe not increase the overall development intensity in Statistical Area L1. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pace 6 of 32 Finding: B. The transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The twenty -seven hotel units generate 15 A.M., 16 P.M. and 221 average daily trips based upon Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Rates (7th Edition). This increase in traffic is entirely off -set by the traffic associated with the elimination of 17 tennis courts (22 A.M, 56 P.M and 658 average daily trips based upon ITE Trip Generation Rates). As a result, traffic generated by the proposed project would decrease by 389 daily trips, 3 A.M. trips, and 35 P.M. trips. B -2 The design regulations for the hotel rooms set forth in the Planned Community Development Plan will ensure that the proposed hotel use and the physical improvements for the hotel rooms will not lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic - generating uses. 3. Site Development Review — The applicant proposes a Site Development Review to allow the redevelopment of the existing golf clubhouse and tennis club, pursuant to the Section 4.3 of the PCDP. Finding: A. The Site Development Plan shall be in compliance with all other provisions of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. A site development review application has been submitted in accordance to Section 4.0 of the draft PCDP. The portion of the application that applies to the 12 -acre tennis club site meets the intent specified in Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review) of the Municipal Code as the portion of the site based upon the plans provides a coordinated and comprehensive project and will result in a superior built environment thereby creating an amenity for the community. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. Finding: B. The Site Development Plan shall be compatible with the character of the neighboring uses and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pace 7 of 32 Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The portion of the application that applies to the 12 -acre tennis club site includes California Coastal architecture, landscaping components, circulation design, all other project components reflected in the site development review application for the development of the tennis club site are compatible with the character of the neighboring uses and surrounding sites. As a result, the proposed development for the tennis club site is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and the City. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. Finding: C. The Site Development Plan shall be sited and designed to maximize of aesthetic quality of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan as viewed from surrounding roadways and properties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on East Coast Highway. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. The portion of the application that applies to the 12 -acre tennis club site provides one and two story building masses that are carefully sited and represent a comprehensive and coordinated plan. The size, mass and location of structures, the architectural detailing, landscaping, circulation, and signage maximize the aesthetic quality of the project. The proposed villas and bungalows are located over 300 feet from East Coast Highway and adequate landscaping and open space separate the proposed development from East Coast Highway. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. Finding: D. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The site plan proposed for the tennis club site and layout of its buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping, and other site features maximize the functionality of the proposed uses, while avoiding conflicts between uses and activities. The villas, bungalows, tennis club, and each of their related amenities have been carefully designed and sited to function cohesively not only with each other, but also with the existing adjacent golf club uses. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 32 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The applicant proposes a vesting tentative tract map on the Tennis Club site to create separate lots for the five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, twenty -seven (27) hotel units, the tennis club facility, their common open space areas and a private street to support the propose uses. In accordance with Section 19.12.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and the following finding and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Findings A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The project is consistent with the Parks and Recreation designation for the golf club site and Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) designation for the tennis club site. A -2. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and finds it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. A -3. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. The project site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed development. There are no topographic /geologic constraints. B -2. The subject site is located in Newport Center /Fashion Island and currently improved with a private golf course (Newport Beach Country Club) and a private tennis club (former Balboa Bay Racquet Club). Given its location which is adjacent to the Fashion Island mixed -use of retail, office, and residential development and major road intersections, this site is ideal for the development of recreation and mixed use development as allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element. Findings C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 9 of 32 nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and supports a finding that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. Finding: D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The proposed Tract Map is for the subdivision parcels in order to accommodate the development of the tennis club and courts, five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, and twenty -seven (27) hotel units on the tennis club site. All construction for the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. D -2. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. D -3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. Finding: E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: E -1. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 10 of 32 Finding: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act since the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres. Finding: G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision- making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: G -1. The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. G -2. The project is not located within a specific plan area Finding: H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: H -1. The proposed Tract Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: I. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 11 of 32 Facts in Support of Finding: 1 -1. The proposed Tract Map does not involve the elimination of residential units and therefore will not affect the City's ability to meet it's share of housing needs. Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: J -1. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing commercial use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. J -2. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Findinq: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: K -1. The subject property is located in the Coastal Zone and is not located in proximity to nor provides public access to any beaches, shoreline, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks or trails. The existing recreational uses (golf course and tennis club) are private and the elimination of 17 tennis courts does not impact use of public recreational opportunities. 5. Development Agreement — According to General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU6.14.8, a development agreement is required since the proposed project is a mixed - use development project and the proposed five (5) single - family units will be drawn from the 450 residential units allocated for the Newport Center /Fashion Island. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.c (Development Agreement Required) requires a development agreement as the project includes a zoning code amendment and new non - residential development in Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center /Fashion Island). The development agreement includes all the mandatory elements for consideration and includes public benefits that are appropriate to support conveying the vested development rights. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 12 of 32 SECTION 4. DECISION. 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002 for the entire project site, as depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003, Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 for the improvements to the tennis site only (twenty -seven (27) hotel units with a 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest meeting facility and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness center, five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, a 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse, and one lighted stadium - center tennis court) , and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 for the temporary modular buildings to be located on tennis site only, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C ", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. 6. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001 as attached as Exhibit "D" Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 13 of 32 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Charles Unsworth. Chairman 23 Bradley Hillgren, Secretary Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 14 of 32 EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (All references to the golf course or golf clubhouse are reserved for future consideration) sc/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Aesthetics Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. Tennis The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on Club Site: the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Approval of Prior to Phase 2 SC -1 Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the photometric pstudy issuance of Planning opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates building permit Golf Club Division an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land Site: uses or environmental resources. The Planning Phase 3 Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Agricultural and Forest Resources No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Air Qualit Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits air Tennis contaminants or other materials that cause injury, Club Site: detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable Periodic During Phases 1 -4 Community SC -2 number of persons or to the public, or which endanger monitoring construction Development the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such during activities Golf Club Department persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural construction Site: tendency to cause injury or damage to business or Phases 1-4 property to be emitted within the SoCAB. Tennis Club Site: Periodic Phases 1-4 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets During Community SC -3 requirements for dust control associated with grading construction Development and construction activities. during activities Golf Club Department construction Site: Phases 1 -4 Tennis Club Site: Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which Periodic During Phases 1 -4 Community SC -4 require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary monitoring construction Development construction equipment. during activities Golf Club Department Site: construction Phases 1 -4 Tennis Club Site: Periodic During Phases 1 -4 Community SC -5 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets monitoring construction Development limitations on ROG content in asphalt. during activities Golf Club Department Site: construction Phases 1 -4 Tmplt: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 15 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Tennis Club Site: Periodic During Phases 2 -4 Community SC -6 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets monitoring construction Development limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings, during activities Golf Club Department Site: construction Phases 2-4 Submit Tennis Adherence to Title 24 energy - efficient design evidence of Club Site: requirements as well as the provision of window compliance Prior to Phases 2-4 Building SC -7 glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods during issuance of Golf Club Division in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform building plan building permits Site: Building Code. check Phases 3-4 process Biological Resources No significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required. Cultural Resources A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event that cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery Tennis shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find Submit proof Club Site: has been salvaged. The area surrounding any cultural of qualified Prior to Phase 2 SC -8 materials or fossils encountered during grading shall archaeologic issuance Planning also be investigated to determine the extent of the site. al/ grading grading permit m Division Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project paleontologi Golf Club Site: construction shall be prepared to a point of identification cal monitor and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, Phase 1 along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Tennis The City shall provide an opportunity for a Native Club Site: Phase 2 American representative to monitor excavation activities. Submit proof Prior to MM- The representative shall be determined by the City based of Native issuance of Planning 1 on input from concerned Native American tribes (i.e., American grading permit Golf Club Division Site: " Gabrielino, Juaneo, and Tongvas). observer Phase 1 Geology and Soils Tennis Club Site: All grading operations and construction shall comply Periodic During grading Phases 1 -4 with the applicable City of Newport Beach Grading monitoring and Building SC -9 Code and Grading Manual and the most recent version during construction Golf Club Division Site: of the California Building Code. grading and operations construction Phases 1 -4 Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 16 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Tennis Club Site: SC- Prior to issuance of the grading g g permit, an erosion Approval of Prior to Phases 1 -3 Building 10 control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the erosion issuance of Golf Club Division City's Building Division. control plan grading permit Site: Phases 1-4 Submittal of Tennis soils Club Site: SC- Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall engineering Prior to Phase 2 Building 11 submit a soil engineering report and final geotechnical report and issuance of Golf Club Division report to the City's Building Division for approval. final grading permit Site: geotechnical Phase 2 report The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in "Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for the NBCC Planned Community' (April 25, 2008) and "Report of Tennis Geotechnical Studies and Review of Vesting Tentative Club Site: Tract Map No. 15347" (May 2, 2008) prepared by GMU Submittal of Prior to Phase 2 MM- Geotechnical that address site grading, site clearing, geotechnical issuance of Building 2 compaction, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral reports grading permit Golf Club Division Site: pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, Phase 1 surface drainage, landscape maintenance, etc. The Building Division shall review the grading plan to ensure conformance with recommendations contained in the final geotechnical report. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tennis Submit Club Site: evidence of Phase 2 SC- compliance Prior to Building 12 All new buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements. during issuance of Golf Club Division Site: building plan building permit check Phase 3 process Tennis Club Site: Submit Prior to Phase Planning SC- Water conservation design features shall be evidence of issuance of Division and 13 incorporated into building and landscape designs. compliance building permit Golf Club Public Works Site: Department Phase 2 Tennis Submit Club Site: evidence of Phase 2 PDF Design of buildings shall take into account the location compliance Prior to Building -1 of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency during plan issuance of Golf Club Division Site: and incorporate natural ventilation. check building permit Phase 2 process Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 17 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Submit Tennis evidence of Club Site: compliance Prior to Phase PDF The buildings shall incorporate energy- conservi ng during issuance of Building -2 heating and lighting systems. building plan building permit Golf Club Division Site: check Phase 2 process Submit evidence of Tennis compliance Club Site: during Phase 2 Planning PDF The project shall incorporate fast - growing, low water landscape Prior to Division and 3 use landscape to enhance carbon sequestration and plan review issuance of Golf Club Public Works reduce water use. and upon building permit Department Site: field Phase 2 verification Hazards and Hazardous Materials Prior to any disturbance of the construction materials within the Golf Clubhouse and /or the Tennis Clubhouse, a comprehensive asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM and /or LBP or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall Tennis be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Proper Submit ACM Prior to Club Site: SC- safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM and and LBP issuance of Phase 2 Building 14 LBP shall be followed in accordance with federal, state survey and demolition Division and local regulatory requirements federal and California site permit for Golf Club Site: Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), inspection buildings and Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule Phase 3 1403, which sets forth specific procedures and requirements related to demolition activities involving asbestos containing materials and SCAQMD Regulation X - National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart M - National Emission Standards For Asbestos, which include demolition activities involving asbestos. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the Periodic Tennis California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, which Club Site: provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, monitoring during During demolition, Phases 1-4 Building 1 15 5 respiratory protection, and good working practice by demolition grading and Division workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and site excavation Golf Club Site: and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the inspection Phases 1 -4 California Health and Safety Code. Hydrology and Water Quality Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Tennis Building SC- applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent Submit Prior to Club Site: Division and 16 (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the State Water evidence of issuance of Phase 2 Public Works Quality Resources Control Board for coverage of such NOI filing grading permit Department future projects under the General Construction. Activity Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 18 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of Golf Club Site: construction activity at a future site. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Phase 1 Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The WQMP Tennis shall specifically identify Best Management Practices Club Site: (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant Prior to Phase 2 Building SC- runoff, including flow /volume -based measures to treat Approval of issuance Division and 17 the "first flush." The WQMP shall identify at a minimum WQMP Public Works the routine structural and non - structural measures radin m gg permit Golf Club Department Site: specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of Phase 1 the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will establish Submit Tennis BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion and SWPPP Club Site Building SC- prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site. Prior to Phase 2 Division and 18 The project shall also incorporate all monitoring Approval of issuance of Public Works elements as required in the General Construction erosion and grading permit Golf Club Department Site: Permit. The project applicant shall also develop an sediment erosion and sediment control plan to be reviewed and control plan Phase 1 approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading permit. Tennis Club Site: Future site grading and construction shall comply with Submit During grading Phases 1-4 Building SC- the drainage controls imposed by the applicable evidence of and Division and 19 building code requirements prescribed by the City of compliance comp construction Golf Club Public Works Site: Newport Beach. and site activities Department inspection Phases 1-4 Land Use and Planning No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mineral Resources No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Noise Tennis Club: Show on Phases 1 -4 During rock crushing operations, a temporary barrier grading During rock MM- using a pile of accumulated demolition debris or a plans and p crushing Golf Club Building Site: 3 sound blanket shall be used if a direct line of sight site operations Division exists between the crusher and any off -site homes. Phases 1-4 inspection Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 19 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Tennis Show on Club Site: MM- All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall grading During Phases 1 -4 Building 4 be equipped with properly operating and maintained plans and construction Golf Club Division muffling devices. site activities Site: inspection Phases 1-4 Tennis Submit Club Site: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a construction construction Prior to Phases 1 -4 Community MM- schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential schedule issuance of Development 5 project- related and cumulative construction noise and site grading permit Golf Club Department Site: levels. inspection Phases 1-4 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of Tennis Club Site: the construction schedule for the proposed project, and Submit Phases 1 -4 MM- shall keep them informed on any changes to the evidence of Prior to Building 6 schedule. The notification shall also identify the name compliance issuance of Golf Club Division and phone number of a contact person in case of and site grading permit Site: complaints. The contact person shall take all inspection Phases 1 4 reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Submit evidence of Tennis Heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) HVAC Club Site: equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be equipment Phases 2 -4 shown by computation, based on the sound rating of sound rating Prior to Community MM- the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A -weighted hted p p g (adjacent to issuance of Golf Club Development 7 sound pressure level of fifty (50) dBA or not to exceed residential building permit Department Site: an A- weighted sound pressure level of fifty -five (55) areas) Phases 2 -4 dBA. during building plan check process Population and Housing No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Public Services No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Recreation No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Transport ion/Traffic Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by Approval of Tennis the Public Works Department, which shall address construction Prior to Club Site: planning MM- issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak staging, commencement Phase 1 -4 Division and 8 traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking and of each major public Works parking, and safety. This plan shall identify the traffic control phase of Golf Club Department Site: proposed construction staging area(s), construction plan construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of Phases 1-4 vehicles that will occur during each phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 20 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods and to ensure safety. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes. The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase . The left turn pocket on Irvine Terrace at the Coast Construct Golf Club Site: MM- Highway shall be increased in length to a minimum of improvement Prior to Public Works 9 100 feet plus transition in order to adequately or provide issuance of Department accommodate left -turn movements. equivalent building permit Phase 3 bonds Utilities and Service Systems No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 21 of 32 1:11- 311M -3Y NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 22 of 32 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project- specific conditions are in italics) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003, Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 for the improvements to the tennis club portion of the project site only, and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, stamped and dated with the date of this approval (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 is approved for the development located on the Tennis Club site which consists of the subdivision of five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, twenty -seven (27) hotel units and related amenities, the tennis club facility, their common open space areas and a private street. 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 shall expire if the map has not been recorded within the term of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 is approved for the development of.: a. A 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse and one lighted stadium - center tennis court. b. Twenty -seven (27) hotel units with a 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest meeting facility, and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness center. C. Five (5) single -unit residential dwellings. d. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. The plans shall be revised to remove all representations of future development on the 133 -acre Golf Club site. 5. Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 is limited to the 12 -acre Tennis Club site and approved for the use of: a. Two (2) temporary modular buildings to accommodate on -going tennis club operation during the 18 -month construction of new golf clubhouse. The modular buildings shall be located on the existing tennis courts, shall not interfere with the construction activities or parking, and shall be removed from the Tennis Club site upon completion /occupancy of the new clubhouse. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 23 of 32 6. Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 shall expire unless exercised within the term Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 7. Any substantial change to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002, Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 and /or Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 or the processing of new permits. 8. A minimum of 28 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for The Tennis Club (tennis courts and clubhouse) as provided on the approved plans. 9. A minimum of two (2) enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for Was #A, B, and E and a minimum of three (3) enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for Villas #C & D, as provided on the approved plans. Additionally, each of The Villas (single -unit residential dwellings) shall be provided with an open guest parking space which can be located on the private driveway. 10. A minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for The Bungalows (27 -unit hotel development) as provided on the approved plans. 11. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 12. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 13. Should this business or property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 14. This Site Development Review and Limited Term Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed development, uses, and/ or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division and the Municipal Operations Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 24 of 32 permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 16. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 17. Prior to the final of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Planning Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plan. 18. Reclaimed water shall be used for all landscape areas. 19. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. 20. Watering of landscape areas shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.). 21. Water shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 22. Prior to issuance of any permit for development, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required. 23. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 24. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or Holidays. Tmplt: 03/08111 Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:0013M Between the hours of 10:OOPM and 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 24. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or Holidays. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 25 of 32 25. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 26. Storage outside of buildings or within the parking lot of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 27. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on- site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 28. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan and Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 29. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate vehicular sight distance is provided. 30. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan and Section 20.30.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" and up- lighting type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures. 31. The entire development shall not be excessively illuminated based on the outdoor lighting standards contained within Section 20.30.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 33. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits on the Tennis Club site the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of all lighting sources. 34. Kitchen exhaust fans for the clubhouses shall be installed /maintained in accordance Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 26 of 32 with the Uniform Mechanical Code and with pollution control units to filter and control odors. 35. The construction and equipment staging area for each phase of the development shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 36. A screen and security fence that is a minimum of six feet high shall be placed around the construction site during construction for each phase of the development. 37. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use for each phase of the development. 38. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 39. Prior to the issuance of any building, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees (i.e. school, in -lieu park, fair share, and transportation corridor agency), unless otherwise addressed separately in the Development Agreement. 40. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport Beach Country Club development including, but not limited to Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003, Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003, Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001, Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, and Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 41. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 27 of 32 42. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for development, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 43. Prior to issuance of grading permits for development, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 44. A list of "good house - keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long -term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 45. The applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows: Land Clearing /Earth - Moving a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with five percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily. C. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). e. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 28 of 32 f. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 mph. g. All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. h. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. j. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible. Paved Roads k. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall be paved. I. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. M. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Unpaved Staging Areas or Roads n. Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. FIRE DEPARTMENT 46. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for all new construction that exceeds 5,000 square feet in size, is located more than 150 feet from an approved fire access road, and /or based on occupancy classification. The sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL certified alarm service company. 47. All buildings may require a fire alarm system depending upon occupancy classification. 48. Fire hydrant(s) shall be provided every 300 feet along fire access road. The number and location of the fire hydrant shall be determined by the Fire Department. 49. Fire Department turnarounds shall have a minimum diameter of 80 feet with no parking allowed. 50. All elevators shall be gurney accommodating. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 29 of 32 51. The use or storage of portable propane heaters is prohibited. Heaters for future outdoor areas shall be fixed and plumbed with natural gas. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 52. The Final Tract Map shall be legible, scaled, dimensioned, and complete with all necessary pertinent information and details such as easement limits and descriptions; annotated lot lines, centerlines, and boundary lines; signature certificates; curve and line tables; etc. 53. The Final Tract Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said Map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Final Tract Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 54. Prior to recordation, the Final Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9- 330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 55. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to Final Tract Map recordation. 56. Easements for public emergency and security ingress /egress, weekly refuse service, and public utility purposes on all private streets shall be dedicated to the City. 57. No structures shall be constructed within the limits of any utility easements. 58. All easements shall be recorded as a part of the Final Tract Map. 59. All applicable fees shall be paid prior to the City approval of the Final Tract Map. 60. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the City approval of the Final Tract Map. 61. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All plan sheets shall be sealed and signed by the California licensed professionals responsible for the designs shown on the Plans. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 30 of 32 62. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 63. All storm drain and sanitary sewer mains shall be installed with MacWrap. 64. All runoff discharges shall comply with the City's water quality and on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. 65. New concrete sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb disabled access ramps, roadway pavement, traffic detector loops, traffic signal devices, and street trees shall be installed along the development's Coast Highway frontage. 66. Public improvements may be required along the development's Granville Drive frontage upon building permit plan check submittal. 67. All on -site drainage, sanitary sewer, water and electrical systems shall be privately owned, operated, and maintained. 68. All curb return radii shall be 5 -feet (5') minimum. 69. Each dwelling unit or bungalow building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection. 70. All overhead utilities serving the entire proposed development shall be made underground. 71. ADA compliant curb ramps shall be installed within the interior parking area. 72. The intersection of the public streets, internal roadways, and drive aisle shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD - 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs, and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24- inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 73. Any damage to public improvements within the public right -of -way attributable to on- site development may require additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 74. The parking lot and vehicular circulation system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Parking layout shall be per City Standard STD 805 -L -A and STD 805 -L -B. Parking layout shall be full dimensioned. On- street parking spaces shall be 8 feet wide by 22 feet long. Drive aisles to parking areas shall be 26 feet wide minimum. The one -way drive aisle adjacent to The Bungalow's Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 31 of 32 concierge office and guest meeting building shall be 14 feet wide minimum with no parking, otherwise the drive aisle shall be widen to accommodate parking. 75. Cul -de -sacs shall comply with City Standard STD-1 02-L and STD -103 -1 and shall have a minimum diameter of 80 feet curb to curb. MITIGATION MEASURES 76. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project. Tmplt: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 32 of 32 EXHIBIT "D" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Tmplt: 03/08111 Attachment No. PC 2 Revised Response to Planning Commission on Draft MND Response to Planning Commission Comments Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response to Comments - Golf Realty Fund Newport Beach Planning Commission August 4, 2011 (Revised November 17, 2011) PC Comments on the Golf Realty Fund (O'Hill) project: Comment No. f Address the land use impacts of the two projects (i.e., interface and cumulative impacts) Response to Comment No. 1 The relationship between the two projects ( "the GRF Plan" and "the IBC Plan ") has evolved in several respects. In reviewing this relationship, it is important to note that the IBC Plan includes only the golf clubhouse and the golf club parking lot, while the GRF Plan includes the golf areas, but also proposes Bungalows (hotel units), the Tennis Club (private recreational use), and the Villas (five single family residences) on property immediately adjacent to the golf club portion of the Planned Community. Potential land use conflicts between the IBC Plan and the GRF Plan were considered in the revised golf clubhouse in the IBC Plan. These revisions have resulted in greater physical separation between the golf clubhouse and GRF's proposed Bungalows, Tennis Club, and Villas. The porte cochere in the original IBC Plan was 260' from the GRF's closest Villa, while the revised IBC Plan shows the distance at 315'. The nearest Bungalow structure is now proposed to be 165 feet from the porte cochere, compared to approximately 128 feet in the previous IBC Plan. There also is a 95 -foot separation between the nearest Bungalow and the bag drop area near the porte cochere, compared to approximately 57 feet in the prior IBC Plan. In addition, IBC has modified the footprint of the golf clubhouse so that the nearest Bungalow structure will be about 131 feet from the clubhouse, or approximately the same distance as the prior IBC Plan (134 feet). When compared to the previously proposed IBC Plan, the increased physical separation of these uses, combined with the landscaping proposed for IBC's revised golf clubhouse, would "soften" the land use interface between IBC's proposed golf course clubhouse and GRF's proposed adjacent Bungalow and residential uses. As a result, potential land use conflicts between the two projects have been adequately addressed through redesign of the IBC project, which includes increased physical separation between the proposed structures as well as enhanced landscaping to provide adequate screening. Therefore, no significant land use conflicts or incompatibility is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The parking lot design of the two proposals differs in ways that the two applicants each believe are important. The IBC Plan shows parking lanes running perpendicular to the golf clubhouse, whereas the GRF plan shows those lanes running parallel to the golf clubhouse. The IBC Plan directs circulation for both automobiles and golf carts from the clubhouse area down ramps to the southern end of the parking lot in order to enter the parking lot circulation pattern. The GRF Plan provides access to the parking lot circulation pattern at the northern end of the parking lot closest to the golf clubhouse. IBC believes that its circulation pattern best serves the needs of its members and guests and will function efficiently and effectively, while GRF believes that its circulation pattern is more convenient for members and guests, will avoid congestion within the parking field and at the entrance to the Planned Community, and, therefore, will be more compatible with other uses (such as the Bungalows, Tennis Club, and Villas) within the Planned Community. Another area where questions have been raised with respect to compatibility between the plans is architectural style. The GRF Plan proposes consistent architectural style throughout the Planned Community, including the golf clubhouse, and specifically identifies "California Coastal" as the Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response to Planning Commission Comments Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) architectural theme. The IBC Plan proposes Prairie -style architecture for the golf clubhouse. While the character created by the two differing architectural styles is distinctly different, the difference does not constitute a significant land use conflict nor create incompatibility between land uses under CEQA. The issue of architecture is related to project design, which is subject to site plan and design review by the City and, ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council. As previously indicated, no significant land use conflicts and /or incompatibility would occur between the golf clubhouse proposed by IBC and the mixed use development (i.e., bungalow /spa, tennis club, and single - family residential) proposed to the east. Additionally, the size and location of the golf clubhouse differ in the two plans. Cross Sections comparing the GRF Plan with the IBC Plan illustrate the differences between the two projects. Exhibit 1 illustrates the relationship of GRF's proposed golf course clubhouse to the existing clubhouse when viewed from the east. Based on that comparison, the maximum height of the proposed clubhouse is 53' 6 ", compared to the approximately 22 -foot height of the existing clubhouse. GRF's proposed clubhouse is located approximately 424 feet north of East Coast Highway, or approximately 80 farther north than the existing clubhouse at 344 feet from that arterial. IBC's proposed clubhouse is approximately 300 feet from East Coast Highway and approximately 44 feet closer to East Coast Highway than the existing golf clubhouse. When viewed from East Coast Highway (refer to Exhibit 2), GRF's proposed clubhouse is approximately the same with as the existing clubhouse (i.e., 265 feet wide versus 262 feet wide), whereas IBC's proposed clubhouse is approximately 44% wider (378 feet wide versus 262 feet wide). The relative differences between the two proposed golf course clubhouses and the existing NBCC clubhouse is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Height/Width Analysis Comment No. 2 Assess the proposed Golf Realty Fund Planned Community Development Plan Response to Comment No. 2 The GRF Plan would amend the existing Planned Community No. 47 (Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community), which was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10. It is important to note that No. 47 that was assigned to the PC for the purpose of tracking and a Planned Community Development Plan was not adopted when the PC District zoning designated was assigned to the 145 -acre property, including the Armstrong Nursery property, which is not included as part of the proposed project. Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Existing Clubhouse GRF Clubhouse Proposal IBC Clubhouse Proposal Height at Peak 22 Feet +/- 53.5 Feet 52 Feet +/- Distanced from PCH 344 Feet 424 Feet 300 Feet Width as seen from PCH 262 Feet 265 Feet 378 Feet 'As measured from lowest existing grade directly below point. ZWidth measured parallel to East Coast Highway. SOURCE: Golf Realty Fund Comment No. 2 Assess the proposed Golf Realty Fund Planned Community Development Plan Response to Comment No. 2 The GRF Plan would amend the existing Planned Community No. 47 (Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community), which was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10. It is important to note that No. 47 that was assigned to the PC for the purpose of tracking and a Planned Community Development Plan was not adopted when the PC District zoning designated was assigned to the 145 -acre property, including the Armstrong Nursery property, which is not included as part of the proposed project. Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) - - - - - - - - - - rx -SE 1171 7ri- GOLFCOURSE P*KING COAST HIGHWAY GOLF CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION COMPARISONS \ FFAC;i COLN KI C' S Exhibit 1 Cross-Section Comparison - GRF Clubhouse and NBCC Clubhouse i tee aids Taal • as -,�nFd rr,,m r; aa H arwa, �sEJOa ng Z; de GOLF COURSE PARKING COAST HIGHWAY GOLF CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION COMPARISONS � a N L',% ?JnT Li AC! ! COL N i R) CLUB Exhibit 2 Cross Section Comparison - GRF Clubhouse and NBCC Clubhouse Response to Planning Commission Comments Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) The GRF Plan is intended to establish the development standards and design guidelines for the proposed project. As originally submitted, GRF's Planned Community Development Plan (the "GRF PCDP ") included use regulations, development density and intensity parameters for the proposed uses and very specific development regulations (e.g., building height, floor area, setbacks, and parking) for each of the proposed uses. (Note: The Tennis Club and Armstrong Nursery are currently governed separately by the use permits approved for each. ) The GRF PCDP prescribes specific architectural character and design for all of the structures, including the golf clubhouse, the Bungalows, the Tennis Club, and the Villas. In addition, the GRF PCDP also establishes detailed standards for the internal circulation, including pedestrian and vehicular systems proposed within the three distinct elements of the proposed project. Finally, the GRF PCDP, as originally submitted, includes the detailed site plan, elevations, and floor plans for each of the land use components, landscape plan and lighting plan. If adopted, the GRF PCDP will regulate development within the proposed project. Comment No. 3 Assess the potential impacts of eliminating 17 tennis courts Response to Comment No. 3 According to the property owner, the licensee of the existing private Tennis Club also operates two other Tennis Clubs. The Toluca Lake Tennis Club maintains 7 tennis courts that support a membership of 350 members, resulting in an average of 50 members for each tennis court. In addition, Palisades Tennis Club in Newport Beach, also with 7 courts, has a membership of 224 and a per court ratio of 32 members /court. The applicant has suggested a ratio of one tennis court for each 35 members. The current membership of the existing Tennis Club combined with the 7 tennis courts that are proposed to remain (i.e., elimination of 18 existing tennis courts and a new "center court") would yield a ratio of 31 members per court. Based on the recommended members -to- tennis courts ratio (35:1), the "proposed" Tennis Club could support 46 additional members, for a total of 245 members. As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated to occur. As indicated in the project description and above, implementation of the proposed project would result in the elimination of 18 of the 24 tennis courts that currently exist on the subject property, leaving only seven tennis courts, including one new "center court." As a private club, the existing tennis courts are not generally available for public play. While the club has allowed the Corona del Mar and Sage Hill tennis teams to use the facilities, use of the facilities by those teams was a temporary accommodation to allow the schools to complete work on their own courts. Nonetheless, as reflected in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan, "... private facilities, Including yacht clubs, golf courses, and country clubs are also facilities that serve residents of Newport Beach." As such, it may be true that private recreation facilities such as the existing tennis facility could serve to "offset," to some degree, the demand for public recreation through the availability of the private tennis courts to a limited segment of the population within the City of Newport Beach and nearby areas. According to the Newport Beach Recreation Element, two recreational service areas have adequate parkland and /or recreation facilities: Service Area No. 9 (Newport Center) and Service Area No. 11 (Harbor View). The proposed project is located within Service Area No. 9 as illustrated in Figure R11 in the Recreation Element. As of June 2005, two (public) recreational facilities exist within this service area, including the Back Bay View Park and the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, which together encompass 19.1 acres. Based on the 2005 population within this service area, a total of only 10.9 acres of parkland is required, resulting in a net surplus of 8.1 acres of public parkland in Service Area No. 9. Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response to Planning Commission Comments Newport Beach Country Club 6PA2005 -140) Although the existing tennis courts may provide some recreational opportunities within the service area, the (net) loss of 17 of the 24 tennis courts would not be considered a significant adverse impact. This is due to the fact that the ongoing use of the Tennis Club will continue to be limited to members and their guests and, as discussed above, are expected to adequately serve those needs. In addition, the elimination of the tennis courts is not considered to be significant in light of the Recreation Element determination that no deficiency in parkland and /or recreational facilities exists or is anticipated to occur within Service Area No. 9. As evaluated in the initial study and elaborated upon in various responses to comments, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and /or cause the substantial physical deterioration of any park facility. Furthermore, based on the findings in the Newport Beach Recreation Element, the project would not require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, for the reasons cited above, the reduction in the number of courts would not be expected to deprive the public of playing opportunities, overburden the club, or place an increased demand on public facilities. As a result, no additional recreational facilities beyond those identified above within the service area, including tennis facilities, are necessary within the designated recreational service area. Comment No. 4 Assess the aesthetic impacts of the elevations, perspectives, and cross sections for the project Response to Comment No. 4 The character of the proposed project is illustrated in several elevations. As indicated in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, GRF's proposed golf course clubhouse reflects a California Coastal architectural style. The proposed Bungalows, Tennis Club clubhouse, and Villas would reflect a similar character and style as illustrated in elevations shown in Exhibit 5 (Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa) and Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 (Villas - Plans A and B), resulting in a fully integrated character of each of the land use components within the Planned Community. The architectural style for all of the proposed Villa dwelling units will be similar to Units A and B. A panoramic view of the ocean is available from the top of Newport Center Drive circle straight ahead down Newport Center Drive towards Coast Highway. However, only "peek -a -boo" ocean view now exists from Newport Center Drive across the site of the Planned Community. Referencing Exhibits 8, 9, and 10, that narrow view occurs between the last Granville Condominium unit and the McMonigle Group office building (refer to Exhibit 8, "View from Point 10) and after the McMonigle Group office building located at the intersection of Newport Center Drive and the private Granville Road (refer to Exhibit 10, "View from Point 3 "). The improvements proposed by GRF would not result in any significant visual impact on the "View from Point 1," and only a barely perceptible change in the "View from Point 3" which would also have a less than significant impact on the visual /aesthetic character of the area. The GRF Plan would also result in less than significant impacts on the Public View Point in Irvine Terrace Park. The only significant public view from Irvine Terrace Park is oriented toward Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Because the NBCC PCD is located on the inland side of Coast Highway from Irvine Terrace Park, that view cannot and would not be impacted. Furthermore, the wall buffering Irvine Terrace Park from Coast Highway, together with the buildings in Corporate Plaza West and the existing landscaping, makes the Golf Club Parking Lot the only area within the Planned Community visible from Irvine Terrace Park (refer to Exhibit 11, "View from Point 4 "). The view of the Golf Club Parking Lot would be improved aesthetically as a result of a large landscaped berm along Coast Highway and four rows of perpendicular landscaping in the Golf Club Parking Lot. As a result, no significant visual impacts would Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005.140) Response to Planning Commission Comments Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) occur from this view location. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant visual impacts; no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005.140) AVRraW11•®ICr1Q1 GOLF CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS MATERIALS • smooth steel-troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean day roof We blend 98 with Italian pans and Cordova carers • Torrance steel window system LAN NBCC Funned Community EXHIBIT s e a 4 e 7' ARCMrTECTURE 5 Exhibit 3 Golf Course Clubhouse Elevations GOLF CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS MATERIALS • smooth steel-troweled eae6or plaster • tz Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system KEY PLA�N C n. NBCC Planned Community t e a r e a EXH181T ARCHITECTURE 5 4 OF 4 Exhibit 4 Golf Course Clubhouse Elevations B. VIEW FROM NEWPORT CENTER OIaVE ENTRY TENNIS CLUBHOUSE &BUNGALOW SPA ELEVATION MATERIALS -smooth steel- trovmled exterior plaster • Le Playa Beach stone • Gladdinp, McKean clay roottile blend 08mth Italian pens and Cordova covers • Torrancesteel vandovi system Exhibit 5 Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa Elevations NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t • a r a.BC- �'ECTt,eE a7 �aN+Y�.rRI'J'/�Gl Exhibit 5 Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa Elevations DOW n r g Nadk NAN v" ,,;jFlfi «�a PLAN A 0_5 1�� 9 THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN A 7101 _ square feet MATERIALS -Smooth steel - troweled enenor planer • La Playa Beach none • Gladding, McBean clay roof file blend •8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers LR I NBCC Planned Community a e • • • • EXHIBIT Exhibit 6 The Villas - Plan A Elevation CONCE"Szvx 0N5 PLAN A 0_5 1�� 9 THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN A 7101 _ square feet MATERIALS -Smooth steel - troweled enenor planer • La Playa Beach none • Gladding, McBean clay roof file blend •8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers LR I NBCC Planned Community a e • • • • EXHIBIT Exhibit 6 The Villas - Plan A Elevation �r MER none PUN e PLAN B A CdhKEr nflancxs i i F HE VILLAS- -- OOR PLANS & ELEVATICNS AN B 93 t square feet MATERIALS -smooth stee' :roweled warier plaster • Le Playa Beach stone • Madding. Mc Bean clay roof tiic blend >8 with Berkeley pans j and Cordova covers NBCC Planned Communiry R e a EXHIBIT 2 0: 5 Exhibit 7 The Villas - Plan B Elevation VIEW FROM POINT 1 Exhibit 8 View from Viewpoint 1 VIEW FROM POINT 2 Exhibit 9 View from Viewpoint 2 VIEW FROM POINT 3 I Exhibit 10 View from Viewpoint 3 VIEW FROM POINT 4 Exhibit 11 View from Viewpoint 4 Attachment No. PC 3 Draft Planned Community Development Plan Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Ordinance No. Adopted hnt TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................ ................................................... 4 7.0 General Conditions and RenU!@ti8DG............................... 5 3.0 Land Use and Development Regulations ............................. ........ 10 31 Golf Club 10 A. Golf Course 10 B Golf Clubhouse d Ancillary U 1� 1 P Building Area 10 7 Building Height ... 10 3 Permitted /\ ill [] .~ 10 4 Parking.� ... 11 5 Fencing .— .' 11 32 Tennis Club ` ..... ....� ' - - ------------ �� A. Tennis Courts ............. 11 1 Number of Courts ............. 11 B Tennis Clubhouse .—.—.,..,.. 12 1 Building Area ............. 12 2 Building Height.. h� ............... ~ . 17 �� 3 Permitted /\ ill .......--...--. 17 4 P .. ................... 12 33 The ....r...................... 17 ...............-........— 12 2� ,..~..—.—..,..,........ 12 34 The ........................... 13 �� ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^^^^^� it cilla USeS..................—.....--.' 13 3. ............ ........ .......... ,............ .......... 14 ................................� 14 acs ................... ........... ..................................... 14 ........................—..---.—..—. 14 ��� .......—..�—,�--,......�.............� 14 A—.,............... 14 B. 8| [ds ...... ........ 15 4.0 Site Development Review .... 1 6 4P1 Purpose ...... ....... ................. 16 4.7 Application ................ 16 4P3 FiDdiOgS..........—.-----......... 16 4A CODheDh3,.— ..... ... 17 4.5 PVbUCHe@hDg — ReqWiPBd NCtiC9............--,..'..'—..... 17 4,6 Expiration and Revocation Site Plan Review /\pp[VVals.. 18 4P7 Fees ............. —............ 18 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Name Exhibit Number VicinityAerial Map ................................................................. ............................... A Conceptual Master Site Plan ................................................. ............................... B LIST OF TABLES Table Name Page The Villas Development Standards ............. _ . 13 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (the PCD) is composed of the Golf Club, Tennis Club, Bungalows and Villas facilities, totaling approximately 145 acres. The PCD has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan and is consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The purpose of this PCD is to provide for the c lass ification.,and development of coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive planning project with limited mixed uses, including the private Golf Club, Tennis Club, 27 short terra rental units called the Bungalows with a spa /fitness area, and 5 semi-custom sngle,unit residential dwellings called the Villas. Whenever the regulations contained in the PCD Regulations conflict with,the regulations <, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the PCD Regulations shall take precedence. The Newport;Beach Municipal Code shall regulate all development within the PCD when such regulations are not provided within the PCD Regulations. rd 2.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS 1. Alcoholic Beverage Consumption The consumption of alcoholic beverages within the PCD shall be in compliance with the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A use permit shall be required if the establishment operates past 11:00 p.m. any day of the week and a minor use permit shall be required if the establishment operates until 11:00 p.m. any day of the week. 2. Amplified Music All amplified music played after 10:00 p.m. within interior of a building unless a Special Events Pear 3. Archaeological /Paleontological Resou Development of the site is subject to the provisions regarding archaeological and paleontological resoui 4. Architectural Design shall be confined within the Council Policies K -5 and K -6 All development shall be designed with high quality architectural standards and shall be compatible with the surrounding uses Th" evelopment should be well- designed with coordinated cohesive'`architecture and exhibiting the highest level of architectural and landscape quality ift0e, ping with the PCD's, rominent location in the Newport Center Planning Area Massmgoffsets, variation ofroof lines, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design accents onall b91 dmg''elevations shall be provided to enhance the architectural style. Architectural treatments for all ancillary facilities (i.e. storage, truck loading and nloadng, antl trash enclosures) shall be provided. 5. Buildi' ,Codes Construction shall comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code and the various other mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes related thereto as adopted by the Newport Beach.Municipal Code. 6. Exterior There shall be no exterior storage areas permitted with the exception of the greenskeeper /maintenance area which shall be enclosed by a minimum six foot plastered block wall. 5 7. Flood Protection Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City. 8. Grading and Erosion Control Grading and erosion control measures shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Excavation and Grading Code arid_ shall be subject to permits issued by the Community Development Department 9. Gross Floor Area Gross floor area shall be defined as the surrounding exterior walls. 10. Height and Grade The height of any structure within the PCD shall not otherwise specified. The height of a structure shall be th highest point of the structure and the grade directly below sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical dista midpoint of the roof plane, provided that no part of the r five (5) feet above the pgrmitted height Sin the h;ei amendments shall ;66 subject; to the review and Development Director 11. and drive development, reduce h adjacent land uses, and consist of a combination Landscaping shall be p Water- Efficient Landsca" installed in accordan'ee landscape architect:'* 12. Lighting — Outdoor of a building_;, including the exceed fifty (50) feet, unless eubtical distance between the In determining the height of a nce between the grade and the oof shall be extend more than ght limitation zone, and any approval of the Community on shalltbe provided in all areas not devoted to structures, Nalkways, .xand, tennis courts to enhance the appearance of the eaVs. and yglare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen preserve the integrity of PCD. Landscaping and irrigation shall of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements. k�r repared in accordance with the Landscaping Standards and ping Sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and with the approved landscape plans prepared by a licensed All new outdoor lighting shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to shield adjacent uses /properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent uses /properties. Lighting plans shall be prepared in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be prepared by a licensed electrical [y engineer. All lighting and lighting fixtures that are provided shall be maintained in accordance with the approved lighting plans. 13. Lighting — Parking & Walkways All lighting and lighting fixtures that are provided shall be maintained in accordance with the approved lighting plans. Light standards within parking lots shall be the minimum height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare onto adjoining uses /properties and roadways. Parking lots and walkways accessing buildings shall be illuminated with a minimum of 0.5 foot - candle average on the driving or walking surface during, the hours of operation and one hour thereafter. Lighting plans shall be prepared 'in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Section of the Newport Beach Muriic_ipal,Code and;;shall be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer. If the applicant wishes to deviate from this lligliting standard, a lighting plan may be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. _ 14. Loading Areas for N All loading and unloading of goods platforms and areas shall be screened 15. Parking Areas Parking spaces, driveways, m areas of the parking lots shall. the parkmg,_areas mcludmg=- -sari the parking lots shall be, perm; location; parking space and lot compliancewith the Dev Beach Municipal Code. W 16. Property 0' wner Ap onsite. Loading ring aisles, turnaround areas, and landscaping free.of'dust, graffiti, and litter. All components of .� avmg, wheel stops, walls, and light standards of maintained in good working condition. Access, sions, and parking lot improvements shall be in idards for Parking Areas Section of the Newport Written property owner approval shall be required for the submittal of any site development review' "application and /or prior to grading and /or building permit issuance. 17. Outdoor Paging Outdoor paging shall be permitted at the Golf Club to call individuals to the tees and at the Tennis Club to call points during tennis tournaments. 7 18. Sewage Disposal Sewage disposal service facilities for the PCD will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 and shall be subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees as prescribed by the Sanitation District. % 19. Screening of Mechanical Equipments All new mechanical appurtenances (e.g., air conditioning, heatiw,ventilation ducts and exhaust vents, swimming pool and spa pumps and filters transformers, utility vaults and emergency power generators) shall be screened from publicyiew and adjacent land uses. The enclosure design shall be approved by the Community Development Department. All rooftop equipment (other than vents,; <wind turbines, etc.) shall be architecturally treated or screened from off -site views in a manner compatible with the building materials prior to final building permit, clearance for each new or remodeled building. The mechanical appurtenances shall be subject #osound rating m- accordance with the Exterior Noise Standards Section of the Newportt. Beach Municipal Code. Rooftop screening and enclosures shall be subject to the, applicable height limit. 20. Screening of the Villas from Tennis Courts Adequate buffering between the Villas and tennis courts shall be provided and subject to the Site Development Review process, The exterior. perimeter of the tennis courts facing Granville Condomirnums Granville Drive, and the` Tennis Clubhouse parking lot shall be screened bye`a minimum ten foot high chain link fence covered by a wind screen. Wind screen shall be maintained in good condition at all time. 21. Screening of the Villas'.;Pool /Spa Equipment All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum five -foot high block wall plastered or otherwise textured to match the building. 22. Temporary speciacomm,'unity events, such as such as PGA Senior Classic golf tournaments Tea NTennis, Davis Cup Matches, and other similar events, are permitted in the PCD, and arp�'subject to the Special Events Chapter of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Temporary exterior storage associated with approved special events may be permitted provided it is appropriately screened and regulated with an approved Special Event Permit. L-1 23. Temporary Structures and Uses Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings for construction - related activities are permitted. 24. Trash Container Storage for Residential Dwellings- Trash container storage shall be out of view from public in the required parking areas. If trash container storage public view, they shall be screened from public view. Sc walls, and landscaping to a height at least 6 inches abov 25. Trash Enclosures for Non - Residential Uses All trash enclosures for non - residential uses shall be pi the Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage of Code. 26. Tennis Club Site Phasing The phasing plan for the tennis club bungalows shall be subject to a site d 27. Water Service and may not be located annot be located out of shall consist of fences, s of the containers. ;d and in accordance with Newport BeachyMunicipal tennis club, villas and Water service to the RCD will be provided by the City of Newport Beach and will be subject to applicable regulations permits and fees as prescribed by the City. (J 3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS I 3.1 Golf Club Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the golf course and clubhouse. A. Golf Course An 18 -hole championship golf course and related facilities (i.e. putting green, driving range, snack bar, starter shack, restroom faaties ,etc.). B. Golf Clubhouse and Ancillary 1. Building Area The maximum allowable gross floor -area =for'' ^a golf clubhouse building shall be 35,000 square feet, exclusive of -any enclosed golf cart storage areas ramp and washing area. The greens keeper /maintenance buildings, snack bar, separate golf course restroom facilities, starter shack, and similar ancillary buildings are exempt from this development limit. The maximum allowable building height for the Golf Clubhouse shall be 50 feet ia`nd shall be measured ir6accordance with the Height and Grade definition of,.Section 2,.,0 General Conditions and Regulation of the PCD. The following,anctllania ' usbs are allowed: •,, Golf shop, VM Admmistrive Offices • Dining and event areas • Kitchen.''`& Bar areas • Banquet Rooms • Men and Women's Card Rooms • Health and fitness facility • Restroom and Locker facilities • Golf Club storage areas • Employee lounge /lunch areas • Meeting rooms • Golf Cart Parking Storage and Washing Area • Separate Snack Bar 10 3.2 • Separate Starter Shack • Separate Golf Course Restrooms • Hand Carwash Area e Greenskeeper Maintenance Facility • Temporary Construction Facilities • Guard House • Others (subject to an approval of the Community Development Director) 4. Parking Parking for the Golf Course and Golf Clubhouse' shall be in accordance with following parking ratios (source: from Table 2 of;the Circulation and Parking Evaluation by Kimley -Horn andASaociates, September 2009 for Newport Beach Country Club - _Clubhouse Imp rove met_Project): Golf Course: 8 spaces per Golf Clubhouse: Dining, assembly- &, square feet Administrative Office Pro Shop: 4 per 1,00 Maintenance Facility: meeting rooms_°1_ per 3 seats or 1 per 35 1,000 "squuare feet 4 per V"000 square feet The,"destgn, of the parking lot :and orientation of vehicular aisles and parking spaces shall be subject;' °to the review and approval of the City Traffic, Engin6er0nd "Gommunity Development Director. 5. Courseperimeter fencing shall be wrought -iron with a maximum itted height of six (6) feet. Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the tennis courts and clubhouse. A. The Tennis Courts 1. Number of courts The maximum allowable tennis courts shall be seven lighted tennis courts (six lighted championship courts and one lighted stadium - center court). 11 093 B. Tennis Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses 1. Building Area The maximum allowable gross floor area for the Tennis Clubhouse shall be 3,725 square feet. 2. Building Height The maximum allowable building height for 30 feet, and shall be measured in accorda definition of Section 2.0 General Conditioris 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses The following ancillary uses • Tennis Shop • Administrative Offices.. • Concessions • Restroom and Locker facihties_ „_ • Storage areas • Spectator seating • Others (subject to an approval Direc or Q its Clubhouse shall be the Height and Grade ulations of the PCD. the Community Development se and Courts shall be a minimum of 28 Master Site Plan for the general location and The maximum allowable number of single - family residential units shall be five (5). 2. Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to the Villas: 12 The Villas Development Standards Table Villa Villa A Villa B Villa C Villa D Villa E Designation Lot TTM Lot #1 TTM Lot #2 TTM Lot #3 TTM Lot #4 #TTM Lot Size 5,000 square feet minimum Lot Coverage 65% (Maximum) 70% Building Height 39 feet, measured in accordance with., the Height and Grade definition of Section 2.0 General Gonddions and Regulations Building Side Yard 3 feet minimum Setbacks Building Front and Rear Yard 5 feet minimum Setbacks _ Enclosed Parking _ Space for Each 2 2 �3. 3 '� 2 Unit Open Guest one spaces could be located on the private driveway — No Parking Space for overhang to.the private street/cul -de -sac is allowed Each Unit 3.4. The Bunaalows A Refer to Exhibit, placement 11 f the 1. Number o The maximum �. rehtal units to be Y. 2 `,'R.ermitted The followin. warn B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and J bungal"s, concierge'and guest center, and spa facility. )le number of the Bungalows shall be 27 short -term guest in a clu tered setting of single and two -story buildings. uses are allowed: • Concierge office and guest meeting facility • Swimming pool and Jacuzzi • Spa facility that includes treatment rooms, fitness areas, and snack bar serving drinks, snacks and light breakfast and lunch items 13 3.5 3. Building Area The maximum allowable gross floor area for the bungalows shall be 28,300 square feet with a 2,200 square foot concierge & guest center and a 7,500 square -foot spa facility. 4. Building Height The maximum allowable building height for the measured in accordance with the Height and G General Conditions and Regulations of the PCD. 5. Buildinq Setbacks The setback requirement shall be a 6. Parking Parking for the bungalows shall be a min proximity to the use. Signs A. Sign Allowance shall be 31 feet, >n of Section 2.0 from arvrooertv line. 34 parking spaces located in 1 0-46 (T) single or =double- faced, ground- mounted entrance ~`identification sign shall bezallowed at Newport Beach Tennis Club's mam „entrance (Country '.Club Drive and Irvine Terrace). Total maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) square Meet and'`shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 2. One ",(1) smgle-` or double- faced, ground- mounted entrance identification sign shall be allowed at or near the vicinity of the Newport Beach Country Club's secondary entrance (Granville). Total maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) g,square feet and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 3. 'B,,'Oilding identification signs shall be allowed; one for each street `frontage. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of five (5) feet in height. The maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy (70) square feet. 4. Vehicular and pedestrian directional signs shall be allowed. This sign type may occur as a single -faced or double -faced sign. The sign shall be sized to allow for proper readability given the number of lines of copy, speed of traffic, setback off the road and viewing 14 distance. This sign type shall not exceed a maximum of six (6) feet in height. 5. One (1) single or double faced, ground- mounted identification sign shall be allowed at the entrance road to the Bungalows. Total maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) square feet and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and fifteen (15) feet in length. Sign Standards 1. The design and materials of all Beach Country Club Planned accordance with Sign Section 3 the Community Development;Di 2. All permanent signs shall Community Development 3. All signs shall be, subject to the to ensure adequate sight d provisions of the Newport-Bead 4. Sign illumination is permitted for;: constructed or installed-=to rotate, P illusion of motion, in any fashic signs in the Newport -"District shall be in herwise approved by a sign by the of the City Traffic Engineer in accordance with the ial -Code. types. No sign shall be blink or move, or create 5. All`jpermanent signs together with the entirety of their supports, bracesguys anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly smamta1 legible;= functional and safe with regards to appearance, stCUCturajA ntegrity and electrical service. 6. Temporary signs that are visible from any public right -of -way shall be allowed up to a maximum of sixty (60) days and subject to a tempoiry sign permit issued by the Community Development ,Department. 7 "'`If}the applicant wishes to deviate from the sign standards identified herein, a comprehensive sign program may be prepared or a modification permit application may be submitted for review and consideration by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15 4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 4.1 Purpose The purpose of the Site Development Review process is to ensure new development proposals within the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, provisions of this Planned Community Development Plan, the Development Agreement and the findings set forth belowin'sub- section 4.3. 4.2 Application An approval of Site Development Review, application by the Planning Commission shall be required for the construction of any new--,structure prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit or issuance of an approval in concept for Coastal Commission. Signs, , tenant irhproveni6nts to any existing` buildings, kiosks, and temporary structures are exempt frorrht b, site development review process and subject to the applicable City's permits. The decision of Planning Commission is the final, unless appealed in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, ri _ 4.3. Findings In addition to the genefal.. purposes setforth in sub section 4.1 and in order to carry out the purposes of` this chapter as established by said section, the Site Develop ment4l eyiew procedures est1blished by this Section shall be applied according to and iri',compliance with the following findings: 1. Pla Plan; with all other provisions of the The development shall be compatible with the character of the neighboring uses and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the or`,cierly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; 3. The `development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality';of? the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and properties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on Coast Highway; and 16 4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. 4.4. Contents The Site Development Review application shall include all of the information and materials specified by the Community Development Director and any additional information review by the Planning Commission in order_Jo conduct a thorough review of the project in question. The following plans /exhibits may include, but not limited to the following: 1. An aerial map showing the subject property, adjacent properties and identifying their uses. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4.5 Comprehensive elevations coordinated and complimenta A parking and circulation plan addition to streets and fire lane A comprehensive, A comprehensive location and color Comp ehensive to architecture;;,;land Iighting, and signs Text describing dr A statement that t of all exterioplighting Ian. for new - `structures with >ian, materials and colors. cart and pedestrian paths in ry landscape plan. lighting plan showing type, and graphics describing the design philosophy for the ipe architecture, material and textures, color palette, age and water quality mitigation measures. proposed new structure is consistent with the goals, is of the General Plan and Planned Community ng — Required Notice A public hearing shall be held on all site development review applications. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses, to owners of property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in 17 not less than two (2) conspicuous places on or close to the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 4.6 Expiration and Revocation Site Development Review Approvals 1. Expiration. Any site development review approved in accordance with the terms of this planned community development plan shall expire within twenty -four (24) months from the effective date of final approval as specified in the Time Limits and Extensions Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless at the time of approval the Planning Commission has specified a different period of time or an extension is otherwise granted. 2. Violation of Terms. Any site dev with the terms of this planned revoked if any of the conditions are violated or if any law or ordini 3. Public Hearing. The Planning Commi< any proposed revocation after giving least ten (10) days '�pnorn. to the recommendations to the City Council. within sixty (60) days after-receipt of`tl Commission. k .r 4.7. Fees The applicant shall_pa ew approved in accordance development, plan may be ich site development review :d in connection - therewith. 0- n shall hold a public hearing on nintten notice to the permittee at heanrjg, and shall submit its The City�Gouncil shall act thereon e recommendation of the Planning as established by Resolution of the Newport Beach aah. application for Site Development Review under MM W Attachment No. PC 4 Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area or Hotel Rooms Memorandum City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: James Campbell, Principal Planner Twca4�rt�l�/ Date: November 9, 2011 Re: Newport Beach Country Club — Golf Realty Fund Application Conversion of Tennis Courts to Hotel Rooms General Plan Consistency Determination During the October 20, 2011, hearing on the project, the owner of the Marriott Hotel property, Host Hotels and Resorts ( "Host "), proposed a "use conversion solution" as an alternative to the applicant's request for a transfer of development intensity. The alternative approach is based upon the assumption that the eliminated tennis courts' have a development intensity that can be converted to hotel rooms or building floor area. Host asserts that sufficient traffic capacity exists, that there is no limit to the number of hotel rooms in Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center), the conversion would not set a precedent, and there is no apparent constraint on conversion to a building (floor area). Although traffic is not an issue, staff does not believe the conversion of tennis courts to building floor area is consistent with the General Plan, the basis of staff's conclusion is described below. Traffic The applicant's proposed 27 -room hotel generates fewer average daily trips and peak hour trips than the traffic trips attributable to the 17 tennis courts that would be eliminated'. The net effect is an overall reduction of trips and the avoidance of any significant traffic impact2. Staff concurs that the conversion of tennis courts to hotel rooms would not create a traffic impact and no mitigation would be necessary. ' Traffic and Parking Analysis for Newport Beach County Club, Clubhouse Improvement and Tennis Improvement project, Kimly-Horn and Associates, August 2009. 2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Newport Beach County Club (PA2005 -140), Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, September 2010. 1 November 9, 2011 Hotel Limit within Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center) Host states that there is no overall General Plan limit to hotel rooms within Newport Center; however, staff believes that this assertion is only partially correct, because the construction of any new hotel rooms must be consistent with the overall non - residential development intensity established for Newport Center. There are two sites within Newport Center that have a specific allocation for hotel rooms; the Marriot Hotel property and the Island Hotel property. The MU -H3 land use category also provides an additional 65 rooms. Despite these specific allocations, other commercial sites within Newport Center are allowed to construct hotels provided the zoning or planned community development regulations permit hotels and the property has building floor area that is sufficient to accommodate the proposed hotel. Precedent The project site is within Anomaly Location #46, which specifically calls out a limit of 24 tennis courts and 3,725 square feet of building area. Staff believes the proposed conversion would set a precedent for other property since the conversion would create building floor area that is not provided in this Anomaly Location by the Land Use Element, as discussed further below. No Constraint to Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area Staff disagrees with Host's assertion that there is no constraint to converting tennis courts to hotel rooms or building floor area. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU4.1 establishes maximum development intensities3 through the Land Use Maps (Figures LU1 through LU15), specific land use categories (Table LU1), and the Anomaly Table (LU2). Development of the project must be consistent with the site's land use classification and may not exceed applicable development intensity limits.° However, Policies LU4.3 and 6.14.3 allow for transfers of development intensity from one site to another within a Statistical Area provided the intent of the General Plan is maintained and there are no traffic impacts as a result. In the simplest terms, a recipient site may exceed its specified development intensity limit to the extent that the donor site is reduced to ensure that the total development intensity of the 3 Development intensity identified by Policy LU4.1 are maximum limits for development and cannot be considered an "entitlement" until a vested right is conveyed either through a Development Agreement or entitlement approval and construction. Development is subject to other applicable policies of the General Plan and Municipal Code as well as other applicable government regulations. 4 LU4.1 establishes maximum non - residential development intensities in five (5) ways; 1) floor area, 2) floor area ratios, 3) hotel rooms, 4) theater seats, and 5) tennis courts. K November 9, 2011 larger Statistical Area is not exceeded. Statistical Area L1 represents Newport Center and includes the project site. The Tennis Club portion of the project site is classified "MU- H3 /PR" by the Land Use Maps. The dual classification allows uses and development limits specified by both the MU -H3 and PR classifications. The MU -H3 classification allows for the horizontal intermixing of regional commercial office, hotel, multi - family residential and ancillary commercial uses. Within the project site, residential uses may be developed as single family units, but must be allocated to the Anomaly Location through the approval of a Site Development Plan or Development Agreement. A maximum of 65 hotel rooms and 450 residential units are allocated to the various properties designated MU -H3 within Newport Center in addition to those development intensities specified in Table LU25. The PR designation applies to land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. There is no applicable maximum density or intensity limit of for public uses. 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 include support facilities for grounds maintenance employees. "Other types of buildings and developments are limited as specified in Table LU2." Table LU2 establishes two maximum development limits for the project site (Anomaly Location H46): 1) 3,725 gross floor area (GFA) and 2) 24 tennis courts. These development limits reflect the existing "built' condition of the Newport Beach Tennis Club. Conclusion In summary, staff believes the proposal to convert eliminated tennis courts to hotel rooms or building floor area does not create a traffic impact; however the proposed conversion does S The 65 hotel rooms and 430 residential units were entitled to the Irvine Company with the adoption of Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002 and allocated within the North Newport Planned Community, and therefore, zero hotel rooms and 20 residential units remain for entitlement to any property classified MU -H3. 3 November 9, 2011 increase development intensity above the limit established by the General Plan for Anomaly Location #46. The proposed 3,725 GFA tennis clubhouse is expressly allowed in Table LU2 and the proposed 5- single family homes are expressly allowed by the MU -1-13 land use category provided in Table LU -1 of the General Plan. The General Plan allows the proposed transfer of 27 hotel rooms through approval of a transfer of development intensity, and the applicant has duly filed such an application Staff believes that the only other appropriate alternative to allow the 27 hotel rooms to be constructed in Anomaly Location #46 is through the review and approval of a General Plan _u IeII-I 4 Attachment No. PC 5 Comparison Site Plans 09 November 2011 Golf Realty Fund One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 So BY OMM JN\� t 9 November 2011 15:53 i r� M E M O D��E�oPM�N�o3 SA job #9602 t Cjpt OF NE�O� Attn. Robert 0 Hill I ROHQGolfRealtyFund.com Regarding: Newport Beach Country Club Newport Beach, California From Leland Stearns A/Sfr r04f PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attached is a revised Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 responsive to Lee & Sakahara's comment letter dated November 2, 2011. In my professional opinion, 1) Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 show that the IBC Golf Clubhouse and the GRF Golf Parking Lot Design can easily work together with IBC's cooperation and 2) GRF's Golf Parking Lot design shown on Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 is a much better aesthetic and pedestrian solution than IBC's golf parking lot. Below is a detailed response to Lee & Sakahara's letter with their comments shown first in black followed by my responses in blue italics. ➢ Plan indicates 334 parking spaces but actual count is 327 plus 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard total count = 332 spaces Please see the attached feaster Plan Compromise 9 and 10 where an additional 7 parking spaces have been added and 5 spaces in maintenance yard eliminated for a total of 334. (Parking Required is 244 spaces) If the GRF Golf Parking Lot design is adopted GRF has agreed to make available to IBC the non - exclusive parking easement over Corporate Plaza West for weekends and holidays for an additional 554 additional parking spaces. ➢ Plan does not address existing access easement. If easement is maintained, this will further reduce parking spaces. The Frontage Road Easement has been terminated. Planning Commission at their hearing indicated that they unanimously desire a A4aster Plan without the hazardous and unsightly Frontage Road. If Frontage Road remains the primary loss will be to the significant landscape buffer along PCH and traffic safety. Stearns ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway/ Laguna Beach, CA 92651 1949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 /www.stearnsarchitecture.com 9 November 2011 15:53 2 ➢ Plan does not allow semi - trucks to maneuver in the parking lot. No staging areas for major events. Please see the LSA Study and Stearns Architecture prior Major Tournament Staging Plan demonstrating that trucks can maneuver in the parking lot and staging areas for major events can be accommodated. ➢ Plan reduces the upper level prime parking by 32 spaces. The IBC plan has approximately 80 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF has 57 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF plan makes all the parking better and does not have the significant grade difference between prime golf parking and secondary parking shown in the IBC plan requiring stairways with an extensive number of steps from the very large secondary parking area. Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 has 2 additional parking stalls adjacent to the Golf Clubhouse. ➢ Plan provides only one sidewalk in the parking lot. Travel distance to the sidewalk at the east parking lot is approximately 290' and approximately 230' at the west parking lot. This layout will encourage members to "cut through" the landscaped islands and between cars (shortest path to the front door. Two more pedestrian sidewalks have been added in attached Compromise 9 and 10. The Master- Plan Compromise 9 and 10 is more pedestrian and golf cart friendly. (See the LSA Study) ➢ The primary access to parking from the Porte Cochere is offset requiring two turns to access parking lot. With both the GRF and the IBC plans there are two turns. With Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 there are two turns tvhen leaving the Porte Cochere and going to the parking area. With the IBC's schematic plan there are two turns when leaving the parking area and returning to the Porte Cochere. ➢ Plan encroaches 10' -20' into the golf course at the 18th green area. Please see the revised Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 which eliminates encroachment. ➢ Plan encroaches into Maintenance Yard. Please see Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10, which eliminates this very minor encroachment. ➢ 5 spaces in the Maintenance yard should be deleted. This space is allocated for golf course maintenance bins. See attached Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 where the 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard have been deleted. S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com 9 November 2011 15:53 3 22 ➢ Due to the terraced parking concept, taller plant material will be required to effectively conceal the automobiles. See attached section. With the terraced design the goal is not to conceal the cars but to mitigate the "Sea of Asphalt" and to create a far more aesthetic environment and public view from PCH. Much of the time the parking lot is mostly empty. ➢ Plan indicates reduced service yard. Please see the attached Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 with no reduction to Maintenance Yard area. ➢ Plan indicates an 85' driveway along Coast Highway between NBCC and the Nursery. City may have some issues. Please see Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10, which eliminates the 85' driveway and is now identical to IBC's Preliminary Site Plan. ➢ Orientation of the Clubhouse has changed. The Clubhouse has been very slightly rotated. See the dashed line on the attached GRF Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10. s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsa(chitecture.corn IIIIIIIIII I i pm� A16M /� s O O p •z Fr � HH I pp V G6l IIIIIIIIII I i pm� A16M Ln JIlHMIII " 3.ek IM3 1 Correspondence Item No. 2a 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Newport Beach Country C1U� Costa Mesa, California 92626 -1925 Tel +1.714.540.1235 Fax -1.714.755.8290 PA2 0 0 5 -14 0 www.lw.com L AT I" I A M& WAT K I N S LLP FIRM /AFFILIATE OFFICES Abu Dhabi Moscow Barcelona Munich Beijing New Jersey Boston New York Brussels Orange County November 7, 2011 Chicago Paris Doha Riyadh Dubai Rome Frankfurt San Diego Hamburg San Francisco Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley Newport Beach Planning Commissioners London Singapore Newport Beach Planning Commission Los Angeles Tokyo Mad rid Washington, D.C. City of Newport Beach Milan 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Proposed Transfer of Development Rights from Newport Beach Marriott Hotel (Anomaly 43) to Newport Beach Country Club (Anomaly 46); Proiect File No. PA2005 -140 Dear Commissioners: Pursuant to your direction at the October 20, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, we met on October 28 with Planning Director Kim Brandt, Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill, Principal Planner James Campbell, and the applicant's attorney, Tim Paone, to further discuss a potential use conversion. Your staff was very generous with its time, and has been a pleasure to work with. We believe we have reached a solution that provides significant benefits to the City, allows the Tennis Club project to move forward as planned, and preserves the development rights for 27 hotel units at Anomaly 43. We have taken the step of preparing an analysis of the Use Conversion methodology to demonstrate that the Use Conversion is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, and to provide the Planning Commission, staff, and the applicant the opportunity to consider the Use Conversion at the hearing. Although staff has expressed . some skepticism, we have heard no objections that, in our view, would place a Use Conversion outside of the discretion of the Planning Commission to recommend, or outside of the discretion of the City Council to adopt. An Alternative Report for your consideration is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and explains why a use conversion is legal and is good policy. Additionally, as we said at the October 20 hearing, we believe the Use Conversion is the fairest outcome given HHR Newport Beach LLC ( "Host ")'s substantial interest in the 611 hotel units assigned to Anomaly 43 (of which the project applicant proposes to use 27 to support its project). To underscore the fairness of our proposed solution, and our standing to suggest such a. solution, we have enclosed as Exhibit B hereto a brief outline of the relevant history for these 611 units. Newport Beach Planning Commissioners November 7, 2011 Page 2 LAT HAM &WATKINS«^ We are submitting these materials today for your review and assessment, and so they may be included in the packet for the Planning Commission meeting on November 17, 2011. We look forward to the meeting and answering any questions you may have. In the meantime, we will continue to work with staff and the applicant with the goal of securing consensus on a use conversion. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 755 -8168 to discuss these comments. y truly your v' Paul N. Singarella of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP cc: Ms. Kim Brandt Ms. Leone Mulvihill, Esq. Ms. Carol McDermott SD \810615.1 EXHIBITS A AND B TO NOVEMBER 7, 2011 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP LETTER RE: Proposed Transfer of Development Rights from Newport Beach Marriott Hotel (Anomaly 43) to Newport Beach Country Club (Anomaly 46); Project File No. PA2005 -140 TAB A Conversion of Use Alternative Report and Findings Project Setting: The subject property is approximately 143 acres in size and currently improved with a private golf course (Newport Beach Country Club) and a private tennis club (former Balboa Bay Racquet Club). The subject property is generally bordered by East Coast Highway to the south, Jamboree Road to the west, Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center to the north, and Corporate Plaza West to the east and south. The tennis club (Tennis Club site) is located at the southeast corner of the subject property while the golf course (Golf Club site) occupies the remaining westerly side of the property. The Tennis Club site is presently improved with 24 tennis courts, a 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse and 125 surface parking spaces. The Golf Club site is presently improved with a 6,587 -yard, 18 -hole golf course and related practice facilities, a 23,469 square -foot clubhouse, a 6,050 square -foot golf cart storage barn, a 2,010 square -foot greens keeper building, and 420 surface parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the subject property is from a private drive way (Country Club Drive) that connects to East Coast Highway at Irvine Terrace Drive, a signalized intersection. A secondary access is provided from Newport Center Drive via Farallon Drive. Project Description: Golf Realty Fund, the land owner, proposes a Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) for the redevelopment of the existing private golf course clubhouse, parking lot, and tennis club. Additionally, the PCDP provides for the conversion of 17 tennis courts at the Tennis Club site to five (5) single -unit residential dwellings "Villas" (which are part of the Project, but which are not part of the conversion analysis) and 27 short-term lodging units "Bungalows." Background: Golf Realty Fund previously identified a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a means of converting the tennis court area into the 27 short-term lodging units. Host Hotels and Resorts, the owner of the transferor site, has indicated that it opposes the transfer and intends to put to use through a consensual transfer, or its own development, the 27 hotel units that would be the subject of the TDR proposed by the applicant. At the October 20, 2011 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff, Host Hotels and Resorts, and the applicant to review a Conversion of Use alternative for implementing the Project that is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. It has been determined that a use conversion is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Accordingly, the Project can be modified to remove the TDR approach and substitute in its place a Conversion of Use methodology which achieves the same result as the previously proposed TDR. Either the TDR or the Conversion of Use process achieves the same results, but the latter methodology results in additional benefits to the City discussed in the findings below. Both strategies are in compliance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. This report reviews the Conversion of Use approach upon which the approval can be based. Conversion of Use: The TDR methodology in the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Chapter 20.46 (New Code) includes the Conversion of Use of non - residential development intensity: "If the requested transfer includes the conversion of non - residential uses, the application shall also identify the quantity of entitlement, by use category, before and after the transfer (Newport Beach Zoning Code 20.46.040)." The TDR or Conversion process was created to ensure that development intensity was consistent with transportation infrastructure capacity in a given area. The General Plan acknowledges this concept within the Newport Center area at General Plan Policy LU6.14.3 - Transfers of Development Rights: "Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts." Therefore, Transfer or Conversion of development rights must be traffic neutral and follow the Zoning Code procedures in chapter 20.46. In this case, a TDR is not needed because there are enough existing traffic trips and intensity already on the site such that a Conversion of Use may occur. Methodology and Analysis: The proposed Project has been grandfathered under an earlier version of the Zoning Code. However, the Zoning Code —both the previous version and the current version — allows Planned Community Development Plans to conflict with and take precedence over the Zoning Code. As such, the Planned Community Development Plan can be amended to include provisions that parallel section 20.46.040 of the current Zoning Code discussed below. This will allow the conversion to be governed by a standard that meets the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Code and assures that conversion does not generate traffic or intensity that would have potential negative environmental impacts. The project proposes to convert 17 tennis courts to a hotel type use. As noted in Zoning Code Section 20.46.020, conversion of use is permissible within all zones of the City as long as the findings in the Zoning Code can be made. Use conversion procedures are found in Zoning Code Section 20.46.040, and require the Planning Department to conduct a traffic analysis and intensity analysis to ensure that the project does not impact the local transportation network. Traffic Analysis: 2 The tables below illustrate the traffic trip generation rates for the existing and proposed uses. Note that the trip generation rate for a golf course is based on the number of golf holes (18) and the rate for a tennis club is based on number of courts (24). Tennis clubs are a high traffic generator based upon ITE Trip rates; the loss of 17 courts gives the project a reduction of daily trips and AM/PM peak hour trips. Inclusive of the hotel units, there is a net reduction of 389 daily trips for the entire development. Therefore the conversion of 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units is trip neutral and will not result in a net negative impact on the overall circulation system in the immediate area given the overall reduction in daily trips. Trip Generation Rates Land Use Rate Type Size /Unit AM Peak Hour Total PM Peak Hour Total Daily (Total) Golf Course ITE Holes 2.22 2.74 35.75 Tennis Club ITE Court 1.31 3.35 28.7 Hotel ITE Room 0.56 0.59 8.17 SFR ITE DU 0.75 1.01 9.57 Existing Use Land Use Rate Type Size /Unit AM Peak Hour Total PM Peak Hour Total Daily (Total) Golf Course ITE 18 Holes 40 49 643 Tennis Club ITE 24 Courts 31 80 929 Total ITE 27 Room 71 130 1572 Proposed Use Land Use Rate Type Size /Unit AM Peak Hour Total PM Peak Hour Total Daily (Total) Golf Course ITE 18 Holes 40 49 643 Tennis Club ITE 7 Courts 9 23 271 Hotel ITE 27 Room 15 16 221 SFR ITE 5 DUs 4 5 48 Total 68 94 1183 Intensity Analysis: Zoning Code Section 20.46.040(D) states that, "if the transfer request involves the conversion of uses, the Director shall perform a land use intensity analysis to determine the floor area that could be developed with and without the transfer. For purposes of this analysis, theater use shall be allocated fifteen (15) square feet per seat. Hotel use shall be allocated the number of square feet per room at which it is included in the General Plan. When the General Plan does not specify intensity for hotel rooms, it shall be as determined by the Director." The Project includes the conversion of 17 existing tennis courts with an average floor area of 2808 square feet to 27 hotel units. Regulation tennis court dimensions are 78' x 36'. To remain conservative in the analysis, the square footage number used is only inclusive of the court dimensions and does not include edge area and areas for observation within the fenced tennis court area. The proposed Project is located in General Plan Anomaly 46. General Plan Table LU2 designates Anomaly 46 with 3,725 square feet and 24 tennis courts. Table LU2. does not assign numerical square footage intensity to the tennis courts and allows ancillary uses without designation of square footage. Therefore, the square footage associated with the tennis courts was determined as described above. The tennis club is also located within the PC — Planned Community zone which allows for flexible development standards to achieve a superior project. As noted in Zoning Code Section 20.46.040(D), when the General Plan does not specify an intensity for certain uses, that intensity may be determined by the Planning Director. As such, the PCDP text can be amended to specify what is implicit in the General Plan: that the tennis courts have intensity equal to their area, which is at least 2808 square feet per court. Similarly, Table LU2 does not assign a square footage value to hotel units. As noted in Zoning Code Section 20.46.40(D) the hotel room intensity may be specified by the Planning Director if not specified in the General Plan. In this analysis an intensity of approximately 1,045 1 square feet has been assigned to the hotel units. The Tennis Club Site (Tennis Clubhouse & Courts, Bungalows &Villas) ME i prim pments , ; Floor Areas . ft. Component Floor Areas . ft. Component Clubhouse 3,725 Clubhouse 3,725 24 Tennis Courts 67,3922 7 Tennis Courts3 19,956 27 Bungalows 28,219 Bungalow Spa 7,4902 Concierge & Guest Meeting Facility 2,1702 5 SFR N/A Total sq. ft 71,117 61,560 As shown in the table above, the proposed Project will reduce the existing floor area of the Tennis Club facility by approximately 10,000 square feet. The Project is therefore consistent with the development intensity of the site. The Planning Director previously designated each Bungalow unit with 1045 square feet of intensity in the August 4, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report. 2808 sf / court 17 of 24 courts will be demolished; and one new stadium court will be constructed. lg Green Light Analysis: Charter Section 423 also known as "Greenlight" requires that any major amendment to the General Plan be put before voters. Conversion of Use and TDR already are established within the General Plan and the Project does not require a General Plan amendment. Therefore Greenlight does not apply to either TDR or Use Conversion methodology used to achieve the proposed Project. The spirit and intent of Greenlight is to carefully consider major changes in traffic, density or intensity caused by development. Significant increases in traffic, density, and intensity in Greenlight are defined as "100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity). A As shown in the analysis above, the proposed Project will be trip neutral, only adds 27 bungalow units, and proposes no increase in the intensity on site. The Project not only is exempt from Greenlight, it falls below the thresholds which require review under the spirit of Greenlight. Findings: Zoning Code Section 20.46.050 provides that the Planning Commission and City Council make certain findings to allow the conversion of use. As stated above, this standard can be incorporated into the PCDP text. The findings can be made and are evaluated below on the following basis: A. The reduced density /intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City, for example: 1. The provision of extraordinary open space, public view corridor(s), increased parking, or other amenities; 2. Preservation of an historic building or property, or natural resources; 3. Improvement of the area's scale and development character; 4. Reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; and 5. More efficient use of land. The conversion of use reduces the overall number of trips being generated at the Project site, creating a reduction in projected traffic congestion. In addition, the conversion of use will preserve visitor serving units in the Coastal Zone, which is considered a public benefit by the City as well as the California Coastal Commission. The conversion preserves development intensity in the L -1 statistical area providing future significant benefits to the City through additional transient occupancy tax revenue, and additional economic activity created by that anticipated intensity. The future new revenue can be used to support core city services like police, fire, parks and recreation, and library services which provides benefit throughout the City. The Tennis Club facility also represents an in -fill development site. By constructing hotel units on an already developed area, the project will preserve natural resource areas that otherwise Charter Section 423 may be developed with hotel units. Finally, the floor area used for the hotel units is less than that of the current tennis court facility representing a more efficient use of land. B. The transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and would not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer and the proposed uses and physical improvements would not lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses; As shown in the analysis above, the conversion of use will not result in any adverse traffic impacts, because peak hour trips and total trip generation will be less than the existing use. In addition, the 24 -court tennis facility including ancillary uses amounts to intensity than the proposed project and therefore the conversion represents a reduction in intensity from the existing uses. C. The increased development potential transferred to the receiver site will be compatible and in scale with surrounding development and will not create abrupt changes in scale or character; The proposed Project will maintain the tennis court use on site and add hotel and single - family units that are compatible with adjacent uses. The site currently supports single - family residential units adjacent to the golf course, while several different properties in the Newport Center include hotel units. The Project proposes single -story bungalow style hotel units which will be compatible with the architectural style of adjacent residences. Therefore, the Project will be compatible in scale with the surrounding development and will not create an abrupt change in scale or character. D. The receiver site is physically suitable for the development proposed taking into consideration adjacent circulation patterns, protection of significant public views and open space, and site characteristics, including any slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. (Ord. 2010 -21 § 1(Exh. A)(part), 2010) The proposed conversion is physically suited to the site, because it will provide a more compact footprint for the facility, creating a more economical use of the land. The reduction in traffic trips generated by the proposed Project will not change or interfere with existing circulation patterns. The project proposes low rise development which will not impact any public views or site characteristics. The Project is an infill development site, and therefore sensitive resources are not present. EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 28 December 13, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums 900 Newport Center Drive (PA2004 -169) APPLICANT: Lennar Homes The applicant is requesting the proposed residential project deliberation be continued to the January 10, 2006 City Council meeting. The request was necessary in order for the applicant to finalize their discussions with the Newport Beach Country Club regarding the interface between the golf course and the proposed residential project. Prepared by: R salinh M. Ung A sociate Plann Attachment: Applicant's Letter Submitted by: a.( -- Patricia L. Tbmple Planning Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 28 December 13, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums 900 Newport Center Drive (PA2004 -169) APPLICANT: Lennar Homes On November 22, 2005, the applicant requested a continuance to December 13, 2005. The request was necessary in order for the applicant to finalize their discussions with the Newport Beach Country Club regarding the interface between the golf course and the proposed residential project. As of December 2, 2005, Lennar Homes and the Newport Beach. Country Club have had several meetings. While these meetings have been productive, they have not reached a conclusion as of yet. The applicant, however, is expecting to have a resolution to present to the City Council at the meeting. Prepared by: Rosalinh M. Ung Associate Planner ` Submitted by i r�.Ucr.. Patricia L. Temp]( Planning Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COU14 IL AGEMDA P10. Agenda Item No. 13 November 22, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums 900 Newport Center Drive (PA2004 -169) APPLICANT: Lennar Homes ISSUE Should the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applications listed below to allow the development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently developed with an outdoor tennis complex operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the request by adopting Resolution No. 2005 - for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004- 004(16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2005 - 071067) and introducing Ordinance No. 2005 - for Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005- 003, and passing the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on December 13, 2005- DISCUSSION On November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 6 ayes (one recused) to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The project involves the following discretionary applications for the City Council to consider: • General Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential. • LCP Land Use Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential (1990 LCPLUP) or from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential (2004 LCP). Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 2 • rlannea l.Ommun1W Ueyelopmeni rlan I em /iaopiion ana yyalyer or minimum /lcreaCL- Rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community Development Plan to establish use and development regulations; and consider a waiver of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirementfor Planned Community District adoption. • Subdivision - Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property from the 13.79 - acre Marriott Hotel development. Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property for condominium ownership. • Traffic Stud —Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). • Coastal Residential Development Permit — For the construction of 10 or more new dwelling units within the Coastal Zone. The project consists of 79 residential condominium units with eight different floor plan options, ranging from 2,363 to 4,018 square feet in size. Access to the new residential development will be via two driveways from Santa Barbara Drive. The project is designed with two subterranean parking levels, and 201 parking spaces for residents and guests. The minimum building front, side, and rear setbacks proposed for the development are 15, 7 and 13 feet respectively. Land Use Element The current designation is Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial and the residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation. The two percent (2 %) reduction in APF designation in Newport Center proposed by the project is not a significant loss of opportunity for commercial /office uses as the site is being used for tennis courts and is an ancillary use to the existing hotel and club. In making its recommendation for approval, the Planning Commission believes the project to be compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course, and nearby residential and office uses. The proposed residential project would add an additional 79 units to the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza area, an increase from 67 to 146 units. The existing Marriott Hotel currently has 532 rooms (79 rooms below the total 611 room allocation). The hotel could conceivably construct the remaining 79 rooms on the adjacent site, or potentially transfer the entitlement of the remaining rooms (with City approval) within the Newport Center area. Housing Element To be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan Housing Element, the project is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) to low and moderate income households. The applicant is proposing to enter into an agreement with the City to provide these units off -site, within the City's limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director and will be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed project. The Planning Commission required the affordable units to be constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 3 Charter Section 423 Analysis Amendment Area # of Dwelling A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M Peak Hour Trips Units Pacific Republic 2,400 s.f. (80% 0 4.0 (80% of 5) 4.0 (80% of 5) GP2001 -003 of 3,000 _ Newport Sports Museum 1,240 s.f.(80% 0 4.0 (80% of 5) 4.8 (8096 of 6) GP2004 -001 of 1,550 Proposed 79 39 35 Amendment Total 3,640 s.f. 79 47 1 43.8 As indicated in the preceding table, the project with "prior amendments" does not exceed the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds and a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed amendment, it will become a "prior amendment" that will be tracked for ten years. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L1, Block 900 -Hotel Plaza and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L1 Table are shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment A). Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The 1990 LCPLUP designates the site for Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial. A change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. However, within the Newport Center, there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the two percent (2 %) reduction proposed by the project is not a significant reduction. The City is in the process of adopting a new Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed CLUP tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on December 13, 2005, has the site designated for Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV-8) uses. This designation was applied due to the existing use of the Marriott Hotel complex. The change in land use designation from CV -B to RM -C (Medium Density Residential C) is necessary for implementation of the proposed residential development and would reduce the land available for visitor - serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres. Although a reduction in area occurs, the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and it could be constructed nearby within the portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. The property is not located in close proximity to coastal resources, coastal recreational uses or the water and the project would not impact the adjacent visitor - serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity. Planned Community District The applicant desires approval of a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation of the subject property from Administrative, Professional & Financial to Planned Community (PC) District. Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 4 The Zoning Code requires that PC's be a minimum of 10 acres to ensure that the project would take advantage of the superior environment provided through coordination of parcels that can result from large -scale community planning, would allow diversification of land uses and would include various types of land uses. A waiver is sought because the property is 4.25 acres in size. The proposed PC District does not strictly meet the intent and purposes for a PC adoption as the project is a single use less than 10 acres. Although when considering it in the larger context of the Newport Center area that includes a mixture of shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential developments, the proposed PC allows the site to be developed with flexibility to allow the project to integrate within Newport Center to create a superior environment. Proposed Development Standards Density 79 units 18.59 units per gross acre FAR 1.90 Building Height 65 feet maximum Building Front Setback 15 feet minimum (varies) I Building Side Setback 7 feet minimum (varies) Rear Setback r13 feet minimum varies Parking 2 spaces per unit for resident and 0.5 space for quest The proposed draft Planned Community text for the proposed development is shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft Ordinance (Attachment B). Parcel and Tract Maps The applicant requests an approval of a parcel map to divide the 4.25 -acre project site from the Marriott hotel complex for financing and development purposes. Lot No. 1 is 4.25 acres in size to be devoted for the proposed residential project and Lot No. 2 contains the remaining 9.54 acres to continue to be occupied by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The subsequent Tract Map is proposed for condominium ownership of the 79 unit project The required findings for the proposed maps have been met in accordance to the City Subdivision Code. Tragic Study A traffic study has been prepared for the project pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The TPO analysis resulted in nine (9) out of fourteen (14) study intersections that exceed the one - percent threshold. ICU analysis was performed on these intersections and found that the project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 5 intersections and no significant impact occurs and no improvements are required at these intersections. The 9 intersections will operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) A Coastal Residential Development Permit is required when a project proposes to create 10 or more new residential units within the Coastal Zone. Affordable housing is required to be provided on -site if it is determined feasible to do so. The Planning Commission found that including the affordable units within the project was not feasible. Consistent with the previous Housing Element discussion, affordable units will be provided off -site within the City. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was initially prepared to evaluate the project with traditional zoning of Multiple - Family Residential, followed by a 30-day review period from July 15 to August 15, 2005. Since then, it was determined that the most suitable zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts, and therefore, does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation including two additional mitigation measures (3.3.N and 3.3.0), required by the Planning Commission, to address the traffic and air quality impacts pertaining to exporting of materials from the subject property to the dump site. They have been attached to the MND for the City Council to consider. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ro1 alinh M. Ung Patricia L. Temple I Associate Planner Planning Director Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution B. Draft City Council Ordinance C. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 1681 (Without exhibits) D. E. F. G. Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 62 Excerpt of the draft minutes from the November V, 2005, Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Staff Report from the attachments) Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Public Comments & Mitigation & Monitoring Project Plans' November P, 2005 (Without Study (Errata, Response to Program attached)' ' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City Clerk's Office. EXHIBIT 2 C • • • • • • • • C: 3 , 1 k' C!'.� iCil AGENDA 1?' 1 122 5 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY and MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the proposed SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosalinh M, Ung, Associated Planner (949) 644 -3208 Prepared by: David Evans and AssociateA Inc. 9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92123 Dustin Fuller, Project Manager (858) 614 -4360 Draft: July 15, 2005 Environmental Analysis (continued) a zoning designation of APF and the proposed LCP would designate the site as CommerciaWisitor Serving (CV) to better reflect the existing land use (Hotel). The proposed Project would require an amendment to the existing LCP /LUP to change the current land use designation from APF to MFR or an amendment to the proposed LCP to change the proposed land use designation from CV to MFR, should that plan be certified by the California Coastal Commission. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Aerial Photograph, Newport Beach LCP, Newport Beach p Draft LCP, and Site Survey) A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? , No Impact The proposed Project site encompasses approximately 4.25 acres located along Santa Barbara Drive currently developed as tennis courts. The proposed Project involves development of a multi - family residential area with open space and recreational areas. Currently there is a multi - family residential development located northeast of the site across Santa Barbara Drive. The proposed Project would not extend into or through this development. Additionally, the other surrounding land uses, including commercial uses, would not be affected or divided by the proposed residential development. The proposed Project would not divide an established community. N (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Site Survey) !! B. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than 5igniflcant Impact. The proposed Project would involve a general plan amendment, LCP and zone change to after the land use allowed on the proposed Project site. The current General Plan land use designation on the proposed Project site is Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF). The general plan amendment would change it to Multi - Family Residential (MFR). According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, this land use category has been applied where multiple dwelling units are allowed on a single subdivided lot. Smaller condominiums and other individually owned attached housing projects are also given this designation. Further, this category allows for either single ownership or condominium development. The change in land use designation from APF to MFR to accommodate the proposed development would not be in conflict with the Newport Beach General Wan because the site would be developed in accordance with the Development Policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with Policy A, as it encourages a diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches, and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with Policy D as it doesn't block public views and with Policy I as it is not located within a flood hazard area. The proposed residential development within the Newport Center area serves to implement these policies. I r Santa 8aibara Condominiums Page 3 -3& Initial Study and MND • 0 • • l , • • 0 • • Environmental Analysis (Continued) i \� � \/� PmmC/NUnc �\ va a f,. f _ •' {x'7x'•�1/� F�\ iCO> ti.:•M� souse C;lya Ne 10 h Project Site Block 900 CaiD Pc:O i !�� kp by Vc' C eL Santa Barbara Condominiums Project Newport Center Statistical Area Map Figure 3 -2 Santa Barbara Condar dniums Initial Study and MND Page 3 -37 Environmental Analysis (continued) Swn.e' CiN al Nevmort CCOU � Santa Barbara Condominiums Project Land Use Policy Map Figure 3 -3 Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -38 Initial Study and MND EXHIBIT 3 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • November 3, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. F- L r L Page 1 of 35 file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Commissioner Tucker was recused and appeared on the dais at 9:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary any Lawrence, contract planning consultant David Lepo, contract planning consultant UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 28, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 20, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as amended. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Bayside Residential Planned Community (PA2004 -072) ITEM NO.2 919 Bayside Drive PA2004 -072 he project involves the redevelopment of the Newport Marina Apartment complex Recommended ocated at 919 Bayside Drive. The existing 64 -unit apartment complex, located on for Approval pproximately 3.92 acres, will be demolished and replaced with a 17 -unit, gated file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 eidential community. The tentative tract map proposes to establish 17 individu �sidential lots for custom home construction, 1 common recreational lot with possibly aol and shade structure, 2 landscapetopen space lots. Private streets are proposed. :quest to re -zone the site from MFR (Multi - Family Residential) to PC (Planne ommunity) is sought, which is accompanied with Planned Community Developme Ian text that will establish development and use standards for the proposed project. Coastal Residential Development Permit is required to ensure compliance with 1 wernment Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) and the Housing Element of the Gene an. The project includes the demolition of existing structures, grading, installation lities, private streets, landscaping, site lighting, site walls, storm water improvemer blic access easements and upgrades to the public right of way adjacent to 1 )lect site. avid Lepo of Hogle Ireland, contract planner, gave an overview of the staff rec Ling that this item was first heard in August. During that hearing, the Plann mmission raised several issues and asked staff for a review. One of the issr ncerned the subdivision of water surface in the bay. The City Attorney advised s it those properties that were on the surface of the water included originally in bdivision Map could not be included in the Map and could not be subdivided, c ire to be taken out of the area that was ultimately included in the Tentative Tr ip. As a result of that determination, the land area and the water area were redue the point that the Development Overlay that had been proposed for this parttct rperty reduced the lot area for the development to comply with the maximum 40% as coverage that applies in the Planned Residential Development Overlay Zone. l derlying land use designation is multi- family residential and the overlay was goinc applied to the zoning to allow for the development of single family homes. With t termination, and absent the Planned Residential Development Overlay, s ncluded the best procedure was to prepare a Planned Community Text and char zoning on that particular site to Planned Community, leaving the underlying Ic e designation in the General Plan as multi- family residential. Therefore, we are h light with a proposed Planned Community Text and a proposed Zoning Amendm change the land use designation to Planned Community. With that the Planr �sidential Development Overlay goes away as does the Use Permit that was requii development pursuant to the Planned Residential District. he noted: . The Planned Community text includes development standards and conditions approval that address the issues raised at the last meeting. Those issues are: . Land Use designation and zoning of multiple family - the concern was that tl might be an attempt to develop more than one unit on each of the residential being created by the Tentative Tract Map. . Concern with the MFR zoning - somebody might try to develop three stories up to 35 feet in height. Staff has included a development code section in the text and conditions of approval in the PC text that clearly state one unit for e of the residential lots not to exceed 28 feet in height. . Concern that setback between the new property line wall at Bayside Drive not adequate. Staff has included conditions and standards in the PC text require a minimum of four foot setback between the right -of -way at Bayside Page 2 of 35 file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 111/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03 /2005 and the new property line wall that would allow for a minimum of 4 feet landscape area then the wall and then 10 feet of yard on the private property of the Bayside wall. The right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on the private prop side of Bayside Drive varies from 1 -2 feet to 6 feet, so the affect will be that tt will be between 5 1/2 and 10 feet of actual landscape setback between the b of the sidewalk at Bayside and the new property line wall. . Concern with the setback of the private driveway serving all the residences. Staff has proposed that where there is a single story element adjacent to the driveway a minimum setback of 5 feet be provided; where there is a two -story element, 10 foot setback be provided. That is included in the development standards o- the PC Text. . Concern with sidewalks adjacent to the private street within the tract. Staff determined that since this is a private, gated community, the sidewalks would be necessary. Conditions are included in the PC text. . Other conditions of approval deal with access to the water and easements the floating dockway. . Landscaping was a consideration, particularly the piece of property that adjoins this site on the n/w corner of Bayside that does not belong to the property owner it belongs to the City. The decision was the Planning Director shall have the righ, to approve a landscape plan for this property including having the Homeowners Association maintain that property. This is included in the conditions of approva in the PC text. . Concern of noise and noxious effects from the boat yard across the channel ha been addressed in the provision that requires the applicant to submit a form to provided to the lessee of the lot informing them of those concerns. . There will be no dedication of lots F and G on the surface of the water to the City. . Design amenities that the applicant has asked be included are indicated in staff report and deal with fences, hedges, walls, arbors, trellises, fire places barbecues. . The action asked for tonight is for approval of the Negative Declaration revised copies of the first two pages (distributed) resulting in reference to Planned Residential Development rather than the PC text; the Tentative T Map, the Code Amendment changing the zoning of the site to PC Plar Community and adopting a Planned Community Text; a Coastal Reside Development; no traffic analysis will be required as this resulting project will f less traffic impact to this site. rmissioner Cole asked why should the Planning Commission consider the this site. Lepo answered that the Planned Community text allows for a mix of uses with site. It allows the City to make certain that those different uses are compatible wi another in this development. This site is to be re- developed with single fam ies to replace an apartment building and the use of the PC text is to make sure it ]rated with what is there now including the condos to the east, single family hom Page 3 of 35 file: //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21 /2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/0312005 the west, and the commercial across the street. You have the opportunity to use text to make sure that the access to the waterfront is maintained and enhanced 1 me of the conditions of approval. He then noted other areas where a similar proc s occurred. Hawkins asked what the smallest parcel is that the PC text has to? r. Campbell noted the smallest size was 4 acres and this is 3.92 acres. issioner Hawkins asked about the analyses of the land use impacts of the pr( the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are the changes reflected in the revi uts? The project as proposed now will have impacts due to the change in going from multi - family to Planned Community, is there an analysis of that? Lepo answered the physical changes associated with this development w lyzed as well as consistency with plans. We have noted that the undedy feral Plan Land Use designation of mufti- family does included single family uses proposed here. Therefore, this plan is consistent with the General Plan and the does allow development of single family homes. As far as policy document < i documents, it is consistent with that change in the front. Physical imps xiated with physical changes are no different than what was analyzed. ssioner Hawkins asked about the change in the Project concerning the and how those changes were or were not reflected in the Mitigated Ne:gi ition for the Project. Lepo noted this can be adjusted for technical accuracy. Campbell noted: . The land use section mentions the PRD Overlay in the initial study and we make the change to agree with the project description. Referencing a hanc he continued. . The marina was permitted in 1973 as a commercial marina with parking. . Subsequent addition to the apartments in the early 70's eliminated that p and the City conditioned the Parcel Map that created those additional unit that the marina would only be used by the Upland properties (project site, Condominiums and the Shark Island yacht club). . If this was to be continued as a commercial marina, parking would have• to provided. . The original draft conditions maintained that this marina would be operated by those Upland properties. . Staff has changed their position on this matter and with the applicant's appro% we are requiring that the slips in front of this project site be used only for 1 residents of this project and discontinue the policy of sharing with the other t properties. Change to the condition has been made to specifically require that reflected in amended condition 22. This restriction is to be noted on the map a Page 4 of 35 file :HH:1Plancomm12 00511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 in the CC and R's and in the Planned Community Text. Public access - The PC text in condition 34 requires the applicant to execute agreement that ensures public access as identified be maintained permanently well as an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement. T dedication will be on the property that they actually control as the exist walkway is on property owned by the Irvine Company. If the access is elimina in the future because it is now on somebody else's property, we would then N this offer to dedicate and the easement that could be moved landward of Irvine Company property onto the applicant's property. Should the access acr the Irvine Company submerged land be eliminated, then we could require it to relocated six feet closer to the bulkhead creating a new floating walkway at t location and then ensure that access across the docks is still maintained. T offer of dedication will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit i prior to recordation of the map. The applicant is required to obtain a new Harbor Permit. The historic transfers this particular permit has been discontinuance or 'murky'. So, we want to cle, this up with a new permit in the applicant's name which then would be transfers to the Homeowner's Association upon its creation so that the Homeowne Association controls the Harbor Permit and then the rights to use the docks wot be transferred with the sale of the individual leaseholds. The residents will be t only ones able to use those slips and therefore it will be a private manna. . He then noted condition 10 has a changed reference to the improvements on docks. . Condition 12 has a reference as to who owns those improvements as by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted the term 'landward' shows direction. The 18 feet between the bulkhead line and the actual physical bulkhead that is wal d the submerged land is owned by the underlying owner and is under the control s applicant. What this does is repositions that walkway onto the land that t plicant and the property owner control. If The Irvine Company decides that in t ure the docks can not be tied into the submerged land, which we don't expect ppen, then the applicant would be required to move the floating walkway six A ser to the bulkhead to be used for public access. irperson Toerge noted that the map shows an existing bulkhead at the If the floating walkway was moved 'landward', it would be on the land. Campbell explained the tract boundary runs along the bulkhead because staff want to subdivide those submerged lands and make them part of leasehold ie of these lots. He then discussed the boundaries. Aaron Harp noted that on the map it is referred to in two ways. It is referred to US Bulkhead line and next to that a notation referencing existing bulkhead Ii :h runs along side where the floating walkway is now. Campbell noted a change will be made to clarify as the intent refers to the .head line. Discussion continued. Page 5 of 35 file: /114:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Harp noted the reason for this condition is to resolve the issue of the fact that may is currently not on the proponent's property, it is on a third party's who has :s. This offer is done in case of the loss of the right to have it on the third p rerty, then they could shift it over. iissioner Eaton asked about the enhancements to the existing walkway and are covered; precedence for free- standing fireplaces. Lepo noted if those are the improvements that are required, then that plan to be reviewed and any changes to conditions will be made. In Campbell noted the free - standing fireplaces issue would require a Modificatioi 'ermit in most cases because a fireplace would be higher than three and a half feet. 'he Zoning Administrator could not come up with any current permitted free standing replaces in bulkhead locations. Free - standing barbecues have been done, but not I )ot high chimneys. )mmissioner Hawkins noted the slip provision and the walkway provision oblematic and presented a scenario. He suggested that there is a better way to is in the conditions such as requiring the applicant to go ahead and get that easem rer the existing walkway so that you don't have this potential problem. r. Harp answered that if the Irvine Company revoked the right to have the walkway ey would probably also revoke the right to have the slips. The main intent of the mdition is to ensure that the public has access to walk along, not so much as tc :cess the slips. Typically, we don't make a condition where a third party approval ie .cessary. A condition could be edited that the offer to dedicate, or obtain, eas e ments ereby giving the option of one or the other, that way you are not conditioning it on a ird party. nuing, Commissioner Hawkins asked what sort of agreement is there now for !d use of the slips. Is there a written agreement? Campbell answered that there is not necessarily an agreement but the City in t I's as a condition of the Parcel Map that is underlying this piece of property arrang it be done. So, we are requiring it to be that way. Staff does not know if there is vate agreement between the entities. The adjacent Cove Condominium has a ve nilar provision with its Tract Map that the Coves and the Yacht Club get to use wt front of them as a shared arrangement. That was required of that development 72. When they added on to this project, they took away the parking that w finned for the commercial marina so they recognized there was not parking. Th ain extended the same kind of shared relationship that was started with the first ti )perties (Coves and Shark Island Yacht Club) to encompass all three properti cause there is one Harbor Permittee which is The Irvine Company at the time; tt is the arrangement of the City. Harp noted he concurs with the analysis. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, noted ig contained within a PowerPoint presentation: An aerial of the project site depicting the property line as mapping the ownership; however, the area controlled goes out 18 feet seaward of the ex Page 6 of 35 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/2112005 Planning Commission Minutes 1 ] 103/2005 bulkhead. The US bulkhead is seaward 18 feet of the existing bulkhead. control was granted to the applicant through a Grant Deed from The Ir Company. The submerged land portion is not subdivided and that is why property line is shown on the land portion of the site and not out 18 feet. . The project consists of replacing the existing apartments with custom home and the bayfront public walkway. We are ensuring that public access is prov and enhanced. . In the event that this were to be removed and the walkway was moved, then would allow for some additional water area that would allow for slips of a slight different configuration. That would have to go through the City and the Coast Commission in order to occur. We understand that . If has been confirmed that the triangular piece of land at the end of the walkway i owned by the applicant. The walkway will be straightened out allowing fc landscaping and a sign that enhances the availability of the public walkway. It wi also provide for ADA access. . The existing walkway will be enhanced by the remounting of lighting along It existing handrails and the removal of the cleats that allow for the side ties. V will construct an additional hand rail so there will be handrails on both sides with clear access of 6 feet along with the handicap access ramps. . She noted a submitted letter indicating the dock walkway meeting the intent requirements of the Coastal Act, the Subdivision Map Act, the Calif( Constitution as well as the City's Local Coastal Plan. . Two exhibits showing grade elevations of the proposed homes on the Pr Bay Front and the North Bay Front facing Balboa isiand were discussed. . An exhibit showing the vehicular turning areas on lots 9 and 15 was discussed. . A Harbor Permit requires the boat slips to be operated as a residential mar and restricted to these lots. We accept that condition and understand it. T Permit will be transferred to the Homeowners' Association with the provision maintenance and permanent public access. . The site plan depicting the gating at the entrance with public access along entire site was discussed. nmissioner Eaton noted the concern of more open space between Bayside C I the homes to be outside of the walls as opposed to behind the walls. If nmission agrees to have 10 feet outside the wall and allow a 5 foot setback bel wall, would that be agreeable? McDermott answered that they had agree to a 10 foot setback behind the wall, Commission had determined at the last meeting, and also we would have mum of 4 feet along the street. We have found out subsequently that where assumed the property line was immediately behind the existing sidewalk aide we found that the City's property line varied and we had between 2 and 6 h nd the sidewalk before the property line. What we discussed with staff is that 1 Id have an agreement that would allow us to landscape the City's property Page 7 of 35 file: //H:1Plancomm12 00511 1 03 05.htm 11/21 12005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 unction with our property and add 4 feet to that. It would result in between 2 and of existing area that can be landscaped adding 4 feet to that so it would 1 Teen 6 and 10 feet of landscape area along that frontage. Allowing the 110 fo ack for the property owner would set the homes further away from Bayside: Drip that is what we would prefer. m Toerge asked about the heights of the pads and if the conditions with those. McDermott answered the text in the PC refers to these conditions. She noted language describes the existing conditions so that they would be replicated with r development. She offered to clarify the language if it would be helpful. 1. Campbell noted the Tentative Maps show pad elevations and they are within ten the existing elevations. The interior pad elevations are not included. Referring m 9 on handwritten page 30, it was decided that this language will be re- worked ;lude the existing conditions and the interior lot pad elevations. Cole asked about the landscape on the parkway on Bayside Drive. Campbell noted that we will add a provision about the landscape in the conditions. Henn asked about the floating walkway and the docks. Is association responsible for the maintenance of the walkway and McDermott answered that is correct. 3mmissioner Henn noted that if The Irvine Company decides there can not be ilkway over their property I clearly understand the concept of moving the walkway feet, but, doesn't that raise perhaps an untenable burden on the homeowne sociation to have to move the walkway and the docks because they are responsit r the maintenance of the docks and the walkway? It seems the solution as propose es not make sense and I would propose to add an 'or' to that the applicant wot ek to get an easement from The Irvine Company to maintain the current positionii the walkway and the docks. McDermott noted this could be a burden on the homeowners association. T is we have various documents that have given us the right to this. We think t ce of losing that right from The Irvine Company because of the way they ha ted those rights, is minimal. However, the City wanted a fail safe and as a result we felt we could live with the condition as it was written. To the extent we < i' to re -do the Harbor Permit and possible relocation of docks would be done .rate action. Harp noted they have a significant argument that they have the right to maintain kway as is. What we were looking for was a condition that basically the City d have to be involved with rights issues. imissioner Henn noted that if their rights do seem to be substantially, but pert absolutely defined, it seems reasonably like it wouldn't be a big leap for ament to be granted. Page 8 of 35 file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21 12005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Harp answered that it may have been the intent for The Irvine Company to give rights to it so it may not be difficult for them to obtain the easement but there is t riction as far as posing obligations where a third party needs to consent to it is why we didn't leave it as just an easement alone. Hawkins, referring to condition 12, asked who will own McDermott noted their request was to add language, 'leased or owned' because ownership condition and lessee condition. Campbell noted we can use the language that is suggested. missioner Hawkins noted he was in favor of that as some of the utilities can A by separate companies. He wants it to be clear that the ownership is not as the lease is held by the HOA and there will be no liability to the City. rson Toerge noted his notes from the last meeting (with a straw vote) show tl access was to be widened concurrent with an offer of dedication of land as of compromise. He asked why there wasn't a dedication of land and tt I is for 6 feet widening. McDermott noted that the width of the dock was based on the Coastal Commis: erence that structures not be added to increase the shadow that goes over ar which would effect the life of the plant material and /or the setting of the wit lives in the water. Our thought was that if we could effectively increase i oving the obstructions that perhaps that met the intent of what the Commission Jng for. So, we added to the safety and to the width without actually widening k, which would then necessitate a separate Coastal Development Permit for I Harbor Resources and the Coastal Commission. It was our proposal in the he would meet with what you were asking for, but ,it clearly did not increase sical reasons for those reasons. tinuing, she noted that she did not understand that the straw vote indicated ig support for a dedication of land. When we worked with staff and the C mey's office there was a sense that provided we strengthen the access, that may met the intent of what the Commission was saying. Perhaps you need to seek tf flcation, but that is the way I read it. imissioner McDaniel noted the condition referring to minimal lighting. Ilection about the discussion on the widening would be to have some lighting it would be useable as opposed to just security. McDermott answered that the intent was to make it so minimal as to be both s I attractive at night time. It is such the people along Balboa Island facing i perry, or people who live in proximity on our side, don't want a lot of lights do re. The intent was to place them on the dock railing in such a way that they wo out of the way from a walking standpoint but provide the appropriate amount t. It is clearly the intent to make it safe and appropriate for those purposes. We c R with staff to make sure that happens. comment was opened. Page 9 of 35 file: //HAPlancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 comment was closed. Toerge then identified key topics for purposes of organizing the discussion: 1. lateral access - land or floating 2. setbacks 3. landscape plan and architectural guidelines 4. tum- around designs for lots 9, 15 and 3 5. include in the PC Development Regulations the disposition of Lot A 6. pad elevations 7. FAR and how to calculate 8. improvements allowed in the setback areas 9. condition 4 regarding drainage on the property missioner Hawkins noted: 1. Lighting study that is approved by the City. 2. Ownership or lease verbiage in condition 12. Toerge addressed the first issue, lateral access: . The issue of lateral access is whether it is provided on land or on the lloatinl access and whether the floating access is adequate and meets the requirement; of the Coastal Act. He then cited from the Coastal Commission summary of staf report Chapter 3, 43.3.1.1 -11. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causinc or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easemen shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landwarc to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection o sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). This tells me the access has to be on land, regardless of what other people have suggested. He then discussed the possibility of redevelopment o the subject and adjacent properties. He disagreed with the applicant's assertior that there is a remote chance that the Cove condominium development wouk ever be redeveloped. He countered that the Cove Condominium development wil certainly be redeveloped at some point in the future because 'ever is a long time. He pointed out that just 10 short years ago the thought that the subject project which contemplates the demolition of 65 high end rental units to be replaced with 17 custom home sites, was at that time considered infeasible. Who is to say when the Coves and the Newport beach Yacht Club will be redeveloped, enablinc a continuous land based bay front walkway from Bayside Drive to the Marine Avenue bridge? He then referenced an exhibit depicting the lateral coasta access easements throughout the City, sever of which currently end in dead ends but one day will connect to one another. This body is responsible for planning anc file : //H:1Ptancomm120051110305.htm Page 10 of 35 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11103/2005 Page 11 of 35 this chairman is attempting to do that with this by requiring this easement across the land enabling it to connect with other land based bay front easements that wil be developed in the future. Staff then showed the exhibit that was explained am discussed. In conclusion, he noted it is the Commission's responsibility for the benefit of the community to follow the Code and to maintain this lateral access of the land despite for it's potential in the short term, to look somewhat disjointed. There are some people who don't want to walk down a ramp to use the access. (he gave examples). His objection to the floating access is that it is not consisten with our charge to uphold the requirements of the Coastal Act as they apply tc new development. As I recall the straw vote taken last time, the Commission voted for 10 feet in width and an offer of dedication on the land so that some poin in time when future land access was available it could be built on the land. imissioner Henn noted his recollection of the straw vote did not include iirement for a conditional dedication on the land for the walkway, but perhaps sl verify that one way or the other. Harp noted it may be best to take another straw vote on this issue. mtinuing, Commissioner Henn noted that the floating walkway is a superior solutic the location of a walkway on the land. If the walkway is located on the land with ad end at the far end, there will still be a ramp. The language in the Local Coast in may or may not be the same language. I am sure there will be a sentiment for ig time that we preserve and enhance public access to the shoreline and I agree it. As to the specific language that interprets that thought, that may change ov ie. For all of those reasons I am less concerned that the walkway be located Nided for a dedication on land. immissioner McDaniel noted as a member of the Local Coastal Committee he ii ite aware of how much they have gone through to have access available to water fo eryone here in Newport Beach. I am happy that we have the access so long as it is :It lit, the fact that it is no longer 10 feet wide, I can accept that. I just want it wick ough so that everyone can use it and enjoy that aspect. Whether it floats, landwar( seaward, I don't care, it is access and adequate to me. I am happy with the way it is )mmissioner Cole noted his concurrence with comments of Commissioner McDaniel. its project provides significant access both vertical and lateral. The enhancement; oposed are good ones and will create an attractive walkway for the community. It is large burden to ask the applicant in effect to what would basically be a redesign o e entire plan when the alternative seems to be relatively reasonable and attractive. missioner Hawkins noted the previous comments. He stated that the City's D I Coastal Plan Section 3.1.1 -11 requires an offer to dedicate an easement c lateral access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing rse public access. What we have here is existing adequate public access t are enhancing. I don't believe we can make those findings. I would be concert it requiring the access on land due to the proximity of the public acca sdiately adjacent to a residential community. He affirmed he is in favor of ng walkway with the enhancements. imissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the other Commissioners. He added this project wilt have to go in front of the Coastal Commission and if pretation of their language is different than our interpretation, then the applic file: //14:1Plancomm\200511 1 03 05.btm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 12 of 35 Will have to deal with that. and slips. immissioner Cole affirmed with staff that the residents of the Cove Condoi mplex can not rent the slips associated with this project due to the limited ava parking and that anyone who is currently renting slips will have to move. tissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the irrevocable offer to dedicate (IOD) access easement for a floating walkway landward. He suggested the followii age to comply with the suggested changes by the City Attorney: "The applica record either an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement for g walkway landward of the bulkhead line (to be identified) or, an easement ov :isting floating walkway" The alternative is important to have. Harp noted the language will be re- worked if the Commission allows for the opt an easement in the existing condition as opposed to the irrevocable offer in Toerge noted the two bulkhead lines need to be clearly identified to prevent further confusion. agreed. from Bayside. Eaton noted the following: . Referring to the exhibit he stated that at one point the setback is zero at the end and along the entirety of lot 1 on the east end it is actually 1 1/4 whereas most of the project setback is 5 -6 feet total. Frontage along Bayside is important and he wants to have at least 10 feet between the City right -of -way and the property in front of the wall without h; to require the houses to be moved further back. He suggested language, "Without requiring additional home setbacks requiring at least 10 feet of landscaping be provided between the back of sidewalk in front of the wall." Toerge asked about the disposition of the current City trees on site now. Campbell answered those trees will be removed to put in the Henn asked who is correct? The applicant stated that then: was between 2 and of distance between the sidewalk and the property line; or, is Commissioner Eat 71s. Temple noted Commissioner Eaton is correct in the sense that at exactly one poin he sidewalk and the property line are co- terminus and it is at the far western part of th roperty. For the greater portion of the property it is a minimum of 2 feet. Lot 1 astedy of the entrance appears to be 1.25 feet for that stretch. file: / /H:\Plancomm \2005\ 110305.htm 11/21 /2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 McDermott noted that 1.25 is accurate and that at the westerly end the way i their landscaping and the property line connect with the enhancement of 1 caping where the sign will go, that point where it reaches zero is expanded it we are going to be providing anyway. So, it is not zero at that point in effect. C )sal is 4 feet plus the 1.25 at the easterly end and then it gets larger as it gc resulting in a total width of 9 -10 feet at some points. visions of the landscape being 10 feet from the sidewalk with 3 feet setb the homes. Following the discussion a straw vote was to approve as proposed. the landscape plans and the architectural design scheme. a discussion, the straw vote was to designate the Planning Director review of the turn- around plans for lots 9 and 15. McDermott, referring to the exhibit, explained lot 9 at the southwesterly comer site configuration. ,ing a discussion on the driveway lengths, turning radii, and distances it v that a condition is included whereby the Public Works Department will review al circulation and parking scheme that will be conducted by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted the reason the condition is there is pure that the standards the City require are to be met. What is shown for the first I y be suitable, but the one shown for the second lot is rather contorted as it is off; n the garage door and makes the backing maneuver like an 's' curve. irperson asked if the lot configuration had to change to accommodate this, we then come back to the Planning Commission? Campbell answered it would depend on the nature of the change. This lot could le wider to accommodate and it could be determined to be in substar formance and would not need to be brought back. However, if there was a lar nge to the plan, staff would make that judgment after review of the plan. s. McDermott added that they will be happy to work with the Traffic Engineer in resolve the issue. Commission agreed. i Toerge noted in the PC Development regulations for the use of lot A i page 29 does not include lot A. Should it be included in this table for the use that is planned for? Campbell answered this can be done. It is referenced on handwritten page 29 Statistical Analysis that refers to lot A as a common recreation area and it :ribed in the project description that all the lettered lots are common and ided to accommodate common amenities and other improvements and are r Dlopabte for residences. We could do something if you want. It was determined r Page 13 of 35 file: //H:1Plancomm12005\110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 14 of 35 Building pad elevations to be within 112 foot of existing grade. Commission was satisfied. floor area ratio issue. Campbell affirmed that the floor area is calculated by deducting from the gross is, the setbacks and then multiplying it times the FAR. The proposed FAR for ect is 1.75. oner Eaton noted the language was not in the PC text, which becomes document. Lepo noted it was on handwritten page 29 in footnote 2. 2 -foot walls. Campbell answered the provision is the exception to the height of fences and wa �re the front wall of the house could extend perpendicular to the side property Iii i the front wall of the house to the side property line a maximum of 12 feet. It is litectural feature the applicant wants to provide. Temple added that this type of feature has become very popular with side inces. The material used for these features would be R2 rated. and barbecues 4 feet in setbacks from side yards and/or ,ner Henn clarified that this also includes the ability to build a 10 -foot hig Staff clarified. He noted that would not be appropriate due to safel McDaniel noted he could not support this. i Toerge stated this should be subject to a modification permit. To approval here is not the appropriate maneuver. Campbell noted that built -in barbecues are typically taller than the maximum heig are fairly common with the outdoor living spaces people are providing. It is imon modification request and are permitted more often. The fireplaces are gent matter. Staff is not comfortable with those either and feel that modificatio nits should be required. However, adding the low built in gas barbecues that a V common, staff asks that this be included as they generally do not present a merits. Toerge noted there is a mechanism for the fireplaces to be reviewed Henn suggested that any structure above five foot would require Campbell noted this can be established with the PC text regulation. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005\1 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 could accommodate that and the typical barbecues meet that height. would be regulated. Temple noted this has come up during discussion with the Councilmembers. :tion has been given to staff, but much commentary has been given to allo, lecues up to a limit height of 5 feet. wing a discussion on permanently installed aces will be dealt with separately through th e foot height with a four foot setback from mission agreed. 4 - on site drainage. barbecues, it was determined th modifications process and up to the property line would not. TI drain pipe apparent at low tide water source is undetermined. Staff offered it n a storm drain and following a brief discussion noted that all requirements and W., ality Control Board and NPDES regulations will be met so that no drainage will > the bay. access completion. noted, and the applicant agreed, that there will be a condition including time and prior to the certificate of occupancy. ditlon 12 suggested language change. on -site common area improvements such as parks, docks, entry gates and entry, -site drainage sanitary sewer, water, and electrical systems shall be leased ned, operated and maintained by the HOA. missioner Hawkins noted his concern of the lighting on the floating dock and of idual residents that may create spill /glare problems across the bay. He asked come up with a condition. Temple noted there is a condition of approval in the City's standard requirement icing a Photometric Study to make sure that light spillage and glare are addressed. nmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the environmental document. He asked Planning Commission agreed that land use analysis will include the change for tt text? The Commission agreed. Temple noted staff will prepare an addendum and have it completed for Lepo noted the following changes during the Commission's discussion to .d in the motion: . Environmental document language will be edited on pages 26 and 27. . Changes on the handout materials: Conditions 10, 12, 22 and 34 changes will made. Page 15 of 35 file : //H:1Plancomm\2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 16 of 35 1 . U.S. Bulkhead line determination. • Add /changeldelete provisions where previously called for applicant to landscal and maintain the weed lot that is now part of the applicant's lot. • Add condition requiring applicant to landscape area at Bayside Drive on lots and D as maintained by the HOA. • Planning Director will review landscaping and architectural design guidelines. • Quantify condition requiring Public Works to approve the turn arounds for lots 3, and 15. • Pad elevation - language in PC text as in Tentative Tract Map. • Provision in PC text relative to barbecues within 4 feet of property line and up to feet in height.. No fireplaces. • Added condition requiring enhancements on dock in reference to the exhit regarding timing. • An irrevocable offer of dedication will be provided regarding the frontage area. ion was made by Commissioner McDaniel, using the recommended language with changes proposed by the Commission, to recommend approval of Cc :ndment No. 2005 -007, Use Permit No. 205 -026m Tract Map No. 2004 -001 (T 15323) and Coastal Residential development No. 2005 -001 to the City Council. irperson Toerge noted that this is a quality project; however, the City has lation to follow the Coastal Act and given my interpretation of it, I won't )orting the motion. - sioner Henn asked if we are violating the terms of the Coastal Act by as proposed. r. Harp answered the language is added to the plan. The focus is whether or not th( sw shorefront development is contributing or causing adverse public access impacts. ie determination could go either way. This will go to the Coastal Commission to )proval /denial and they will require what access they deem appropriate if differen an City's determination. It is not a violation to proceed with this action. yes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Hawkins and Henn oes: Toerge bsent: Tucker bstain: None k • k Following a brief intermission the Commission resumed with Commissioner Tucker taking his place. John Walter Velardo (PA2004 -274) ITEM NO. 3 3809 Channel Place I PA2004 -274 file: //li:\Plancomrn\2005 \110305.htm 11/21 /2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03 /2005 Page 17 of 35 jest a Variance to the maximum allowable floor area and minimum required open space Approved ie construction of a 988 sq. ft. residence on a 1,034 sq. ft. lot. The application also ests a Modification Permit to allow the proposed residence to encroach within the front, and rear setbacks. r. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the property is presently aveloped with a two -car garage and the applicant wishes to construct a 2 -story .sidence with a 2 -car garage on the ground floor and it will be approximately 988 auare feet in total area. The variance is required due to the application of setbacks to e subject property resulting in no buildable area. A modification for setbacks is also iquired due to the fact that the lot has physical difficulties in facilitating construction of iy kind. There are reasonable arguments to both approve and deny the applications. Certificate of Compliance had been granted to this property as required by the ubdivision Map Act; however, it does not grant any particular development rights and does simply indicate that the lot can be financed and sold. What needs to be atermined, at this time, is the design and amount of square footage, and the location `the building that is appropriate for this lot, or is something smaller for this lot or aving the lot as is with the existing two -car garage as developed. Toerge asked about the Certificate of Compliance. Harp answered that a Certificate of Compliance is a remedy for properties that are nveyed in violation of the Map Act and in essence is a means to bring a property into mpliance with the Map Act. However, it is not an optional item for the City to issue. st because a Certificate of Compliance has been issued does not give them the right develop a property, or have a right to a building permit, it simply brings them into mpliance with the Map Act so that they can sell or lease the parcel. No development hts are given. ;loner McDaniel asked about a letter received regarding water pipes under this connecting to another property. Campbell answered there is a water line under the garage itself that serves the scent property that is the portion of the larger lot that was subdivided off in 1960. A ate easement had been created with this transaction for the southerly three feet of lot. The project, as proposed to be redeveloped, would create the three foot >ack and maintain that water line free of obstructions. The project does adhere to private easements of 1960. missioner Tucker asked about the lot and what can be done with it. We have a lot has effectively been created out of something that was not legal to begin with, now Bone has come forward asking for a variance to build on this legal lot. Isn't that oui ;tion that something can be built on it before we worry about what it is? How did it ime legal, assuming it is zoned? Are you saying you wouldn't be able to build on it r. Campbell answered that if there was a project that could be built on this lot without variance, or a setback modification, we would be issuing a permit for that structure. ou can build on it, but in this case, a variance and modification pen-nit are required. Temple noted that there currently is a two-car garage on the property. That alopment, while it doesn't comply with the setback requirements or the floor area s just as the proposed home and new garage does not, it does exist and doesn't file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 0 5.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 18 of 35 !et a building permit in order to stay in existence. In and of itself it does represent a able economic use of the property and can be rented to anyone in the neighborhood provide supplemental parking, and /or sold to one of the bayfront property owners d used to support that bayfront development through an off-site parking agreement d allow the actual bayfront structure to be expanded in floor area. There are other iys to use the property economically without building a house on it. immissioner Toerge noted that if we didn't need a variance then somebody could me in and apply for a building permit. The lot is a legal lot that we would have to ;ue a permit for it. s. Temple answered yes, but because of the absence of any buildable area today, if by tore the existing garage down, they would need a variance for anything. )mmissioner Tucker noted there are other lots in the City where the Districting Map es one way and at the end of the block and the house is oriented another way you d up with zero building area as well. It is a legal lot and to me this is why you do riances because you can end up with no building area on a legal lot and the question what is reasonable? John Velardo, applicant, noted he has owned the property for 23 years. It has en his dream to build a beach house on it for his family to use. They have hired an :hhect and will be complying with the City's requirements and will be maintaining the me footprint as the existing garages. There will be no larger dwelling than is there w. At Commission inquiry, he noted he has read and understand the conditions of proval. >mmissioner Tucker noted an email from James Hazelton who contended that the ilding of this house would somehow deny access to his garage. Would staff confirm a answer to the email. Campbell noted that the location of the structure is not within the private easement �a that is for the benefit of the adjacent property. Now, does the proposal create me other impediment that the owner might feel, I don't know, but the building itself is t in the easement area. The two garages (referring to the one proposed and the one the abutting property) come at 90 degrees to each other, so the only time they wld conflict is if they were to be used at the same time. Campbell added a condition relative to the interior dimension of the garage needs be rectified as it is off by 6 inches. The plans will need to be revised to assure a nimum interior depth as required by the Municipal Code. )mmissioner Hawkins asked what the current use of the garage is. Velardo answered the current use is storage, no vehicles are involved. iblic comment was opened. argie Kirstein, property owner of 505 and 505 112 38th Street, referring to the vicinity tp, stated her properties are the ones most affected by this project. She noted her position to this project: . The setbacks are extreme and do not allow for any kind of air space. file: //H:1Plancomm12 00511 1 0305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 • The density, which originally was one lot, will now have three units on the original R2. • This lot does not meet the 1,200 square foot minimum, and, at one point this development comes within 12 inches of the property line and sidewalk. • There is a right to develop the property, but not to just any standard the owner wants. • The garage space is currently rented. Prince, resident and homeowner, noted the following: • Both he and his brother support this application. • The island as a whole will benefit from this upgrade. comment was closed. iissioner Cole asked about the third finding for a variance, if this is a granting of a it privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. The area of approximately 988 square feet that is below the floor to land area ratio !d in the vicinity, is that correct? Campbell noted staff looked at other properties in the area and calculated the floor i to lot area ratio of those houses as a way to compare the amount of floor area ig requested. What is proposed is proportionally lower and would support the ing that the approval is not the granting of a special privilege to the property owner. lissioner Cole asked if this was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of intial property rights of the applicant. This has been operating for 20 some odd as a garage with the same basic use, is that correct? I am trying to make the Is that are important to grant the variance. Campbell noted this garage has been there since 1960 with the same basic use has never changed. 3irperson Toerge referring to condition 7 says that, ....... the garage shall remain iilable for parking of vehicles at all times....' There is very little storage in the house 4f, and I think that condition should be enhanced to, '....shall only remain available the parking of operable and legally registered vehicles at all times...' Velardo agreed that would be acceptable. Tucker noted: • Variance requests are usually received to redo a structure. • It is necessary for a substantial property right. • How this came into existence, they are all over town, but compared to other variances, this one certainly falls within that category. • The question is, is it too much house for the space involved? • It passes the test that we typically apply. Jon was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the variance request and the iification permit for PA2004 -274 with the conditions attached with the changes of minimum interior depth of the garage is per the Municipal Code and to have dition 7 stipulate that it is operable, registered vehicles being parked in that garage. Page 19 of 35 file: //H:1Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 20 of 35 ;ommissioner Eaton noted we have had a number of applications where the back ends f lots have been quartered off. This lot is different from those as they have been done efore the Map Act took affect so they were grandfathered and therefore, not illegal at e time of 'cutting'. This lot is one of the tiniest lots the Commission has seen and is a angular and therefore less useable. It is further encumbered by two different asements. My concern is that if we validate what has occurred here, that someone oes out and cuts of illegally their lot, then someone (a subsequent) buyer applies for a ertificate of Compliance, which makes it legal to transfer or at least finance or lease. Vhy wouldn't this be a precedent to someone else looking to do a similar transaction? would hate to encourage that scenario and therefore I do not support this application. imissioner McDaniel note he agrees with the previous comments. He added that r variances have been granted on properties that had a house already on it and were applying for some type of parity to make it something useable. This one is rent where it has always been a garage and I think they have viable economic use this does not take away anything that they had before. I think this would set a edent and therefore am not in support of this application. It is a congested area it is my opinion that the garage will be a living space, with a ping pong table, then etc. I don't think it will be used for parking in this congested area. ;sioner Tucker asked if somebody decided to pare off their lot and sell and it to somebody else, would we have to issue a Certificate of Compliance under version of the Subdivision Map Act? Harp answered was answered yes. Campbell added that if there was a project to develop with that scenario, then staff ild condition that Certificate of Compliance with all current standards of the division Code. r. Harp added that if there was a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and the owner ,ked for a Certificate of Compliance, the City would have to give it to them. Whether not you have to let them develop, you don't. Basically you do not have to give them variance or a building permit. However, you condition the project to comply with the jbdivision Map Act. There are other penalties with doing it that are not tied to the artificate of Compliance. Because this is an undersized lot, they need a variance ;cause right now they can not build anything on it. Whether you give them that, it is wr discretion. It is not a 'takings' issue because they are already using the lot for a ;rage that has a viable economic use. followed. iairperson Toerge noted that there are some extraordinary and exceptional cumstances here. In terms of the substantial property rights, it is zoned residential, i' not zoned for "garage ". In order to enjoy that substantial property right, allowing the iplicant to build a house for residential purposes seems to be consistent with that. I t consistent with the Code and does not damage anybody or creates any safety ;ues. He is support of the motion. Cole noted he agrees with the Chairman and is in support of the (Commissioner Henn noted we do not have the perpetrator before us, I am sympathetic I I file J /HAPlanconun120051110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 21 of 35 o the current owners situation. I visited the site and I don't believe the proposed plan s inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. 01ammissioner Tucker asked what year the Map Act was adopted. 4hrr. Harp answered that it was 1971 when it was actually codified, but it goes back to e 1800's. Mr. Campbell added that the City established subdivision standards and in 1959 the Code was changed to require parcel maps reviewed by the Commission if the lots that ere suggested didn't meet the minimum parcel size, which this lot does not. This ivision would have required a map in 1959 if the division happened in 1960. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the finding on the certificate of compliance say that you issue the certificate but the Planning Director states that the above described real property does not comply with the applicable provisions, nevertheless, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act what we are creating is an identifiable parcel that we can track. The arguments presented tonight are very important, but this parcel is too small and Newport Island has a host of problems that this project would exacerbate and so he can not support the motion. yes: ole, Toerge, Tucker and Henn Eoes: Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins bsent: None bstain: None Brookfield Homes (PA2004 -251) ITEM NO.4 1301 Quail I PA2005 -251 ookfield Homes plans to construct 86 multi- family residential condominium units Continued to hin 7 buildings that will be 45 feet in height with floor plans ranging from 900 -1,950 December 8, uare feet on a 3.7 -acre site located at the southeast comer of the intersection at 2005 ruse street and Quail Street in the Airport Area. A General Plan Amendment is )posed that would change the land use designation of the property from Retail :rvice Commercial to Multi- Family Residential. An amendment of the Newport Place finned Community is sought to change the use of the site from a 304 unit extended iy hotel to multi - family housing. The changes to the Planned Community district julations will establish use and development regulations for the proposed ndominium project. A tentative tract Map is also sought that would subdivide the to establish 86 condominium units. Lawrence, City's consultant case planner for this project, gave an overview of report, noting: . Proyect consists of 7 buildings up to 45 high within a 'U' shape with garage located partially below grade. The applicant is asking for Commission comments and questions and then continuance to November 17 for further review and a forwarding of recommendation to the City Council. . The project will be changed from a retail and service commercial to a m residential designation. file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 22 of 35 . The zoning amendment would add provisions for residential development to th Newport Place PC regulations. These residential standards were derived by sta from the submitted site plan as shown on the wall. II . The changes would include from a hotel to a multi - family residential, reducing I building height from 60 to 45 feet, and establishing development standards accommodate the project as submitted. Reduction in building height and ove use will have positive benefits in terms of building mass and traffic generation. . The setbacks from Quail Street and Spruce Street average about 13 feet. setbacks may not be enough to provide visual relief and adequate lar buffering. The interior of the project is taken up by paving and building a which does not leave ample room for landscaping. . The 217 space garage and other parking spaces provided on site, meet the Zoning Code numerical standards. Those spaces include 72 tandem garage spaces. If the spaces provided do not satisfy that demand in actual usage, there is no permitted on- street parking on surrounding streets to absorb the overflow. Therefore, if there is overflow, parking facilities for adjacent office developmen may be impacted. To address these concerns, In August of 2005, the applicant commissioned parking study for the project by the IBI Group. That study concluded that bas on the requirements set forth by the City of Newport Beach, this project v supply sufficient parking to meet the estimated demand generated by resider and guests. He noted that in addition to the benefits of the project listed in the report, applicant has submitted arguments in favor of the project and are attached to report as exhibit 3. . The central issue of this project is the land use. Is it appropriate and desirable establish residential land use at the proposed location? That issued is address by the pros and cons contained within the staff report. . Project design is secondary to the land use issue. If appropriate, the design and setbacks if acceptable, warrant approval. . The opportunity to provide in -fill housing opportunities near a major er center and to improve the job housing balance in the area is a powerful in favor of the project. • Because of the concentration of office and commercial uses, the area is hear impacted by peak hour traffic at present. The change in land use would result less peak hour traffic generation than the existing hotel designation on t property. • Potential problems are inherent in establishing a residential designation on o parcel surrounded by office and commercial development without a coordim plan for a residential development in the airport area. . Staff asks the Commission for public input and deliberate on the analysis continue this item to November 17th to allow further consideration of the or file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 and the forwarding of a recommendation to the City Council. Campbell added: . Staff prepared and placed a memo about the traffic study. We discovered that wE used the wrong trip generation rates for the study prepared for the project. It ove predicted a.m. traffic and under predicted p.m. traffic (less than a dozen trips). We prepared an analysis and arrived at the same conclusion that there would bi no impact to traffic. . There is a set of CC and R's for Newport Place, which presently prohibit this la use in this area. The applicant would need to seek and obtain an amendment those CC and R's, which is the group owners would all have to agree to (70 %). . Staff believes the central focus for tonight is the land use if appropriate then on to the design and other technical points. Henn asked: . Is it premature to be discussing this project as we are in the midst and in advanced stage of considering a General Plan update, which includes this as one of the critical study areas for land use? iairperson Toerge answered that we have had a project such as this that is 'outside the box'. For instance we had a preliminary presentation with the Lexus Dealershif >ject and other relatively complicated projects in an effort to give the applicant ant iff some direction as to how we are leaning so they do not pursue a path and spent kff and applicant time pursuing a path that the Commission does not agree with. ey are appropriate for that reason. McDaniel noted that if this did not happen then the item gets contin Tucker asked: One of the things to be covered at the next General Plan Update land i session will be the airport area. Why shouldn't we wait until the policy decision housing in the airport is made? • He asked for a color /materials board, a marking of elevations and a copy of roof plan. • He then asked why Spruce Street is a four land street. Lawrence said he would provide the exhibits requested at the next meeting. Edmonston answered that Spruce Street was planned to go over the freeway i the Spruce Street that is now blocked off. itinuing, Commissioner Tucker noted the prohibition against street parking, ild have one lane there to accommodate street parking and be quite comfortable Page 23 of 35 file: //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 24 of 35 I is . Edmonston answered the concept at that time of development was no on -stree rking and that was the standard in terms of actual demand. It could be explored an one of the issues being looked at in the General Plan update as a residential use that uld accommodate changes to the streetscapes, whether parking or wide parkways, Temple added that if an abandonment or lane reduction might be appropriate, tf ' could look at the Circulation Element with the thought of an amendment )mmodate this process. Tucker noted: • Tandem parking has always been an issue for the Planning Commission. • The applicant needs to explain why this item should be determined prior to General Plan update; would this be the development plan the applicant would forth if there was no Green Light. . Has the Fire Department looked at the internal street circulation? He answered yes. . The wall along Quail Street looks to be very close to the units as well. What the wall look like? missioner Eaton asked if the TPO traffic study needs to be approved and, if so, mission needs to see the study. What would the City and /or the CC and ire if this parcel was developed in accordance with its current designation as ho r. Lawrence answered that the current designation of hotel using the front setback minimum of 17 1/2 feet average 30 feet, the comer lot side is a minimum of 14 1 at average 27 feet, and the interior side would be a minimum 10 feet. The avera, wld be 30 feet for the front, which would be Quail, possibly Spruce, and for the Qu itside, the same at almost 30 feet. Phillip Bettencourt, speaking for the applicant, noted the following: • This application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change to conv the vacant, industrial site. • The site covers approximately 3.7 acres and includes affordable housing. • There will be easy access to recreation, businesses, shopping and freeways. • Traffic impacts are less than significant with modes mitigation. • Airport noise contours - we are beyond the 65 CNEL Contour Zone although conditioning for all buildings is recommended and accepted by the applicant. • We are consistent with the John Wayne air loop and we are waiting for receipt our final FAA clearance. Bartlett of Brookfield Homes, noted the following: file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 111/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 25 of 35 i This project is an opportunity for the City to see a transformation of residential) I land use into the airport area. He gave a brief description of his company. . The Quail and Spruce Streets elevations are an important factor in siting th buildings close to the street and will contribute to the street scene that will maturing over the years. . Referring to an exhibit, he noted the importance of the buildings orienting the streets. . Setbacks and vertical and horizontal separation from the right -of -way appear to into the context of the site. • We have a materials board that include stucco, wood siding, brick and roofing. • He noted the garage and tandem parking that provide for 217 spaces, of which are tandem garage spaces within the same unit, and 167 covered spaces additional flex space on garage level to be used for storage, home office or w areas. • He then explained the building unit diagrams on the various levels. . Referring to the site plan he noted the gate access /autocourt accesslpedestdan access. • He then referred to the common park area. • 17 of the 86 units are proposed for affordable housing to moderate income units, and is a critical element in the consideration. • This site is designated as suitable for residential development. • He then enumerated residential uses within commercial uses in the City. • He then noted the proximity to commercial and freeway systems. • Benefits of the project are smart growth and new urban strategies, reduction of traffic, this is a first step in mixed use for the airport area as well as the affordable housing aspect. . Our next steps are to respond to your concerns. We have some items with Airport Land Commission and the FAA that will be dealt with as well as concerns needing to be mitigate from the Negative Declaration as well concerns from the Council considerations. . There are pros and cons to this project, but this project allows for a high de project at 23 units per acre that is consistent with the threshold of the Green I Initiative, has no traffic impacts, no noise impacts, close to infrastructure services. This is a modest step in the right direction for mixed use in the ai area. file : //H: \Plancornm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 26 of 35 . Would we propose a bigger project if there was no Green Light? I don't think youl could get a quality, bigger project here on this site for sale without increasing they density and sacrificing what you want to do in a'for sale' project. Foley, President of Brookfield Homes, noted: • Market demand for housing - lower maintenance housing closer to places of interest and travel are high in demand. • The growing sector of young professionals who want to live closer to their work. • Population growths along with job creation creates demand for housing. • This project presents an opportunity for high quality convenient housing close to places of work and benefit the community. Comment was opened. ?I Klanian, resident, noted his support of the project as it is will be quiet at nigh the airport shuts down and the street is not highly traveled. If the buildings are ucted with sound proofing, the air - conditioning will be suitable to keep the noise. D such as myself do not want the maintenance of a yard and this would be quite Owen, noted his support of this project due to the proximity of the airport amenities. Minter of Los Angeles and speaking for Brookfield noted they have receiu in support of the home ownership prospect. He distributed the letters not its such as proximity of home to work; ownership possibilities, and creation without using expensive land. n Light, one of the owners at the property at 1401 Quail Street, noted his opposil the property: • The only exit from this project is directly across from his property. • No on- street parking so overflow parking will be onto his parking lot. • Impact of trash - we have commercial trash containers on site and there will illegal dumping. . We have single story building and if we chose to develop the property into a mi story project, which is allowed, this sets up a situation where there will be homeowners complaining that the project doesn't fit in the area. Now, we will precluded from developing it within the original guidelines due to these homeowners coming up with problems of shadow, parking, etc. . He referred to a letter sent to the Commission and asked that these issues addressed. comment was closed. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 1.1121/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11103/2005 Page 27 of 35 `Commissioner Eaton asked if all the garage spaces were part of the condo sale to the units and do some of the units only have one car garages, etc.? Bartlett answered: . 5 units have a single car garage with approximately 250 square feet of flex on the same floor. There is an assigned second space that is uncovered ac or as close to that unit as possible. . In the twelve unit building there are 9 of the same type of units that have garage spaces, although they are separate but covered. . 36 interior spaces are tandem. . There will be a homeowner's association that will enforce the use of the spaces due to the high density of this project. rperson Toerge then read the rules for extension of hours regarding new age s being introduced after 90:30. A vote was taken to extend the time for the on the agenda. ;r Eaton asked if the City is facing any deadlines under the Act? Temple answered no, this is a legislative act and is not subject to the amlininq Act. Eaton noted his concerns: . This application needs to be viewed in the context of at least the policies in the airport area land use General Plan update element. . We may want to wait for the full Roma study which deals with how residential fit in to the airport area. . Setbacks - parking- allocation of open space - noise on balconies on the Bristol Street North, may be problematic.' mmissioner Hawkins stated he agrees with the previous concerns adding: • Planning where this fits with the existing plan and the Roma study; • CC and R's for the PC text; • This application may be premature; • If this project is approved, what happens with the Green Light issues. Temple noted the complete charter section 423 analysis is on page 7 and S. nmissioner Cote noted: file: //H:\Planconun \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/2112005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 28 of 35 • Providing in -fill housing is a positive thing. • Land use issue needs to be discussed. I • Parking is a concern. • The design looks good. mmissioner Hawkins asked how many trips are available for other developmen ier the Charter Section 423 analysis. Temple answered that is on page 8 in the second chart that shows the alopment that has been approved. Campbell noted the project would take 86 units out of the 100 trip threshold. V Id then track 80% of those 86 for the next ten years against any other general ply :ndments requesting residential units in the airport area. The existing land use of room hotel and this project generates less traffic than that therefore the n case is zero. Toerge noted: . Need to look at the affect of the no -street parking and the allocation of parking. . Noise contours from all sources and potential allowable uses on adjac commercial properties should be considered in the design of the project on locations. . Traffic saving amenities may be offset from its distance from schools, parks readily available grocer shopping and the like. . Setbacks are a concern and he would like to see the ratio between the curre setbacks and allowable building heights compared to the setbacks and heights the proposed structure. The process for the General Plan update is important. e The Traffic Phasing Ordinance is important and needs to be reviewed. nissioner Tucker noted his concurrence with all previous Commissior vents noting that the land use is a threshold issue and it may not be just le of the use but the intensity of the use as well. He would like more informa iat the project will look like with materials board, colors, elevations, wall detail already on the site. McDaniel, noted: e He is please with the affordable housing aspect of the project. e Concerned with the tandem parking issue. file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 111/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 31 of 35 to below 2400 miles each day. The dally haul truck trips shall not excesd� ` 2400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Harp asked that 'review and approval by the City to be included in both son Toerge, referring to page 4 of the Errata, questioned the accuracy of coverage of 100% less setback represented in the chart. Temple explained that appears to be allowing coverage to the buildable area of airperson Toerge asked it the construction works parking was addressed in the EIR? was answered, no. Fuller noted that generally during construction, the workers park on the site. ever, there is no formal analysis. Temple stated this is not a matter of environmental review, rather it is a matter Building Department and the Public Works Department as the grading plan roved and the project building permits are approved. If there is a thought thi it be a parking problem, we would ask the contractor to identify how that would caged so there would not be on- street impacts. ring, Chairperson Toerge noted there is a discussion on what to do when leave the site. Considering the water quality issues, could we specify ng is the means of cleaning the street and disallow hosing down the streets. Temple answered yes. Jerson Toerge, referring to page 346 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the housing stock and vacancy percentage. Temple answered there is a very high vacancy rate because of the high number and homes; turnover in the rental stock, and that is what the Census tells us. alee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, n the Marriott Hotel has been going through an extensive renovation. As part of rt they seek to acquire a Residential Development on the property adjacent to ;I on land utilized as tennis courts. This would provide an opportunity to bring sale' homes in the Newport Center. She then introduced her team members. sd that Lennar has reviewed all the conditions in the staff report and mitig2 asures and are in agreement to all. White of Government Solutions, noted the following during a . Aerial photo of the site location. As part of the Marriott renovation it became apparent that the tennis courts no longer being used. . The proposed project is 4.25 acre site with 79 luxury condominiums. file://14:\Plancomxn\2005%110305.htm 11121/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 32 of 35 . The proposed project will be going through the Coastal Commission for their f determination following approval of the applications. • This is a unique residential opportunity in Newport Center. • We are requesting that we have a maximum height of 65 feet while we allowed up to 375 in the high rise district. • The FAR on the site is 1.9; which includes the 100% subterranean garage. • We have 201 spaces provided, 198 required, which is 2 spaces per resident w 1/2 space per guest. • The guest spaces are equally distributed throughout the garages to coordinate the units they are intended to serve and are not grouped in one specific area. • The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in June of this year reviewing a number of areas such as air quality and no significant impacts were identified as a result of the project. • The surrounding neighbors would be the Colony Apartments across the stree the Marriott on one side, and the country club on the other side. • We are having on -going discussions with the country club on coordination, sale disclosures and CC and R's protect both the residents and the golf course. tin Buchta, MVE, speaking for the applicant, noted the following on the project site: • Site is constrained on the Santa Barbara edge by 15 -20 feet of grade fall to tt golf course edge. • The building will be stepped up with a 2 and 3 story Type 5 construction over or level of a parking garage. . The architecture is Mediterranean style with smooth stucco detailing, p surrounds on the windows, wrought iron detailing on railings and Juliet ba and Mediterranean inspired roof details with built up fascias. . The Santa Barbara edge has the pedestrian linkages to Fashion Island entries to the buildings. There are wide expanses of glass and expanded c at the lower level. • He then explained some of the various unit layouts and floor plans. White continued: • This project has been in the planning and design phase for two years. • It has received review and approval of The Irvine Company. • It is compatible with the surrounding uses. file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 33 of 35 . The site has two entrances off Santa Barbara for both residents and guests. • There are two entrances off the promenade where both residents and guests park. • There are several access points from the units where residents and guests egress to Fashion Island. • She then noted exhibits views taken from a third story building and how buildings will look along Santa Barbara, as well as from the golf course. • They have received many inquiries as to potential buyers. • This is a 4.25 acre site with nearly 2 acres of open space. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted the applicant has agreed to a condition ;y will locate 16 units of affordable housing somewhere in the City of Nev ach. The agreement will be in place approved by the City Attorney by the issu the certificate of occupancy. immissioner Eaton asked about the parking designation of visitor parking; ac strictions. Buchta, referring to the garage plan, showed the visitor parking designations. ris White added that residents' parking will be behind gates and that the CC and I to be crafted in such a way that restrict residents to only park in those spaces as they are not able to lease those spaces out and that guest parking is specifics ked and will be designated as 48 or 72 hour stipulation for guest parking. Guy Jng will not be behind the gates, residents' parking will be gated. The parki Is will be clearly marked with what building a driver is going to and spaces a Is will have signage or something on the pillars. Guests will have some type ne security box to be buzzed up into the building. Cole asked what the feature that separates the golf course from White answered that the building itself in a lot of the places acts as a fence; wher building is open there will be a fence between the golf course and the property ending on what the edge looks like, some of those units are 34 feet above grad t is so they likely won't need a fence, but, in other places the golf course he ,essed their desire to have a fence. We are working on something that will b .nable to both Lennar and the golf course and nice for the residents. The building approximately 15 feet back from the property line. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted: They will be working on sales disclosures and CC and R's with regard to errant golf ball and the safety rules. . The architects are looking at special types of window materials. . The rotunda effect are end units and allow for floor -to ceiling windows in the ends I file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 units at that location. e There is no common room as the residents will have the use of the Marriott. comment was closed. Toerge asked: • Clarified the terminology used in the draft resolution. • PC regulations - segregate or include a breakdown of the livable floor area an the parking square footage so that it is clearly shown why they are over the FAR. • Condition 39 looks to be describing a problem but not a condition. • Condition 81 - idling of construction vehicles for 5 minutes only then they are t be shut off. Temple answered that the FAR reflects the total of the building and we estat suggested FAR in the Planned Community text to support the proposed project. Ung noted that the condition was drafted such that the applicant has the option %r re- locate or move it further away from that. It was agreed for condition 81. imissioner Henn clarified in the agreement for the affordable housing, those u be identified and available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for Temple answered staff would want this at a minimum to be assured that they ally in place before the City would allow occupancy. Hawkins noted this should be made a condition. Harp noted that this will be incorporated into the agreement and add it to ioner Hawkins noted condition 15. The parking plan needs review of the Public Works Department and City Traffic Engineer. Edmonston answered that condition 46 covers review by the Traffic Engineer. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge recommend approval of General PI; %mendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 20C )01, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map h ?005 -014, Tentative tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, a ,oastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 to the City Council to the City Coun ind approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration OA2004 -169 subject to the findin and None Tucker None Page 34 of 35 file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \L10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 F- L Page 35 of 35 •,rs DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - none provided due to late hour. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmen Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - non provided due to late hour. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Cole discussed the meeting that was held with the City Attorney, Chairperson Toerge, Jeff Goldfarb of Rutan and Tucker and Building Director Jay Elbettar regarding the Narconon intensification use and the ramifications of both Federal and State legislation that govern these facilities. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none provided due to late hour. i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole will be late at the nex meeting and Chairperson Toerge will be leaving early. ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 a.m. ADJOURNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 00 file : //H:1Planconun1200 511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Page 3 of 21 be lost and they Could be cbnsbucted nearbywithln the portion of Newport Conterthat to kxaeed within the Coastal Zone. - - WHEREAS, the Citya General Plan Indicates that the City shall malntain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and, building design. parking and undergrounding of utilities and other developmerd standards to ensure that the beauty and char of existing residential nelghborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthaticelly pleasing and compodbla with surrounding.land uses. The proposed PC Text contains one classification of lend use and provides the development standards for the entire subject property. The draft PC Text Contains development regulations for the subject site which Includes definitions and Information Concerning requirements for development site Coverage, building height, setbacks, off -Street parking, vehicular access, signing, lighting, storage, and screening and landscaping to ensure that the project would be oompatibte with the sumxindig land uses consistent with the objectives of the land Use Element WHEREAS, to be consisient with the Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the CWs Houslrg.Elemoot the project Is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (18 units) for affordable Income, households for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant is requesting that the affordable housing provision be off-sMe, at an approved location within it* City. as affordable housing Is not feasible at the subject site. AccoMkg to the applicant, the project's Home Owner's Association fees are expected to be a minimum of $1,500 per month, which is a substantial multiple of the statutory mortgage payment limits for affordable housing when combined with acquisition coats and taxes. With this provision, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units off -site within the City$ limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Atfomey and will. be executed prior to the recordation of tract map or Me Issuance of a building or grading perk for the proposed project. WHEREAS; an approval of the project Is Implementing Housing Program 3.2A that allows the City to conalder and approve rezoning of property from non - residential to residential uses when appropriate to extend housing opportunities to as many renter and owner occupied households as possible In response to the demand for housing in the City. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine d the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling units thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public Is required. This project has been reviewed In accordance with Counct Policy A -18 and a voter appmvai Is riot required as the project represents an increase of 39 — AM. and 35 — P.M. peak hour trips for a new 79 dwelling unit development. These Increases, when added with 80% of the Increases attributable to two previously approved amendments, result kh a total of 47 — A.M. peak hour trips and 43.8 — P.M. peak hour utps; 3,8411 square feet of non- residentlel floor area and 79 dwelling units do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote. WHEREAS, the project is located within Newport Carder where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development Additionally, all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by the applicant. 3/7 Page: 16 Page 4 of 21 WHEREAS, the paddng requirement for a mutltple4an y residential Yoned project is two spaces per unit, Including one covered, plus 0.6 speoae for .guest .parking for developments of four or more units. A tote; of 168 spaces are required for the residences and a minimum 61 40 spaces are required for guest parking. A total of 201 spaces are proposed to serve the project, and therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition to the provision of adequate as -site perking, the project is conditioned that the parking designs meet all City requirements regandtng parking stall width, depth, grade, and alsle•tundng radii. WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the Clry Subdivision Code, the following standard Wings must be made to approve Ste Tentative Parcel Map and Tract Map. 1. The proposed Tentative Maps are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Comiftlone of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Titre 19 and the Subdivision Map Act. 2, Lilt 1 of the Parcel Map Is being proposed for the residential development and (a of sufficient eke for the Intensity of development and the site Is physically suitable for the project. The project provides an adequate number of parking spy as required by the Zoning Code. Access to the alte can be provided through the proposed driveways along Seats Barbera Drive. Additionally, no earthquake faults were found' orFske. There is no known incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence. Ilquefacllon, or collapse on-eke or near the she; (however, existing solls will be required to be excavated and re-compacted to create stable ail condtdwis, to support the proposed . developmenL The Implementation of mitigation measures identified In the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce any potential impacts. The site Is, therefore, physically eunable for development. 3. Lot 2 of Parcel Map is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional d Financial Commercial. Lot 2 is riot proposed fo new development and this parcel wed continue to be used as a hotel and it Is of suf rtent site to support its existing use. 4. Under the proposed Parcel Map, Lot 2 does not Include arty Improvements and the development of Lot 1 as a residential use is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices.. No evidence Is known to exist that would Indicate that the proposed subdivisions will generate any serious public health problems, Alt mitigation measures will be Implemented as outlined In the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health, 6. No public easements for access through, or use of, the property have been retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project eX. I A /7 Page: 17 Page 5 of 21 6, Title 24 of the Untmm Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and eouUng efffolehcy standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Deparbnent enforces The 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 7. The proposed subdivision facilitates -the creation of 79 new residential units. The provision of 18 affordable units will assist the City In meeting Its housing needs as Identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 8. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 9. The proposed subdivision Is entirely within the coastal zone and the site subject to the tentative maps is not presently developed with coastal related uses, coastal. dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. The project is consistent with the City's 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the recently modified and approved LCPLUP that will replace the 1990 cerfified LUP. The subject she to be subdivided does not abut the ocean or bay, and does not provide public access to coastal resources; therefore, no Impacts to coastal access are anticipated. Recreation policies of the Coastal Act require that eke reaources for waterwrfented recreational aobvltes that cannot be supplied inland must be protected, These policies prioritize waterodented recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaauture end wateronanied recreational support fatties. The project site proposed to be subdivided Is not suitable for water- orlented recreational activities dire to its size and location, approximately 1.6 miles from the shoreline. WHEREAS, the antra project is located within the Coastal Zone and requests the construction of 79 units. Pursuant to Chapter 20.88 of the Zoning Code, when a project proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone, etfiohllable housing must be Included within the project unless it can be determined Infeasible. The Housing Element of the General Plan determines the number and type of affordable housing that Is required. In accordance with the Housing Element, 18 affordable housing units would be required to be provided. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study has been prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPQ and is Implementing guidelines (Appenobt P of the Mitigated Negative Declwatlon), CEQA analysts for cumulative projects and Intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result In a net Increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle tops during moming (AM) peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the aRemoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significent Impact at the study area Intersections; therefore, no Improvements are required at these intersections. 6�, / 5/-7 Page: 18 Page 6 of 21 WHEREAS, an Initial Study and - Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared. In compliance with the Environmemel Quality Act (CEQA); the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K3: The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between July 15 and August 15, 2006. Comments were received from the Califorhta Coastal Commission, Airport Land Use Commission and Mr. Terek Saleh of Costs Mesa. The contents of the environmental document, Including comments on the document. have been considered In the various decisions on this project Since then, it was determined that the most appropriate zoning designation for the property wouid be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that would polentially create additional physical environmental Impacts. As result it has been determined that the MND adequately dewAbes the potential impacts of ilia pmled and does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation and made it a part of the MND. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human bebrgs that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated In connection with the project. The mitigation measures tMentifled are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a leas than significant level. The mitigation measures are appfled to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, Genenl Plan Amendment No. 2004-005, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004004 (I lln4), Traffic Study No. 2005002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005004 shell only become effective Upon the approval of LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005.001 by the California Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2005-071067); approve General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00.5 by amending the Land Use Element Statistical Area Lt, Bock NUiotel Plaza and the Es6m_ated Growth forStabstical Area L1 Table of the General Plan as depleted in Exhibi •A' and Land Use map in Exhibit °B', LCP lard Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-001 by revising Land Use map as depicted in Exhibd'C, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-014, Tentative Trod Map lib. 2004.004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2006 002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005004, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit *D` 6I- I r /-7 Page: 19 Page 7of 21 This resolution shell take effect Immedlately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meetng held on the I Vn day of January 2006 by Ills following vote to wit AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS aefferaaa, Selicb, aoeaneky, aidgeway. Daigle, NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS aichola. Mayor Webb None ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS Rom MAYOR ATTEST: s y. ��! ;/Jim ` � i. •� ?`� {. 67R. I 7/7 Page: 20 n RESOLUTION NO. 20o6• 26 A:.;RES,OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH oECLARWG THAT LOCAL COAST PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NOS, 2005.001 AND 2000 -001 ARE INTENDED TO BE CARTED OUT IN FULL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the City Council approved Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005001 changing the coastal land use designation of a 4.25-acre site locates at 909 Newport Center Drive from CV-8 (Visitor - Serving Commercial) to RM-C (Medium Density Residential) allowing the development of 79 residential condominiums. WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the Council approved Coastal Land Use Amendment No. 2006 -001 changing the coastal land use designation of a 14.25 acre she located at 4650 West Coast Highway from RM -B (Medium Density Residential) to OS (Open Space) to facilitate the development of a public park. WHEREAS, the approval of these two amendments should have included a finding that the amendments are intended to be carried out in full conformance with the California Coastal Act and they should have spaded when the amendments become effective. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Nos. 2006.001 and 2006-001 are intended to be carried out In full conformance with the Callfomia Coastal Act. Section 2. Coastal Lend Use Plan Amendment Nos. 2005.001 and 2006-001 shall take affect automatically upon Coastal Commission action unless the Coastal Commission proposes suggested modifications. In the event that the Coastal Commission proposes revisions, the LCP Land Use Plan Amendments shall not take effect until the Cy Council adopts the Commission suggested modifications. Section 3. This resolution shalt take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of March 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS CuEry, Se,11 h Roeansky, Ridgeway, Daig a, Nichols, Mayor Webb NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS -- ABSENT,COUNCILMEMBERS r MAYOR —fY " r i I • /4��'�IC.�GG�_ OF NaV. CITY CLERK �kX1A Page: 21 COASTAL COMMiSS10N / IP9 / -04 A07 EXHIBIT # PAGE_-L—OF -?. EXHIBIT 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 oceangate, suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 008024302 (502) 5905071 T 14a June 21, 2007 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director, South Coast District (Orange County) Teresa Henry, District Manager, South Coast District Karl Schwing, Supervisor, Regulation & Planning, Orange County Area Ryan Todaro, Coastal Program Analyst SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB -MAJ -1-06 Part A (Marriott Hotel VSC to MDR/Santa Barbara Condominiums) SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBMITTAL The amendment that is the subject of this report was submitted as part of a package with other Land Use Plan (LUP) amendments. This report deals only with "Part A" of the amendment. Part A of the amendment consists of a request by the City of Newport Beach to change the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by tennis courts) at the Marriott Hotel from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential, at 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. (Part.8 of the amendment was acted on separately at the Commission's July 2006 hearing, and Part C was retracted, in part because the City Council had not authorized its original submittal.) The proposed land use change would allow for the construction of condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject property. A corresponding coastal development permit application (5-07 -085, Lennar) has been submitted and will be considered at a subsequent hearing. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Commission staff recommends that the Commission DENY the proposed City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted and APPROVE the amendment subject to suggested modifications. The motions to accomplish this are found on Page 3. The major issues raised by this amendment request are adequate provision of visitor - serving commercial development and public access. The proposed land use designation change from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential would have an adverse affect on priority visitor- serving opportunities in the area. Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. However, with the adoption of the suggested modifications, which include a new Land Use Plan policy that requires a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor- serving land, the proposed land use designation change would not have an adverse affect on priority NPB -MAJ -1-06 (Part A) visitor - serving opportunities in the area. The mitigation fee shall be for the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal Cove State Park in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority land use In Newport Center. This mitigation fee would fund Phase 2 of the ongoing Crystal Cove Alliance restoration effort of the Historic District at Crystal Cove State Park and which is presently contemplated to provide for the completion of the Outdoor Educational Commons (Cottages 40, 42, 43 and 44), the Beach Museum (Cottage 13), Cottage 5, Cottage 45, the garages and creek restoration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For further information, please contact Ryan Todaro at the South Coast District Office of the Coastal Commission at (562) 590 -5071. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan (LUP) of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Is available for review at the Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission or at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department Is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach. Homer Bludau is the contact person for the City of Newport Beach, and he may be reached by calling (949) 644- 3000. EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02 approved January 10, 2006 2. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -26 approved March 28, 2006 3. Vicinity Map (Newport Center) 4. Land Use Map 5. Vicinity Map (Crystal Cove State Park) 6. Site Map (Crystal Cove State Park) 7. City of Newport Beach letter Page: 2 I. COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 9 -06 (PART A) Motion #1 "i move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1-06 Part A as submitted." Staff Recommendation for Denial Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the land use plan amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolutions and findings. The motion to certify as submitted passes only upon affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners. Resolution for Denial The Commission hereby DENIES the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that the amendment will not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Certification of the Land Use Plan amendment would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the land use plan amendment as submitted. Motion #2 7 move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A if modified as suggested in this staff report." Staff Recommendation for Certification Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in the certification of the land use plan with suggested modification and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners. Resolution for Certification with Sunaested Modifications The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1-06 Part A for the City of Newport Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested Page: 3 complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures andior alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment. II. PROCEDURAL PROCESS (LEGAL STANDARD FOR REVIEW) A. Standard of Review The standard of review for land use plan amendments is found in Section 30512 of the Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to certify an LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, Section 30512(c) states: "The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission. B. Procedural Requirements Pursuant to Section 13551(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, a local government's resolution for submittal of a proposed LUP amendment must indicate whether the local coastal program amendment will require formal local government adoption after Commission approval, or is an amendment that will take effect automatically upon the Commission's approval pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. The City of Newport Beach's submittal indicates that this LCP amendment, if approved as Submitted, will take effect upon Commission certification. Approval of the amendment with modifications will require subsequent action by the City. III. BACKGROUND The Land Use Plan (LUP) for the City of Newport Beach was effectively certified on May 19, 1982 and comprehensively updated October 13, 2005. The subject amendment was initially submitted by the City of Newport Beach on March 6, 2006. On March 15, 2006, Coastal Commission staff notified the City of Newport Beach that the submittal was incomplete and that additional information would be required to complete the submittal. City staff submitted the information on April 14, 2006. On May 18, 2006, Coastal Commission staff notified the City that the amendment request was complete. The Commission approved a request for a one -year (1) time extension of the amendment on June 13, 2006, which gives the Commission until July 13, 2007 to act on this submission. Part B of the amendment request, which involved a change in the Page: 4 land use designation of another parcel from Medium Density Residential to Open Space, was approved by the Commission on July 12, 2006. Part A of the amendment request is now being submitted for Commission action. Part A involves a change in land use designation at 900 Newport Center Drive from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential. IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Newport Beach approved this segment of the Land Use Plan amendment request (Part A) through a City Council public hearing on January 10, 2006. The item was originally scheduled for the Council hearing of November 22, 2005, but the item was continued to the December 13, 2005 hearing and finally approved on January 10, 2006. It was approved through City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02, which approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 and Local Coastal Plan Amendment 2005 -001 (Exhibit 1). Prior to either the City Council approving the LUP amendment request, or the Planning Commission voting to recommend that the City Council do so, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 3, 2005. Notice was provided for both entities' hearings. Notice of the City Council's public hearing was mailed and posted on November 14, 2005 and published in the local newspaper on November 12, 2005. The City Council approved a subsequent resolution (Resolution No. 2006 -26) on March 28, 2006 to correct procedural deficiencies in the original resolution related to the Coastal Act requirements (Exhibit 2). One letter of opposition was received at the local level. The letter expresses concerns about increased density at the subject site. No oral comments were received during the public hearings held at the local level. V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Staff recommends the following suggested modifications to the proposed LUP amendment be adopted. Suggested Modification #1 Add the following new Land Use Plan policy to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Visitor- Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.1 (Commercial) of the Coastal Land Use Plan after existing policy number 23.1 -7: 2.3.1 -8 LCP Amendment No. 2005 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -06 part A) to the Coastal Land Use Plan changing a portion of land, not to exceed 4.25 acres in size, designated Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) in Newport Center to a residential designation shall require a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land. The mitigation fee shall be used for the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses Page: 5 at Crystal Cove State Park. The mitigation fee shall be in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority land use in Newport Center. The mitigation fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any coastal development permit granted for any residential project within the newly designated area and to an entity, identified by the permitting agency, capable of implementing the mitigation at Crystal Cove State Park. Until paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the coastal development permit, the amount shall be increased every July 1st by an amount calculated on the basis of the percentage change from the year 2007 in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers as determined by the entity that grants the coastal development permit. The addition of this new policy may affect the numbering of subsequent LUP policies when the City of Newport Beach publishes the final LUP incorporating the Commission's suggested modifications. This staff report will not make revisions to the policy numbers. The City will make modifications to the numbering system when it prepares the final LUP for submission to the Commission for certification pursuant to Sections 13544 and 13544.5 of the California Code of Regulations. Suggested Modification #2 The City shall submit a revised Coastal Land Use Plan Map (i.e. that map referenced in Chapter 2, subsection 2.1.2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan), which reflects the land use change approved by the Commission through this amendment. VI. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED, AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED A. Amendment Description The proposed submittal consists of a request by the City of Newport Beach to change the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by tennis courts) at the Marriott Hotel from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential, at 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. Approximately 9.54 acres of Visitor - Serving Commercial (VC) would remain on site in Newport Center after the land use designation change. The proposed land use change would allow for the construction of condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject property. Page: 6 D. Findings For Dental The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows Site Description and Land Use Desionation The proposed land use redesignation will affect only one site -900 Newport Center Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County. The 4.25 -acre site is located in the Newport Center /Fashion Island area of the City, inland of Pacific Coast Highway (Exhibit 3). The site is currently operated as a private tennis club used by members and guests of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. There are eight outdoor tennis courts, a clubhouse and ancillary uses on the property. The property owner proposes to subdivide the subject site from the larger hotel parcel and develop a 79 -unit condominium project.' The site is currently designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV -B) in the City's Certified Land Use Plan, as depicted in Exhibit 4. The site is surrounded by a golf course to the west and north, hotel development to the south, and commercial offices to the east. Coastal Act Policies As stated previously, the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the current analysis. The Coastal Act encourages the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and prioritizes visitor - serving commercial development over residential development. The proposed LUP amendment is not in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act relating to the provision of visitor serving development. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Act include the following: Section 30213 states, in pertinent part: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. Section 30222 states: The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development but not over agriculture or coastal - dependent industry. 'Coastal Development Permit Application 5 -07 -085 (Lennar), which seeks authorization to develop the condominium project, will be considered by the Commission at a subsequent hearing. Page: 7 Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan 2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor - serving and /or recreational uses, give priority to visitor ,serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for agriculture and coastal - dependant industry. 2.3.3 -3 Encourage visitor - serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational opportunities. Proposed Change in Land Use Designation The proposed amendment (NPB MAJ 1 -06, Part A) involves a request to change the land use designation of a 4.25 -acre area of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel from Vsitor Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential at 900 Newport Center Drive. No other properties are subject to the proposed land use change. The proposed change will have an adverse affect on priority visitor - serving opportunities in the area. Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. The City indicates, however, that the loss of CV -B designated land at this location will not have an adverse affect on visitor - serving commercial or recreational activities. According to the amendment request, "ftjhe property is not located in close proximity to coastal resources, coastal recreational use or the water and the change in land use does not impact the adjacent visitor serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity." Although the tennis courts are not typically considered a "coastal dependent" activity, tennis is a recreational activity, and the site is part of a larger commercial facility (Marriott Hotel) that serves visitors to the coast. Thus, although currently operated as a private tennis club serving only members and guests of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel, the club is nevertheless a visitor - serving recreational offering. In addition, the hotel is located in close proximity to popular visitor destinations, such as the Newport Dunes, Balboa Island and the beach. The site is located in a highly visible, well - traveled location and could potentially support some form of commercial and/or recreational development in the future. Re- designation of the site for residential development now results in lost future opportunity for expanded, enhanced or even lower cost visitor - serving uses at the site. The City states that the loss of this visitor - serving commercial site as a result of the requested amendment would not significantly reduce the amount of visitor - serving land in the City. The City concludes that the project represents a 2% reduction in visitor serving uses based on a table showing the portion of land currently designated as visitor serving commercial and what will remain after the 4.25 -acre site is re- designated. The table is replicated below. Page! 8 1/ Visitor Serving Conunercial Designation Amount of Land CV -A 0.5 -0.75 7.65 acres CV -B 0.5 -1.25 42.90 acres NeyTort Coast Planned Commurd 153.00 acres CITYWIDE TOTAL: 203.55 acres Less project -4.25 acres REMAINING CITYWIDE TOTAL: 199.30 acres 2% loss of CV-B) The City included the Newport Coast Planned Community in the above- referenced tabulation. However, Newport Coast is covered by a segment of the County of Orange certified LUP and is not within the boundary of the City of Newport Beach certified LUP. As such, the 153.00 acres of visitor serving commercially designated area referred to in the table is not covered by the LUP that is the subject of the current amendment request. In actuality, the 4.25 -acre loss represents an 8.4% [4.25/(7.65 +42.90)1- -not 2 % -- reduction in visitor- serving land in the portion of the City covered by this LUP. In addition, the subject site is one of only five sites designated Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) in the City's certified LUP. Many land uses that are in fact visitor - serving are located within the General Commercial (CG) or Neighborhood Commercial (CN) designation and could thus cease to provide a visitor- serving function. According to the LUP, [6he CV designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended to primarily serve the needs of visitors of Newport Beach." Hotels, and their ancillary development, clearly fit this designation and should be protected consistent with Section 30222 of the Coastal Act. The LUP includes policies that encourage visitor- serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational opportunities. Although the tennis courts are part of a private club, they are available for use by hotel guests. Hotel guests are typically members of the public that are visitors to the area- The agent for the corresponding CDP application states that the tennis courts are underutilized and replacing the courts "does not remove a publicly accessible, widely - used recreation facility from the coastal zone." The Commission acknowledges that the property owner is in no way obligated to retain the tennis court use of the site. However, under the current land use designation, the site can only be developed with uses allowed under the CV designation. Commercial development of the site could serve potential visitors to the coast. The location is conducive to commercial recreational development and consistent with the adjacent hotel use and the nearby commercial development. Residential development at the subject site would serve no purpose to members of the visiting public and could potentially establish a precedent for residential conversions in the other CV designated areas. As submitted, the proposed land use conversion proposed as Part A of the City's amendment request is inconsistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, which requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities be "protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." The proposed amendment will also have an adverse affect on the priority "visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities" to be provided under Page: 9 .i Section 30222 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, Part A of the amendment must be denied, as submitted. C. Findings for Approval with Suggested Modifications The Commission hereby rinds and declares as follows: Coastal Act Policies As stated previously, the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the current analysis. The Coastal Act encourages the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and prioritizes visitor- serving commercial development over residential development. The proposed LUP amendment is not in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act relating to the provision of visitor serving development. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Act include the following: Section 30213 states, in pertinent part: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. Section 30222 states: The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal- dependent industry. Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan 2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor- serving and /or recreational uses, give priority to visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for agriculture and coastal- dependant industry. 2.3.3 -3 Encourage visitor serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational opportunities. Mitigation to Replace the Loss of Visitor - Serving Recreation In order for the proposed land use conversion from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential to be found consistent with the Coastal Act, it must be appropriately mitigated since the proposed land use change would allow for residential development on the subject property, which is not a priority use within the Coastal Zone. The proposed amendment is a project specific request. A corresponding coastal Page: 10 development permit application (5 -07 -085) for the construction of condominiums at this location has been submitted and will be considered at a subsequent hearing. It should be noted that with this corresponding project, Marriott's property would not lose any entitlement to the 611 rooms allowed on the site (currently, according to the applicant, there are 532 rooms with a 75% occupancy). Ideally, the loss of area designated for visitor serving uses should be offset by re- designating some other equivalent or superior area within the City that is designated with a low priority land use, to a visitor serving use. The applicant (Lennar) for the corresponding coastal development permit application undertook an extensive search for potential visitor - serving properties within the coastal zone in Newport Beach to mitigate for the change in land use. in reviewing sites of similar size, the applicant determined that no properties were suitable, the result of Newport Beach being nearly built -out. In addition, the applicant determined that the acquisition of individual parcels totaling 4.25 acres was not an attractive prospect; while residential property could be acquired, this would result in sporadic rezoning, incompatible uses adjacent to existing uses and proved economically unfeasible given the property values in Newport Beach. As a result, Lennar, in consultation with the City, proposed an alternative; to pay a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land. The proposal is to provide funding for the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal Cove State Park in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars). This mitigation fee would off -set the loss of the priority land use in Newport Center and provide funding for Phase 2 of the ongoing effort by State Parks and their concessionaire, Crystal Cove Alliance, to restore the Historic District within Crystal Cove State Park. Phase 2 is presently contemplated to include the completion of the Outdoor Educational Commons (Cottages 40, 42, 43 and 44), the Beach Museum (Cottage 13), overnight accommodations in Cottage 5, Cottage 45, and the garages and creek restoration (Exhibit 6). Therefore, the Commission is requiring a suggested modification that would implement this alternative. Suggested Modification #1 would require the City to add a new Land Use Plan policy that requires a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor- serving land. The policy includes provisions to adjust the mitigation fee to account for inflation. Implementation of the mitigation requirement would be carried out through the coastal development permit process. The Crystal Cove Historic District is a 12.3 -acre coastal portion of the 2,791 -acre Crystal Cove State Park, which is located along the southeast coast of the City of Newport Beach. The federally listed Historic District is an enclave of 46 vintage rustic coastal cottages originally built in the 1920's and 1930's nestled around the mouth of Los Trancos Creek. It is one of the last remaining examples of early 20th century Southern California coastal development. California State Parks has completed Phase I of the restoration of the Historic District, which provides cottages for visitor services, educational and community programs, a restaurant, and 13 cottages for overnight use by the public. Cottages available for Page: 11 overnight rental include studios, one- and two- bedroom houses, and hostel -style dormitories. Restoration of these historic cottages represents a significant opportunity for lower cost visitor- serving accommodations and associated educational and visitor uses at Crystal Cove State Park, which has become a popular destination of statewide significance for the public, especially since some of the cottages became available for overnight use. Only 22 of the 46 historic cottages have been restored to date. Crystal Cove Alliance, the non - profit cooperating association and concessionaire benefiting Crystal Cove State Park, is currently raising funds to restore the remaining 24 cottages for visitor - serving and overnight accommodation uses. With funding, restoration can begin immediately. Revised Coastal Land Use Plan Mao Since the proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the 4.25 acre site, the Coastal Land Use Plan Map would need to be updated. Therefore, the Commission is requiring suggested modification #2, which would require the City to submit a revised Coastal Land Use Plan Map (i.e. that map referenced in Chapter 2, subsection 2.1.2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan), which reflects the land use change approved by the Commission through this amendment. Conclusion The proposed amendment, as modified through the suggested modifications, is consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, which requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities be 'protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." In addition, the proposed amendment, as modified through the suggested modifications, would not have an adverse effect on the priority "visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities" to be provided under Section 30222 of the Coastal Act. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with a local coastal program (LCP). The Commission's Local Coastal Program review and approval procedures have been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the environmental review process. Thus, under Section 21080.5 of CEQA, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an environmental impact report for each local coastal program submitted for Commission review and approval. Nevertheless, the Commission is required when approving a local coastal program to find that the local coastal program does conform with the provisions of CEQA. As part of the City's review of this project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project and found that with mitigation, the project's environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Page: 12 EXHIBIT 6 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 1 of 17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. S23 July 24, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robin Clauson, City Attorney (949) 644 -3131, rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager (949) 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Implementation Plan and Memorandum of Understanding Santa Barbara Condominiums (PA2004 -169) ISSUES: 1. Should the Santa Barbara Condominium project be subject to the policies in the 2006 Housing Element and Ordinance No. 2007 -6 regarding development agreements? 2. Is payment of $5,000,000 to the City an appropriate public benefit in consideration for application of the 2006 Housing Element and vesting of development rights? RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution Approving an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) for Lennar Homes Santa Barbara Condominiums and a Memorandum of Understanding Between Lennar Homes of California, Inc. and City of Newport Beach (PA2004 -169). DISCUSSION: On January 10, 2006, the City Council approved an application made by Lennar Homes for the development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 -acre site that presently is developed with an outdoor tennis complex operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel located at 900 Newport Center Drive. Affordable Housing: The Resolution approving the project includes the following condition with regard to affordable housing. 5. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income households in accordance with Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the Newport Beach Housing Element. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units, which mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 2 of 17 units may be provided off -site, at an approved location within the City. These units shall be identified in the agreement and constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed subdivision. Lennar began working with City staff to meet the Housing Element requirement then in effect, that 20% of new units should be provided for lower income households, shortly after submittal of their application. After having no success in finding sites available to develop new affordable units, Lennar appeared before the City Council's Affordable Housing Task Force to discuss purchase of covenants on existing affordable units to extend the term of their affordability, and received Task Force support for that approach. Lennar identified one apartment complex with a covenant to expire in 2005, but was unsuccessful in reaching agreement with the apartment owner to extend the covenant. Lennar then explored payment of an in -lieu fee to the City, but the Housing Element specifically required the provision of units as the affordable housing requirement for projects with more than 50 units. Lennar's next effort was to identify existing market rate apartments, for which they could purchase covenants to convert them to affordable units. They investigated four properties that did not work out before finding Newport Courtyard and 1128 -1142 Rutland Road, which is now proposed to meet their affordable housing requirement. Newport Courtyard is a 12 —unit apartment complex, and Condition 5 requires 16 affordable units. However, during the 17 months since City Council's approval of the Santa Barbara project (during which time Lennar has been seeking Coastal Commission approvals) the City adopted a new Housing Element as part of the General Plan update in 2006. Because of the opportunities for housing development that were added to the Land Use Element, the Housing Element was changed to set a goal 15% of all new units be affordable, and to require that an AHIP be prepared for projects with more than 50 units. The AHIP is to specify how the development will meet the City's affordable housing goal. Lennar appeared before the Affordable Housing Task Force again on May 22, 2007. The Task Force supported Lennar's compliance with the current Housing Element in satisfaction of Condition 5, specifically the purchase of covenants to restrict income and rent on the 12 units to moderate income levels for 30 years. The attached AHIP describes the affordable housing project, renovations that will be completed, the income and rent limits that will be implemented, the term of the limits and compliance with the Housing Element. If the City Council approves the AHIP, an Affordable Housing Agreement among the City, Lennar and the property owner will incorporate the AHIP provisions and set forth additional details such as tenant screening and selection and annual monitoring. As required in Condition 5, this agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map on the Santa Barbara project or the issuance of any permit for that project. Memorandum of Understanding: In addition to amending the Housing Element during the time that the Santa Barbara project was before the Coastal Commission, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Municipal Code regarding development agreements as one of many means of implementing the updated General Plan. Development agreements are now required for projects that require a legislative act (such as an LCP amendment) and include more than 50 residential units. The Santa Barbara project meets these criteria, and Lennar is willing to comply with the new development agreement mhtml:file:HC:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 3 of 17 requirements, as they have requested that the City apply the new Housing Element provisions. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding establishes the City's and Lennar's agreement to prepare a development agreement expeditiously, and outlines the provisions to be included in the development agreement. Those provisions are as follows: Lennar will pay the City $5,000,000 as part of the development agreement as a public benefit to the city. This amount is in addition to the $5,000,000 mitigation fee imposed by the Coastal Commission that is the subject of Agenda Item 18. 2. The City will expeditiously review the Affordable Housing Agreement to implement the AHIP, and will provide expedited review of development plans for the Santa Barbara project. 3. City development approvals will be vested for five years. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was made available for public review and comment during a 30 -day review period from July 15 to August 15, 2005 and approved by the City Council on January 10, 2006. Submitted by: Robin Clauson Sharon Wood City Attorney Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution 2. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan 3. Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA2004 -169) WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -2, approving an application by Lennar Homes for the development of 79 condominium units at 900 Newport Center Drive; and WHEREAS, the Resolution includes Condition 5, which establishes the requirements for the project to meet the affordable housing requirements in the City's Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the City Council approved a comprehensive update to the General Plan, including changes in affordable housing requirements under an updated Housing Element; and mhtmLfile: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 4 of 17 WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -6, amending provisions under which development agreements shall be required for residential projects to implement new policies and land use changes in the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Lennar has requested approval of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan that complies with the requirements of the updated Housing Element as satisfaction of Condition 5; and WHEREAS, Lennar wishes to enter into a development agreement to comply with Ordinance No. 2007 -6, vest its rights to develop the project as approved and establish a public benefit contribution to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan for Santa Barbara Condominiums attached as Exhibit 1, and approves the Memorandum of Understanding Between Lennar Homes of California, Inc and City of Newport Beach attached as Exhibit 2. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport. Beach held on July 24, 2007. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Lennar Homes Santa Barbara Condominiums mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 5 of 17 ffbin Housing Implementation Plan City of Newport Beach, CA July 24, 2007 mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 6 of 17 Table of Contents L Executive Summary 3 City ProcE Summary. 3 3 IL Affordable Housing Project Description 4 Unit Descriptions 4 Renovations 4. Buildings /Common Areas 4 Units 5 Maintenance 6 Project Location Map 7 Site Photos 8 III. Consistency with Housing Element 9 lV. Income and Rent Limits 10 Appendix A — City of Newport Beach Resolution of Approval 11 mhtml:file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011. AH1P & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos I. Executive Summary Page 7 of 17 In January 2006 the City of Newport Beach approved a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment and Planned Community Text for a project being proposed by Lennar Homes. The project consists of 79 market rate single - family condominiums in Newport Center, adjacent to the Newport Beach Marriott on the former tennis court site. Condition 5 of the City Council Resolution approving the project establishes the affordable housing requirement for the project, as follows: The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income households in accordance with Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the Newport Beach Housing Element. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units, which units may be provided off site, at an approved location within the City. These units shall be identified in the agreement and constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed subdivision. Background The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element as approved by the City Council in July, 2006, after approval of the Lennar project, includes an amended Housing Program 2.2.1, which sets the goal that 15% of all new housing units in the city be affordable to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. Projects with more than 50 units are required to prepare an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) that specifies how the development will meet the City's affordable housing goal. City Process Upon submittal of the Santa Barbara Condominium project to the city, Lennar began working with the city staff to evaluate scenarios to comply with the Housing Element. Due to the lack of available land in Newport Beach, Lennar gained conceptual consent of the City Council's Affordable Housing Task Force to purchase covenants to restrict existing, market rate units to moderate - income households and rents affordable to them. Summary After extensive research on options for meeting the affordable housing requirements, meeting with the Affordable Housing Task Force, and in consideration of the newly adopted Housing Element requirement for 15% of all new units to be affordable, Lennar agrees to meet the requirements of the City Council condition of approval and the July 2006 Housing Element as described below. mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos H. Affordable Housing Project Description Page 8 of 17 The Newport Courtyard Apartments at 1128 — 1142 Rutland Road, Newport Beach is an existing, market rate, 12 -unit apartment complex. Lennar will satisfy its affordable housing requirement through the purchase and recordation of covenants that restrict the occupancy of the apartments to qualifying moderate - income households, and restrict the rental rates as affordable to these households, for 30 years. An Affordable Housing Agreement among the City of Newport Beach, Lennar and the property owner shall be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the Lennar project. Unit Descriptions The apartment complex consists of two separate buildings that face a common courtyard area that features a swimming pool. Each building contains six units and a laundry room. The units are generously sized at approximately 1,100 square feet. The apartments all contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a dining area. Each unit has one assigned carport. While the units were built in 1961, the owner is currently undertaking a significant renovation effort to upgrade the complex. Renovations Comprehensive renovations to the property to make the complex comparable with more recently constructed projects and ensure that it provides viable housing opportunities for the term of the covenants will be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Lennar project, as required by the City Council condition of approval. The renovations will include the following: Buildings /Common Areas • Recovering of the existing stucco on the building fagade with Hardiplank Select Cedarmill Siding • Complete replacement of all roof materials • Exterior repainting of the entire complex , including the iron handrails • Installation of new vertical wrought iron pickets between the existing pickets on the railings in the courtyard area • Installation of new redwood fencing on the back side of both buildings, enclosing rear patio /porch areas • Replacement of fences enclosing patio areas for each unit adjacent to the common courtyard with lower landscape shrubs to allow visibility and openness in the courtyard area for each apartment • Renovation of both laundry rooms to include: • New 30 gallon electric water heaters and non -burst water supply lines • New countertop for folding clothes • New vinyl flooring, windows and doors • Installation of new motion detecting light fixtures in the garage area • Replacement of concrete in the central common area with pavers throughout the courtyard • New landscaping throughout the property Units Kitchens • Complete kitchen remodel of two units with new appliances, countertops, cabinets and sinks • Replacement of seven -year old appliances with new ones in two units • Maintenance of appliances less than three years old in eight units Bathrooms • Replacement of all toilets with new, low -flow toilets • Replacement of all shower heads with new, low -flow shower heads mhtml:file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 9 of 17 Windows and Doors • Installation of new vinyl windows and sliding glass doors • Insallation of new Dutch style front doors in all 12 units Walls and Floors • Repainting of all units' interiors • Installation of new carpet in each unit Maintenance The property will be maintained and preserved in good condition, in good repair, and in a decent, safe, sanitary, habitable and tenantable condition. All units will be fit for occupation by human beings and substantially comply with state and local building and health codes. At a minimum, all rental units shall have the following: o Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including unbroken windows and doors o Plumbing facilities in good working order, including hot and cold running water, kitchen sink, working toilet, wash basin, and bathtub or shower, connected to a sewage disposal system o Gas facilities in good working order o Heating facilities in good working order o An electric system, including lighting, wiring, and equipment, in good working order o Clean and sanitary buildings, grounds, and appurtenances (for example, courtyard, swimming pool and.carports), free from debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin o Adequate trash receptacles in good repair o Floors, stairways, and railings in good repair o Safe fire or emergency exits leading to a street or hallway • Stairs, hallways, and exits kept litter -free • Storage areas, garages, and basements kept free of combustible materials o Operable deadbolt locks on the main entry doors of rental units, and operable locking or security devices on windows • Working smoke detectors in all units and in common stairwells • Ground fault circuit interrupters for swimming pools and antisuction protections mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Project Location Map Page 10 of 17 mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos no V N V. Up MI. Page I I of 17 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos I1I. Consistency with Housing Element Page 12 of 17 The City of Newport Beach completed a comprehensive General Plan update in 2006. The Housing Element was included in the update to ensure consistency with the updated Land Use Element. The Housing Element details a number of goals for the City, which include the following: promoting quality residential development through application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of housing stock; providing a balanced residential community that contains a variety of housing types, designs and opportunities for all economic segments of the community; extension of affordability covenants with owners of existing affordable apartments; preserving and increasing housing affordability, through rental housing, for very low- and low- income households; and providing housing for special needs groups. The affordable housing apartment complex achieves a number of the above goals, including promoting quality residential development, preserving and increasing housing affordability and contributing to a balanced residential community through rental housing. By converting 12 existing, market rate rental units exclusively for Moderate Income Households for 30 years, the project increases housing affordability in the City and preserves rental housing that might otherwise be converted to condominiums. The affordable housing apartment complex is consistent with a number of the goals and policies in the Housing Element. Listed below is a matrix of where the Housing Element and project are consistent Goal Project Consistency H 1 Project renovates and preserves an existing Quality residential development and apartment community in Newport Beach and preservation, conservation, and appropriate adds deed restrictions to all 12 units for 30 years redevelopment of housing stock to restrict rental to qualifying moderate income households H 3 Project provides for 12 additional rental units Housing opportunities for as many center and available to Moderate Income Households owner occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the city mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos IV. Income and Rent Limits Page 13 of 17 The Newport Courtyard Apartments at 1128 — 1142 Rutland Road, Newport Beach will be restricted for rent by qualifying households. In order to meet the minimum eligibility requirements the units must be rented to households qualifying as Moderate Income Households. Moderate Income Households will have income that does not exceed 120% of the Orange County ( "County "), California annualized median family income ( "Moderate Income ") as then currently published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD ") for the County based on four (4) person households, as the same may be adjusted from time to time. _ Rent shall not exceed thirty percent (30 %) of the income limit. mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 14 of 17 Appendix A City of Newport Beach Resolution of Approval [TO BE INSERTED] MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") is entered into by and between Lennar Homes of California, Inc., ( "Lennar ") and the City of Newport Beach (City), a municipal corporation, through its duly elected, appointed, qualified or acting representatives. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006 the Newport Beach City Council approved Resolution NO. 2006 -2 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH NO. 2005- 071067) and approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -004 and adopted Ordinance No. 2006 -1 approving Planned Community Development No. 2005 -003 amending Zoning District Map No. (48) changing the subject property from CV -B to RM -C for property located at 900 Newport Center Drive (PA 2004 -169); and B. WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006 the City Council approved a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan, including changes in Affordable Housing Requirements under an updated Housing Element; and C. WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007,—the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -6, amending provisions under which development agreements shall be required for residential development projects in the City to implement new policies and Land Use changes in the new General Plan and requiring development agreements for projects that require a legislative act and include more than 50 units; and D. WHEREAS, on July 10, 2007 the California Coastal Commission approved City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB- MAJ -1 -06 Part A (Marriott Hotel VSC to MDR/Santa Barbara Condominiums) subject to modifications; and E. WHEREAS, Lennar has requested approval of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) which documents Lennar's commitment to the provision of 12 apartment units in the Moderate Income level for a period of 30 years and which will satisfy the intent of Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 2006 -2 for affordable housing; but will comply with the amended requirements for number of units of affordable housing under the updated Housing Element. F. WHEREAS, concurrent with and as consideration for the approval of the AHIP under the provisions of the updated Housing Element, the two parties wish to enter into a development agreement to vest the right to develop the project without additional public benefit mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 15 of 17 contributions other than payment to the City of Newport Beach the amount of $'5 million for the City to use for projects that provide a public benefit to the City as determined by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: Section 1. The City shall give prompt consideration to the necessary support language for Coastal Commission approval of the Coastal Development Permit, and to the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) required by the current Housing Element. Section 2. The parties will expeditiously prepare and the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council will promptly consider approval of a development agreement that includes the following principal provisions. The development agreement must be approved and executed before the issuance of any grading or building permit for the project. A. As a condition of the development agreement, Lennar shall pay $5 million to the City of Newport Beach. This amount shall be paid in two installments, $2 million to be delivered concurrently with the issuance of the first residential building permit and $3 million to be delivered concurrently with the issuance of the final occupancy permit for all 79 homes. If the certificate of occupancy for the 791h unit is not issued within in 12 months of the first certificate of occupancy then the $3 million shall be due on a pro rata per unit basis for those units for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued and payable on a pro rata basis for the ensuing units as each certificate of occupancy is issued. Upon payment of this amount, no other payment shall be required for public benefit to the City of Newport Beach. B. The City will expeditiously review the Affordable Housing Agreement to implement the AHIP, and will provide expedited review of development plans for the project, in support of timely receipt of building permits and final occupancy permits. C. City development approvals will be vested for a period not to exceed five (5) years. Section 3. The terms of this MOU shall become effective upon execution by both parties and shall continue thereafter until the satisfactory completion of the obligations of the parties as described herein. The MOU may be altered, changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties. Any changes or amendments must be in writing and signed by the parties before such change or amendment shall take effect. Section 4. The MOU is executed in counterparts, each of which shall be considered a duplicate original. Section 5. Notices: Any demand upon or notice required or permitted to be given by one party to the other shall be in writing, shall be made in the following manner, and shall be effective (a) upon receipt if given by personal delivery, (b) on the date indicated on the receipt if given by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or (c) on the succeeding business day after mailing or deposit if given by Express Mail or by deposit with a private delivery service of general use (e.g. Federal Express), postage or fee paid, as appropriate, addressed to the parties in Paragraph 17. Notice of a change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner set forth in this section. Section 6. For the purposes of this MOU, all information, requests, or other business including any demand upon a party or notice pursuant hereto shall be coordinated through the following mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos agency representatives: City of Newport Beach Homer Bludau, City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Mr. John Baayoun Regional Vice President 25 Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Page 16 of 17 Section 7. This MOU shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. Section 8. This MOU shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Robin Clauson City Attorney ATTEST: By: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation E Steven Rosansky Mayor Lennar Homes of California, Inc. LE John Baayoun Regional Vice Presiden mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 17 of 17 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 9 May 11, 2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, GA 92658 (949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3229 Bob Shorb, Host Marriott 6903 Rockledge Drive, Suite 1500 Bethesda. MD 20817 STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2004 -009 (PA2004 -084) Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date APPLICATION: Staff Approval No. SA2004 -009 (PA2004 -084) REQUEST: In conjunction with the proposed renovation and remodel of the existing Marriott Hotel, the applicant requests a review of the project changes for a determination by the Planning Director of substantial conformance with the existing approved Site Plan Review No. 29. APPLICANT: Bob Shorb for Host Marriott, property owner LOCATION: 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to renovate and remodel the hotel and reconfigure amenities within the facility as well as additions and demolition. The project remodel entails demolition of a portion of the hotel rooms and meeting rooms to construct two new meeting rooms on -site adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive. The gross square footage of the project will be less than the currently authorized 363,373 square feet and the number of hotel rooms will be reduced. The hotel is currently authorized 611 hotel rooms and currently operates 586. The total number of rooms will be reduced to 532 by combining existing rooms to create larger suites and the conversion of square footage to provide other hotel related amenities and facilities. The project as proposed will eliminate an access drive aisle that provides access between the parking lot at the front of the property and the parking lot at the rear of the property. It is anticipated that additional directional signage will be provided to facilitate vehicular traffic in finding the project parking structure located at the Newport Center Drive side of the property and is discussed in detail in the appendix of this document. Authority; Section 20.92.080 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that the Planning Director may waive the requirement for a new or amended site plan review application. The waiver may be granted if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial alterations, an addition to the plan or the conditions of approval and are consistent with the intent of the original approval. The property is located in the APF District. May 11, 2004 Page - 2 ACTION: Approved May 11, 2004. Findings: The Planning Director in approving this application reviewed the project with regard to the proposed change to the site plan, vehicular and pedestrian circulation and conformance with ° the approved site plan review. The proposed reduction in the number of hotel rooms results in a reduction in the overall parking requirement of the project and the site plan changes reduce the number of on site parking spaces. The detailed discussion can be found in the appendix of this document. In consideration of those aspects, the Planning Director determined in this particular case that the proposal, in accordance with 20.92 080 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, is a minor change that does not necessitate the filing of a new er amended use permit or site plan review application. Additionally, the Planning Director hereby waives the requirement for the filing of a new or amended application for the site plan review. The Planning Director made the determination based on the following findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program and limits the site to a maximum of 611 hotel rooms. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program do not limit the gross square footage or building footprint of the project. Additionally, the size of the facility will be less than that previously approved by Site Plan Review No 29, 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). 3. The reduction in the number of hotel rooms and the proposed facilities addition reduces the number of required parking spaces and the new configuration will provide the number of on -site parking spaces required by the current site plan review approval (1,31 parking spaces for each guest room). 4. The remodel entails demolition of a portion of the hotel rooms and meeting rooms, the construction of an expanded lobby, addition of meeting rooms adjacent to the Santa Barbara Drive side of the property and other amenities and facilities related to the hotel operation. 5. The hotel is currently authorized 611 hotel rooms and currently operates 586. The total number of rooms will be reduced to 532 by combining existing rooms to create larger suites and to provide other hotel related amenities and facilities. 6. The site plan review does not establish specific required setbacks measured from the street or a specific building footprint or size. 7. The total percentage of compact parking spaces provided will not exceed 25% of the available parking pool. May 11, 2004 Page - 3 Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations. Any deviation from the plans submitted and approved by this action may require separate review and approval to determine substantial conformance with this approval. 2. Ali applicable conditions of approval of Site Plan Review No. 29 shall remain in force. 3. The use or provision of compact parking (maximum of 25% of the total parking provided) shall be in accordance with the conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 29. 4. The parking and circulation system for vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. All work within the public right -of -way shall be performed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 5. Prior to issuance of the building permits for the proposed renovation and remodel, a revised architectural site plan and floor plans of the approved plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Department for inclusion into this staff approval file. 6. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation, which is the subject of this approval, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, Planning Director By JaGarcia, AICP Senior Planner F: \USERS%PLN \SHARED\PAs \PAS - 2004 \PA2004 - 084 \SA2004 -009 APPR.DOC Attachments: Appendix Vicinity Map Letter from Applicant Describing the Request Site Plan and Floor Plan (available for review in Planning Dept. cc: property owner: Host Marriott 6903 Rockledge Drive, Suite 1500 Bethesda. MD 20817 May 11, 2004 Page - 4 APPENDIX Use Permit The original use permit was related to the use of a portion of the hotel facilities for recreational and electronic games. This use permit was not exercised within 24 months of the effective date of the Planning Commission or City Council action. Therefore, the use permit is null and void. A determination of substantial conformance with the project approved by Use Permit No. 2095 is not necessary since it was not exercised and was allowed to expire. Site Plan Review Section 20.92 establishes the purpose and procedures for the site plan review. At its meeting of February 14, 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved General Plan Amendment 81 -3, Traffic Study, Site Plan Review No. 29 and Use Permit No. 2095. The site plan review was approved to establish the project site plan with the existing building location and parking lot layout. A determination of substantial conformance with Site Plan Review No. 29 is subject to review and approval by the Planning Director in accordance with Section 20.92.080 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Director has determined that the project as proposed is not in substantial conformance with the approved Site Plan Review No. 29. However, the Planning Director has determined that the project as proposed to allow: • Demolition of portions of the existing hotel structures, including hotel rooms, • Relocation and addition of meeting rooms and other hotel amenities; Site plan alterations to the parking lot; • Site plan alterations to the access driveways and circulations aisles, are minor changes that do not necessitate the filing of a new site plan review application. The Planning Director has also determined that the proposed changes do not alter or modify any existing conditions of approval of the original approval based on the following review. Site Plan Changes The proposed changes to the site plan are functional changes to reconfigure hotel amenities and reduce the number of hotel rooms. Approximately 42 rooms will be demolished between the South Tower and the South Wing of the facility and will be replaced by an enhanced garden and landscape area. The main lobby will be enlarged and reconfigured and new meeting rooms will be located on the Santa Barbara Drive side of the property and extend to within 7 -feet of the property line (the existing building maintains a setback of 25- feet). There are no minimum setback distances specified by the Site Plan Review No. 29, therefore, staff has determined that the change is a minor site plan alteration that does not justify the filing of a new application. May 11, 2004 Page - 5 The location of the new meeting rooms will result in the loss of an existing drive aisle that connects the front and rear parking lots of the project. The vehicular circulation is discussed below. Vehicular Circulation Changes As stated previously, the meeting rooms will displace the existing drive aisle that provides direct access from the rear parking lot to the front parking lot. The new rear parking lot will also be provided an enhanced access drive that will facilitate access to the service entrance of the hotel facility. Additionally, the enhanced drive entrance will also serve the nearby meeting rooms as a drop off point for valet service personnel. All work proposed within the public right -of -way shall be approved through an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Parking Requirement The Planning Commission approved language in General Plan Amendment No. 81 -3 that allowed for a parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula. The parking requirement established by Site Plan Review No. 29 was 1.31 parking spaces for each guest room. The applicant proposes to utilize the same parking requirement and apply it to the reduced number of hotel rooms. This will result in a reduction of the parking requirement from 768 spaces to 697 parking spaces (rooms reduced from 586 to 532). Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in the number of hotel rooms justifies the reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The site plan review also included a modification permit to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of compact parking spaces with a total not to exceed 25% of the available parking pool. The proposed parking plan is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department for the final location of the compact parking spaces on site. Staff is of the opinion that the surplus parking spaces over and above the required number shall be provided as conforming parking spaces and not as additional compact spaces. This will require alterations to the parking plan as presented. May 11, 2004 Page 6 VICINITY MAP Staff Approval No. SA2004 -009 (PA2004 -084) 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE EXHIBIT 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE AL South Coast Aree ONke 200 Oosangste, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA WS02d302 (582)590.5071 T 14a TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons June 21, 2007 FROM: Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director, South Coast District (Orange County) Teresa Henry, District Manager, South Coast District Karl Schwing, Supervisor, Regulation & Planning, Orange County Area Ryan Todaro, Coastal Program Analyst SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB -MAJ -1-06 Part A (Marriott Hotel VSC to MDR/Santa Barbara Condominiums) SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBMITTAL The amendment that is the subject of this report was submitted as part of a package with other Land Use Plan (LUP) amendments. This report deals only with "Part K of the amendment. Part A of the amendment consists of a request by the City of Newport Beach to change the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by tennis courts) at the Marriott Hotel from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential, at 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. (Part. B of the amendment was acted on separately at the Commission's July 2006 hearing, and Part C was retracted, in part because the City Council had not authorized its original submittal.) The proposed land use change would allow for the construction of condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject property. A corresponding coastal development permit application (5 -07 -085, Lennar) has been submitted and will be considered at a subsequent hearing. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Commission staff recommends that the Commission DENY the proposed City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MA-71--M Part A as submitted and APPROVE the amendment subject to suggested modifications. The motions to accomp l s this are found on Page 3. The major issues raised by this amendment request are adequate provision of visitor - serving commercial development and public access. The proposed land use designation change from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential would have an adverse affect on priority visitor - serving opportunities in the area. Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. However, with the adoption of the suggested modifications, which include a new Land Use Plan policy that requires a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land, the proposed land use designation change would not have an adverse affect on priority NPB- MAJ -1 -06 (Part A) visitor - serving opportunities in the area. The mitigation fee shall be for the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal Cove State Park in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority land use In Newport Center. This mitigation fee would fund Phase 2 of the ongoing Crystal Cove Alliance restoration effort of the Historic District at Crystal Cove State Park and which Is presently contemplated to provide for the completion of the Outdoor Educational Commons (Cottages 40, 42, 43 and 44), the Beach Museum (Cottage 13), Cottage 5, Cottage 45, the garages and creek restoration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For further information, please contact Ryan Todaro at the South Coast District Office of the Coastal Commission at (562) 590 -5071. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan (LUP) of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) is available for review at the Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission or at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach. Homer Bludau is the contact person for the City of Newport Beach, and he may be reached by calling (949) 644- 3000. EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02 approved January 10, 2006 2. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -26 approved March 28, 2006 3. Vicinity Map (Newport Center) 4. Land Use Map 5. Vicinity Map (Crystal Cove State Park) 6. Site Map (Crystal Cove State Park) 7. City of Newport Beach letter Page: 2 I. COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1 -06 (PART A) Motion #1 41 move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted." Staff Recommendation for Denial Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the land use plan amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolutions and findings. The motion to certify as submitted passes only upon affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners. Resolution for Denial The Commission hereby DENIES the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that the amendment will not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Certification of the Land Use Plan amendment would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the land use plan amendment as submitted. Motion "I move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A if modified as suggested in this staff report." Staff Recommendation for Certification Staff recommends a YMvote. Passage of this motion will result in the certification of the land use plan with suggested modification and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners. Resolution for Certification with Sustoested Modifications The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1.06 Part A for the City of Newport Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be In conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested Page: 3 complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further, feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any, significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment. II. PROCEDURAL PROCESS (LEGAL STANDARD FOR REVIEW) A. Standard of Review The standard of review for land use plan amendments is found in Section 30512 of the Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to certify an LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, Section 30512(c) states: "The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission." B. Procedural Requirements Pursuant to Section 13551(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, a local government's resolution for submittal of a proposed LUP amendment must indicate whether the local coastal program amendment will require formal local government adoption after Commission approval, or is an amendment that will take effect automatically upon the Commission's approval pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. The City of Newport Beach's submittal indicates that this LCP amendment, if approved as submitted, will take effect upon Commission certification. Approval of the amendment with modifications will require subsequent action by the City. III. BACKGROUND The Land Use Plan (LUP) for the City of Newport Beach was effectively certified on May 19, 1982 and comprehensively updated October 13, 2005. The subject amendment was initially submitted by the City of Newport Beach on March 6, 2006. On March 15, 2006, Coastal Commission staff notified the City of Newport Beach that the submittal was incomplete and that additional information would be required to complete the submittal. City staff submitted the information on April 14, 2006. On May 18, 2006, Coastal Commission staff notified the City that the amendment request was complete. The Commission approved a request for a one -year (1) time extension of the amendment on June 13, 2006, which gives the Commission until July 13, 2007 to act on this submission. Part B of the amendment request, which involved a change in the Page: 4 land use designation of another parcel from Medium Density Residential to Open Space, was approved by the Commission on July 12, 2006. Part A of the amendment request is now being submitted for Commission action. Part A involves a change in land use designation at 900 Newport Center Drive from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential. IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Newport Beach approved this segment of the Land Use Plan amendment request (Part A) through a City Council public hearing on January 10, 2006. The item was originally scheduled for the Council hearing of November 22, 2005, but the Item was continued to the December 13, 2005 hearing and finally approved on January 10, 2006. It was approved through City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02, which approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 and Local Coastal Plan Amendment 2005 -001 (Exhibit 1). Prior to either the City Council approving the LUP amendment request, or the Planning Commission voting to recommend that the City Council do so, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 3, 2005. Notice was provided for both entities' hearings. Notice of the City Council's public hearing was mailed and posted on November 14, 2005 and published in the local newspaper on November 12, 2005. The City Council approved a subsequent resolution (Resolution No. 2006 -26) on March 28, 2006 to correct procedural deficiencies in the original resolution related to the Coastal Act requirements (Exhibit 2). One letter of opposition was received at the local level. The letter expresses concerns about increased density at the subject site. No oral comments were received during the public hearings held at the local level. V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Staff recommends the following suggested modifications to the proposed LUP amendment be adopted. .M -• •. •i Add the following new Land Use Plan policy to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Visitor- Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3,1 (Commercial) of the Coastal Land Use Plan after existing policy number 2.3.1 -7: 2.3.1 -8 LCP Amendment No. 2005 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -06 part A) to the Coastal Land Use Plan changing a portion of land, not to exceed 4.25 acres in size, designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV) in Newport Center to a residential designation shall require a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land. The mitigation fee shall be used for the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses Page: 5 at Crystal Cove State Park. The mitigation fee shall be in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority land use In Newport Center. The mitigation fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any coastal development permit granted for any residential project within the newly designated area and to an entity, identified by the permitting agency, capable of implementing the mitigation at Crystal Cove State Park. Until paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the coastal development permit, the amount shall be increased every July 1st by an amount calculated on the basis of the percentage change from the year 2007 in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers as determined by the entity that grants the coastal development permit. The addition of this new policy may affect the numbering of subsequent LUP policies when the City of Newport Beach publishes the final LUP incorporating the Commission's suggested modifications. This staff report will not make revisions to the policy numbers. The City will make modifications to the numbering system when it prepares the final LUP for submission to the Commission for certification pursuant to Sections 13544 and 13544.5 of the California Code of Regulations. Suggested Modification #2 The City shall submit a revised Coastal Land Use Plan Map (i.e. that map referenced in Chapter 2, subsection 2.1.2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan), which reflects the land use change approved by the Commission through this amendment. VI. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED, AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED A. Amendment Description The proposed submittal consists of a request by the City of Newport Beach to change the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by tennis courts) at the Marriott Hotel from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential, at 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. Approximately 9.54 acres of Visitor- Serving Commercial (VC) would remain on site in Newport Center after the land use designation change. The proposed land use change would allow for the construction of condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject property. Page: 6 B. Findings For Denial The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: Site Description and Land Use Desionation The proposed land use redesignation will affect only one site -900 Newport Center Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County. The 4.25 -acre site is located in the Newport Center /Fashion Island area of the City, inland of Pacific Coast Highway (Exhibit 3). The site is currently operated as a private tennis club used by members and guests of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. There are eight outdoor tennis courts, a clubhouse and ancillary uses on the property. The property owner proposes to subdivide the subject site from the larger hotel parcel and develop a 79 -unit condominium project.' The site is currently designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV -B) in the City's Certified Land Use Plan, as depicted in Exhibit 4. The site is surrounded by a golf course to the west and north, hotel development to the south, and commercial offices to the east. Coastal Act Policies As stated previously, the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the current analysis. The Coastal Act encourages the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and prioritizes visitor - serving commercial development over residential development. The proposed LUP amendment is not in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act relating to the provision of visitor serving development. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Act include the following: Section 30213 states, in pertinent part: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. Section 30222 states: The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal - dependent industry. ' Coastal Development Permit Application 5 -07 -085 (Lennar), which seeks authorization to develop the condominium project, will be considered by the Commission at a subsequent hearing. Page: 7 Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan 2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor - serving and /or recreational uses, give priority to visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for agriculture and coastal - dependant industry. 2.3.3 -3 Encourage visitor - serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational opportunities. Proposed Change in Land Use Designation The proposed amendment (NPB MAJ 1 -06, Part A) involves a request to change the land use designation of a 4.25 -acre area of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel from Visitor Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential at 900 Newport Center Drive. No other properties are subject to the proposed land use change. The proposed change will have an adverse affect on priority visitor - serving opportunities in the area. Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. The City indicates, however, that the loss of CV -B designated land at this location will not have an adverse affect on visitor - serving commercial or recreational activities. According to the amendment request, "(tjhe property is not located in close proximity to coastal resources, coastal recreational use or the water and the change in land use does not impact the adjacent visitor serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity." Although the tennis courts are not typically considered a "coastal dependent" activity, tennis is a recreational activity, and the site is part of a larger commercial facility (Marriott Hotel) that serves visitors to the coast. Thus, although currently operated as a private tennis club serving only members and guests of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel, the club is nevertheless a visitor- serving recreational offering. In addition, the hotel is located in close proximity to popular visitor destinations, such as the Newport Dunes, Balboa Island and the beach. The site is located in a highly visible, well - traveled location and could potentially support some form of commercial and /or recreational development in the future. Re- designation of the site for residential development now results in lost future opportunity for expanded, enhanced or even lower cost visitor - serving uses at the site. The City states that the loss of this visitor - serving commercial site as a result of the requested amendment would not significantly reduce the amount of visitor- serving land in the City. The City concludes that the project represents a 2% reduction in visitor serving uses based on a table showing the portion of land currently designated as visitor serving commercial and what will remain after the 4.25 -acre site is re- designated. The table is replicated below. Page: 8 1 b EXHIBIT 12 City Council Meeting February 14,1983 Agenda Item No- _ D -1 r - Supplemental Report CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. - -TO% City. Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS Financial . obligations of the Marriott Hotel, to the improvement of the City's Traffic and Circulation System.required as a result " of the proposed hotel expansion. In our initial staff report of February 14, 1983, it was indicated that the Marriott Hotel, as result of the approval of the Traffic.Study and Site flan Review No. 29, would be required to pay to the City certain 'sums - of'money for the purpose of constructing sound-attenuation ".barriers, -traffic signals, and traffic circulation improvements:. In additionthe. Marriott - Corporation was also required, as a result of the approval of the General, Plan Amendment,.`to >. pay to the City a negotiated sum of money towards the construction of additional circulation system improvements. The purpose of this supplemental* CJreport is to summarize for the City Council what the actual contribution .amounts. to. - - Noise walls adjacent to Eastbluff,Irvine Terrace and West Newport $130,200.00 Traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center _ Drive (500 40,000.00 Traffic circulation system improvements PCH /Orange Street, PCE /Prospect Street, PCH /Bayside DriveandJamboree -Road/ Ford Road 242,000.00 SUB TOTAL. - $412,000 .00 - Additional circulation system improve- - ments calculated as representing the project's percentage of total traffic - added to the circulation system at General .Plan huildoutand applied to- ward the City's share of the Coast Highway widening project between Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive (13.78 of $1,400,000.00) $191,800.00 GRAND TOTAL $603,800.00 - TO:. -_ City Council -2. It is recommended that the City Council's approval of this.project require -the deposit of $361,800.00, noise wall, traffic signal and the additional circulation system improvement funds, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits,- and the remaining $242,000.00; TPO circulation system. improvements, be deposited prior to occupancy of any portion of the :project's. facilities, other than those designed for parking. Respectfully. submitted, - SD. HEWICKER lan.ing Director Memorandum SCANNED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTjT C (1 *� 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDm ` y a� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949)644-3208 To: Planning Commission From: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Date: November 14, 2011 Re: Development Agreement Planning Divisio 14 Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Applicant: Golf Realty Fund The draft Development Agreement (DA) is attached for your review. The City Attorney's office is working with the applicant to finalize the draft Development Agreement. The term of the agreement is ten (10) years. Given that the site is within the Coastal Zone and that the City does not have a Certified Local Coastal Program, approval of the Development Agreement by the Costal Commission is necessary prior to the agreement being executed and recorded. The Development Agreement would provide the vested right to proceed with the project as ultimately approved by the City and the Coastal Commission. The draft DA requires the payment of a "Public Benefit Fee" in the sum of: 1) Ninety -three thousand dollars ($93,000) per each residential dwelling unit; 2) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of construction for the proposed golf clubhouse; and 3) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of new construction to the existing tennis clubhouse. Each of these fees is subject to the Consumer Price Index adjustments. Attachment: Draft Development Agreement CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DATE: November 14, 2011 Item No. 2b Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 TO: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner FROM: Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorneyc�A. MATTER: Golf Realty Fund: Development Agreement No.: A10 -00773 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Development Agreement Attached please find a copy of the proposed Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Golf Realty Fund. E40 [A10- 00773] &andtK -UngR from LM 11.14.11 re Transmittal of DA RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Attn: City Clerk (Space Above This Line Is for Recorder's Use Only) This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and 27383. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and GOLF REALTY FUND CONCERNING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN NEWPORT CENTER WITHING THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT A10- 00773 / NBCC -Golf RwIly LLC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65864- 65869.5) This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is dated for reference purposes as of the _ day of 2011 (the "Agreement Date'), and is being entered into by and between the City of Newport Beach ( "C"), and Golf Realty Fund, a California limited partnership "OOwner "). City and Owner are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party." RECITALS A. Owner owns a fee interest in title to that certain real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California which is more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A" and depicted on the site map attached hereto as Exhibit B (the, "Property"). The Property is located within and consists of approximately 145 acres of the area shown on the City's Zoning Map as the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Distri ct. B. In order to encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning and public facilities financing, strengthen the public planning process and encourage private implementation of the local general plan, provide certainty in the approval of projects in order to avoid waste of time and resources, and reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance to property owners that they may proceed with projects consistent with existing land use policies, rules, and regulations, the California Legislature adopted California Government Code sections 65864- 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute ") authorizing cities and counties to enter into development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or equitable interest in real property located within their jurisdiction. C. On March 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -6, entitled "Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.45 of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding Development Agreements" (the "Development Agreement Ordinance "). This Agreement is consistent with the Development Agreement Ordinance. D. As detailed in Section 3 of this Agreement, Owner has agreed to provide the following significant public benefits as consideration for this Agreement: Development of Visitor - Serving Uses within the Coastal Zone, and other economic contributions including the payment of a Public Benefit Fee. E. This Agreement is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan ( "General Plan"), including without limitation the General Plan's designation of the Property as "PR (Parks and Recreation) the Coastal Land Use Plan's designation as "OS (Open Space)" and the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (PA 2008 -152) that was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance No. 97 -10 in order to establish appropriate zoning to regulate land use and development of the Property consistent with the General Plan. F. In recognition of the significant public benefits that this Agreement provides, the City Council has found that this Agreement: (i) is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan as of the date of this Agreement; (ii) is in the best interests of the health, safety, and -1- general welfare of City, its residents, and the public; (iii) is entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, City's police power; (iv) is consistent and has been approved consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (PA 2008 -152) approved by the City Council on or before the Agreement Date, both of which analyze the environmental effects of the proposed development of the Project on the Property; and (v) is consistent and has been approved consistent with provisions of California Government Code section 65867 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 15.45. G. On , 201_, City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Agreement, made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and recommended to the City Council that the City Council approve this Agreement. H. On , 201_, the City Council also held a public hearing on this Agreement and considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and information submitted by City staff, Owner, and members of the public. On , 201_, consistent with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Development Agreement Ordinance, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. (the "Adopting Ordinance"), finding this Agreement to be consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, City and Owner agree as follows: 1. . Definitions. In addition to any terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms when used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below: "Action" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.10 of this Agreement. "Adopting Ordinance" shall mean City Council Ordinance No. , approving and adopting this Agreement. "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement, as the same may be amended from time to time. " Agreement Date" shall mean the date first written above, which date is the date the City Council adopted the Adopting Ordinance. "CEO A" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000- 21177) and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary for Resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.) ( "CEQA Guidelines "), as the same may be amended from time to time. "Cit ' shall mean the City of Newport Beach, a California charter city. "City Council" shall mean the governing body of City. "City's Affiliated Parties" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 9.1 of this Agreement. "Claim" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 9.1 of this Agreement. "CPI Index" shall mean the Consumer Price Index published from time to time by the United States Department of Labor for all urban consumers (all items) for the smallest geographic area that includes the City or, if such index is discontinued, such other similar index as may be publicly available that is selected by City in its reasonable discretion. "Cure Period" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 7.1 of this Agreement. "Default" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 7.1 of this Agreement. "Develop" or "Development" shall mean to improve or the improvement of the Property for the purpose 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 all of the private improvements and facilities comprising the Project; the preservation or restoration, as required of natural and man -made or altered open space areas; and the installation of landscaping. The terms "Develop" and "Development," as used herein, do not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction, replacement, or redevelopment of any structure, improvement, or facility after the initial construction and completion thereof. "Development Agreement Ordinance" shall mean Chapter 15.45 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. "Development Agreement Statute" shall mean California Government Code Sections 65864- 65869.5, inclusive. "Development Exactions" shall mean any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any ordinance, resolution, rule, or official policy for the dedication of land, the construction or installation of any public improvement or facility, or the payment of any fee or charge in order to lessen, offset, mitigate, or compensate for the impacts of Development of the Project on the environment or other public interests. "Development Plan" shall mean the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and _ Council on or before the Agreement consistent with this Agreement. Date, as Newport Beach Planned Community District, Development Plan approved by the City the same may be amended from time to time "Development Regulations" shall mean the following regulations as they are in effect as of the Effective Date and to the extent they govern or regulate the development of the Property, but excluding any amendment or modification to the Development Regulations adopted, approved, or imposed after the Effective Date that impairs or restricts Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement, unless such amendment or modification is expressly authorized by this Agreement or is agreed to by Owner in writing: the General Plan; the Development Plan; and, to the extent not expressly superseded by the Development Plan or this Agreement, all other land use and subdivision regulations governing the permitted uses, density and intensity of use, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, procedures for obtaining required City permits and approvals for development, and similar matters that may apply to development of the Project on the Property during the Term of this Agreement that are set forth in Title 15 of the Municipal Code (buildings and construction), Title 19 of the Municipal Code (subdivisions), and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (planning and zoning), but specifically excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code, including without limitation Title 5 of the Municipal Code (business licenses and regulations). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term "Development Regulations," as used herein, does not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy governing any of the following: (i) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (ii) taxes and assessments; (iii) the control and abatement of nuisances; (iv) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or (v) the exercise of the power of eminent domain. "Effective Date" shall mean the latest of the following dates, as applicable: (i) the date that is thirty (30) days after the Agreement Date; (ii) if a referendum concerning the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date is timely qualified for the ballot and a referendum election is held concerning the Adopting Ordinance or any of such Development Regulations, the date on which the referendum is certified resulting in upholding and approving the Adopting Ordinance and such Development Regulations and becomes effective, if applicable; (iii) if a lawsuit is timely filed challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date, the date on which said challenge is finally resolved in favor of the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and/or the applicable Development Regulations, whether such finality is achieved by a final non- appealable judgment, voluntary or involuntary dismissal (and the passage of any time required to appeal an involuntary dismissal), or binding written settlement agreement; or (iv) the date of approval of a coastal development permit for the Project. Promptly after the Effective Date occurs, the Parties agree to cooperate in causing an appropriate instrument to be executed and recorded against the Property memorializing the Effective Date. "Environmental Laws" means all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations which are in effect as of the Agreement Date, and all federal, state, regional, county; municipal, and local laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, rules, and regulations which may hereafter be enacted and which apply to the Property or any part thereof, pertaining to the use, generation, storage, disposal, release, treatment, or removal of any Hazardous Substances, including without limitation the following: the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601, et seg., as amended ( "CERCLA "); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et sec ., as amended ( "RCRA "); the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. .Sections 11001 et sea., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et sec ., as amended; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et sea., as amended; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq., as amended; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 et sea., as amended; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 136 et sea., as amended; the Federal Safe 0 Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et sea., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq., as amended; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651 et sea., as amended; and California Health and Safety Code Section 25100, et M. "General Plan" shall mean City's 2006 General Plan adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006 -76, as amended through the Agreement Date but excluding any amendment after the Agreement Date that impairs or restricts Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement, unless such amendment is expressly authorized by this Agreement, is authorized by Sections 8 or 9, or is specifically agreed to by Owner. The Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element of the General Plan was approved by City voters in a general election on November 7, 2006. "Hazardous Substances" means any toxic substance or waste, pollutant, hazardous substance or waste, contaminant, special waste, industrial substance or waste, petroleum or petroleum- derived substance or waste, or any toxic or hazardous constituent or additive to or breakdown component from any such substance or waste, including without limitation any substance, waste, or material regulated under or defined as "hazardous" or "toxic" under any Environmental Law. "Mortgage" shall mean a mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance in which the Property, or a part or interest in the Property, is pledged as security and contracted for in good faith and for fair value. "Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage or any successor or assignee of the Mortgagee. "Notice of Default" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Owner" shall mean Golf Realty Fund, a California limited partnership and any successor or assignee to all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of Golf Realty Fund in and to ownership of all or a portion of the Property. "Party" or "Parties" shall mean either City or Owner or both, as determined by the context. "Project" shall mean all on -site and off -site improvements that Owner is authorized and/or required to construct with respect to each parcel of the Property, as provided in this Agreement and the Development Regulations, as the same may be modified or amended from time to time consistent with this Agreement and applicable law. "Pro pert 'is described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B. "Public Benefit Fee" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 3.1 of this Agreement. "Subsequent Development Approvals" shall mean all discretionary development and building approvals that Owner is required to obtain to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property after the Agreement Date consistent with the Development Regulations and this Agreement, with the understanding that except as expressly set forth herein City shall not have the right subsequent to the Effective Date and during the Term of this Agreement to adopt or impose requirements for any such Subsequent Development Approvals that do not exist as of the Agreement Date. "Term" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. "Termination Date" and "Lot Termination Date" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. "Transfer" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 11 of this Agreement. 2, General Provisions. 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation. This Agreement and the Development Regulations applicable to the Property will cause City's zoning and other land use regulations for the Property to be consistent with the General Plan. 2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 2.3 Owner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement. Owner and each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner hereby represents and warrants to City as follows: (i) that Owner is the owner of the fee simple title to the Property; (ii) Owner or any co -owner comprising Owner is a legal entity that such entity is duly formed and existing and is authorized to do business in the State of California; (iii) if Owner or any co -owner comprising Owner is a natural person that such natural person has the legal right and capacity to execute this Agreement; (iv) that all actions required to be taken by all persons and entities comprising Owner to enter into this Agreement have been taken and that Owner has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement; (v) that Owner's entering into and performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement will not result in a violation of any obligation, contractual or otherwise, that Owner or any person or entity comprising Owner has to any third party; (vi) that neither Owner nor any co -owner comprising Owner is the subject of any voluntary or involuntary petition; and (vii) that Owner has no actual knowledge of any pending or threatened claims of any person or entity affecting the validity of any of the representations and warranties set forth in clauses (i) -(vi), inclusive, or affecting Owner's authority or ability to enter into or perform any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 2.4 Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term ") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on the "Termination Date." Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, if either Party reasonably determines that the Effective Date of this Agreement will not occur because (i) the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date for the Project has/have been disapproved by City's voters at a referendum election or (ii) a final non - appealable judgment is entered in a judicial action challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or any of the Development Regulations for the Project approved on or before the Agreement Date such that this Agreement and/or any of such Development Regulations is /are invalid and unenforceable in whole or in such a substantial part that the judgment substantially impairs such Party's rights or substantially increases its obligations or risks hereunder or thereunder, then such Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon delivery of a written notice of termination to the other Party, in which event neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder except that Owner's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable, and the Development Regulations applicable to the Project and the Property only (but not those general Development Regulations applicable to other properties in the City) shall similarly be null and void at such time. The Termination Date shall be the earliest of the following dates: (i) the tenth (10 th) anniversary of the Effective Date, as said date may be extended in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement; (ii) such earlier date that this Agreement may be terminated in accordance with Articles 5, 7, and/or Section 8.3 of this Agreement and /or Sections 65865.1 and /or 65868 of the Development Agreement Statute; (iii) as to any separate legal lot within the Property (but not as to the balance of the Property or the portion thereof that remains subject to this Agreement at such time), upon the "Lot Termination Date" (defined below); or (iv) completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including Owner's complete satisfaction, performance, and payment, as applicable, of all Development Exactions, the issuance of all required final occupancy permits, and acceptance by City or applicable public agency(ies) or private entity(ies) of all required offers of dedication. As used herein, the term "Lot Termination Date" for any separate legal lot within the Property means the date on which all of the following conditions have been satisfied with respect to said lot: (i) the lot has been finally subdivided and sold or leased (for a period longer than one year), individually or in a "bulk" of four or fewer lots, to a member of the public or other ultimate user; (ii) a final Certificate of Occupancy or "Release of Utilities" has been issued for the building or buildings approved for construction on said lot. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions set forth in Article 10 and Section 13.10 (as well as any other Owner obligations set forth in this Agreement that are expressly written to survive the Termination Date) shall survive the Termination Date of this Agreement. 3. Public Benefits, 3.1 Public Benefit Fee. As consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement, Owner shall pay to City a fee that shall be in addition to any other fee or charge to which the Property and the Project would otherwise be subject (herein, the "Public Benefit Fee ") 7 in the sum of (i) Ninety -three thousand Dollars ($ 93,000-_-_______j per each residential dwelling units; and (ii) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of construction for the proposed golf clubhouse; and (iii) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of new construction to the existing tennis clubhouse, with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased on the first January 1 following the Effective Date of this Agreement by the percentage increase in the CPI Index between the Effective Date and said January V date (the first "Adjustment Date ") and thereafter with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased on each subsequent January 1 during the Term of this Agreement (each, an "Adjustment Date ") by the percentage increase in the CPI Index in the year prior to the applicable Adjustment Date. The amount of the percentage increase in the CPI Index on the applicable Adjustment Dates shall in each instance be calculated based on the then most recently available CPI Index figures such that, for example, if the Effective Date of this Agreement falls on July 1 and the most recently available CPI Index figure on the first Adjustment Date (January l of the following year) is the CPI Index for November of the preceding year, the percentage increase in the CPI Index for that partial year (a 6 -month period) shall be calculated by comparing the CPI Index for November of the preceding year with the CPI Index for May of the preceding year (a 6 -month period). In no event, however, shall application of the CPI Index reduce the amount of the Public Benefit Fee (or unpaid portion thereof) below the amount in effect prior to any applicable Adjustment Date. Owner shall pay the Public Benefit Fee at the following time(s): (i) As to the residential dwelling units, at the issuance of the building permit for each individual residential unit; and (ii) As to the golf clubhouse and tennis clubhouse construction, at the time each building permit is issued. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, during the Term of this Agreement City shall not increase the Public Benefit Fee except pursuant to the CPI Index as stated in this Section 3.1. Owner acknowledges by its approval and execution of this Agreement that it is voluntarily agreeing to pay the Public Benefit Fee, that its obligation to pay the Public Benefit Fee is an essential term of this Agreement and is not severable from City's obligations and Owner's vesting rights to be acquired hereunder, and that Owner expressly waives any constitutional, statutory, or common law right it might have in the absence of this Agreement to protest or challenge the payment of such fee on any ground whatsoever, including without limitation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, California Constitution Article I Section 19, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), or otherwise. In addition to any other remedy set forth in this Agreement for Owner's default, if Owner shall fail to timely pay any portion of the Public Benefit Fee when due City shall have the right to withhold issuance of any further building permits, occupancy permits, or other development or building permits for the Project. 3.2 Other Public Benefits. The development of the Project will include the addition of additional Visitor - Serving Uses consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and will provide a unique amenity for those visitors whose interests include tennis. It is anticipated that the Property will continue to host numerous events of significant social and economic benefit to the City such s the Toshiba Classic and other events to the benefit of the City, its citizens, businesses and charitable institutions. N 4. Development Project. 4.1 Applicable Regulations; Owner's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals. Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Term of this Agreement, (i) Owner shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property in accordance with the terms of the Development Regulations and this Agreement and (ii) City shall not prohibit or prevent development of the Property on grounds inconsistent with the Development Regulations or this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is intended to limit or restrict City's discretion with respect to (i) review and approval requirements contained in the Development Regulations, (ii) exercise of any discretionary authority City retains under the Development Regulations, (iii) the approval, conditional approval, or denial of any Subsequent Development Approvals that are required for Development of the Project as of the Effective Date, or (iv) any environmental approvals that may be required under CEQA or any other federal or state law or regulation in conjunction with any Subsequent Development Approvals that may be required for the Project, and in this regard, as to future actions referred to in clauses (i) -(iv) of this sentence, City reserves its full discretion to the same extent City would have such discretion in the absence of this Agreement. In addition, it is understood and agreed that nothing in this Agreement is intended to vest Owner's rights with respect to any laws, regulations, rules, or official policies of any other governmental agency or public utility company with jurisdiction over the Property or the Project; or any applicable federal or state laws, regulations, rules, or official policies that may be inconsistent with this Agreement and that override or supersede the provisions set forth in this Agreement, and regardless of whether such overriding or superseding laws, regulations, rules, or official policies are adopted or applied to the Property or the Project prior or subsequent to the Agreement Date. Owner has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money planning and preparing for Development of the Project. Owner represents and City acknowledges that Owner would not make these expenditures without this Agreement, and that Owner is and will be making these expenditures in reasonable reliance upon its vested rights to Develop the Project as set forth in this Agreement. Owner may apply to City for permits or approvals necessary to modify or amend the Development specified in the Development Regulations, provided that the request does not propose an increase in the maximum density, intensity, height, or size of proposed structures, or a change in use that generates more peak hour traffic or more daily traffic and, in addition, Owner may apply to City for approval of mirror amendments to existing tentative tract maps, tentative parcel maps, or associated conditions of approval, consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 19.12.090. This Agreement does not constitute a promise or commitment by City to approve any such permit or approval, or to approve the same with or without any particular requirements or conditions, and City's discretion with respect to such matters shall be the same as it would be in the absence of this Agreement. 4.2 No Conflicting Enactments. Except to the extent City reserves its discretion as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Term of this Agreement City shall not apply to the Project or the Property any ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure relating to Development of the Project that is enacted or becomes effective after the Effective Date to the extent it conflicts with this Agreement. This Section 4.2 shall not restrict City's ability to enact an ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure applicable to the Project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866 consistent with the procedures specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. In Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, the California Supreme Court held that a construction company was not exempt from a city's growth control ordinance even though the city and construction company had entered into a consent judgment (tantamount to a contract under California law) establishing the company's vested rights to develop its property consistent with the zoning. The California Supreme Court reached this result because the consent judgment failed to address the timing of development. The Parties intend to avoid the result of the Pardee case by acknowledging and providing in this Agreement that Owner shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property at the rate, timing, and sequencing that Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of Owner's sole subjective business judgment, provided that such Development occurs in accordance with this Agreement and the Development Regulations, notwithstanding adoption by City's electorate of an initiative to the contrary after the Effective Date. No City moratorium or other similar limitation relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the Development of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or another method, affecting subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use, shall apply to the Project to the extent such moratorium or other similar limitation restricts Owner's vested rights in this Agreement or otherwise conflicts with the express provisions of this Agreement. 4.3 Reservations of Authority. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the laws, rules, regulations, and official policies set forth in this Section 4.3 shall apply to and govern the Development of the Project on and with respect to the Property. 4.3.1 Procedural Regulations. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure shall apply to the Property, provided that such procedural regulations are adopted and applied City -wide or to all other properties similarly situated in City. 4.3.2 Processing and Permit Fees. City shall have the right to charge and Owner shall be required to pay all applicable processing and permit fees to cover the reasonable cost to City of processing and reviewing applications and plans for any required Subsequent Development Approvals, building permits, excavation and grading permits, encroachment permits, and the like, for performing necessary studies and reports in connection therewith, inspecting the work constructed or installed by or on behalf of Owner, and monitoring compliance with any requirements applicable to Development of the Project, all at the rates in effect at the time fees are due. 4.3.3 Consistent Future City Regulations. City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies governing Development which do not conflict with the Development Regulations, or with respect to such regulations that do conflict, where Owner has consented in writing to the regulations, shall apply to the Property. WE 4.3.4 Development Exactions Applicable to Propert y. During the Term of this Agreement, Owner shall be required to satisfy and pay all Development Exactions at the time performance or payment is due to the same extent and in the same amount(s) that would apply to Owner and the Project in the absence of this Agreement; provided, however, that to the extent the scope and extent of a particular Development Exaction (excluding any development impact fee) for the Project has been established and fixed by City in the conditions of approval for any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date City shall not alter, increase, or modify said Development Exaction in a manner that is inconsistent with such Development Regulations without Owner's prior written consent or as may be otherwise required pursuant to overriding federal or state laws or regulations (Section 4.3.5 hereinbelow). In addition, nothing. in this Agreement is intended or shall be deemed to vest Owner against the obligation to pay any of the following (which are not included within the definition of "Development Exactions ") in the full amount that would apply in the absence of this Agreement: (i) City's normal fees for processing, environmental assessment and review, tentative tract and parcel map review, plan checking, site review and approval, administrative review, building permit, grading permit, inspection, and similar fees imposed to recover City's costs associated with processing, reviewing, and inspecting project applications, plans, and specifications; (ii) fees and charges levied by any other public agency, utility, district, or joint powers authority, regardless of whether City collects those fees and charges; or (iii) community facility district special taxes or special district assessments or similar assessments, business license fees, bonds or other security required for public improvements, transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sewer lateral connection fees, water service connection fees, new water meter fees, and the Property Development Tax payable under Chapter 3.12 of City's Municipal Code. 4.3.5 Overriding Federal and State Laws and Regulations. Federal and state laws and regulations that override Owner's vested rights set forth in this Agreement shall apply to the Property, together with any City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies that are necessary to enable City to comply with the provisions of any such overriding federal or state laws and regulations, provided that (i) Owner does not waive its right to challenge or contest the validity of any such purportedly overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation; and (ii) upon the discovery of any such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation that prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement, City or Owner shall provide to the other Party a written notice identifying the federal, state, or City law or regulation, together with a copy of the law or regulation and a brief written statement of the conflict(s) between that law or regulation and the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter City and Owner shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation. In such negotiations, City and Owner agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of Owner as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. City agrees to cooperate with Owner at no cost to City in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon Owner. City also agrees to process in a prompt manner Owner's proposed changes to the Project and any of the Development Regulations as may be necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by City shall be subject to the discretion of City, consistent with this Agreement. 11 4.3.6 Public Health and Safety. Any City ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, program, or official policy that is necessary to protect persons on the Property or in the immediate vicinity from conditions dangerous to their health or safety, as reasonably determined by City, shall apply to the Property, even though the application of the ordinance, resolution, rule regulation, program, or official policy would result in the impairment of Owner's vested rights under this Agreement. 4.3.7 Uniform Building Standards. Existing and future building and building - related standards set forth in the uniform codes adopted and amended by City from time to time, including building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, housing, swimming pool, and fire codes, and any modifications and amendments thereof shall all apply to the Project and the Property to the same extent that the same would apply in the absence of this Agreement. 4.3.8 Public Works Improvements. To the extent Owner constructs or installs any public improvements, works, or facilities, the City standards in effect for such public improvements, works, or facilities at the time of City's issuance of a permit, license, or other authorization for construction or installation of same shall apply. 4.3.9 No Guarantee or Reservation of Utility Capacity. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be interpreted to require City to guarantee or reserve to or for the benefit of Owner or the Property any utility capacity, service, or facilities that may be needed to serve the Project, whether domestic or reclaimed water service, sanitary sewer transmission or wastewater treatment capacity, downstream drainage capacity, or otherwise, and City shall have the right to limit or restrict Development of the Project if and to the extent that City reasonably determines that inadequate utility capacity exists to adequately serve the Project at the time Development is scheduled to commence. 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps. City agrees that Owner may file and process new and existing vesting tentative maps for the Property consistent with California Government Code sections 66498.1- 66498.9 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 19.20. Pursuant to the applicable provision of the California Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code section 66452.6(a)), the life of any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property, whether designated a "vesting tentative map" or otherwise, shall be extended for the Term of this Agreement. 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement Other than modifications of this Agreement under Section 8.3 of this Agreement, this Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual written and executed consent of the Parties in compliance with California Government Code section 65868 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.060 or by unilateral termination by City in the event of an uncured default of Owner. 6. Enforcement. Unless this Agreement is amended, canceled, modified, or suspended as authorized herein or pursuant to California Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall be 12 enforceable by either Party despite any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulation or other applicable ordinance or regulation adopted by City (including by City's electorate) that purports to apply to any or all of the Property. 7. Annual Review of Owner's Compliance With Agreement. 7.1 General. City shall review this Agreement once during every twelve (12) month period following the Effective Date for compliance with the terms of this Agreement as provided in Government Code Section 65865.1. Owner (including any successor to the owner executing this Agreement on or before the Agreement Date) shall pay City a reasonable fee in an amount City may reasonably establish from time to time to cover the actual and necessary costs for the annual review. City's failure to timely provide or conduct an annual review shall not constitute a Default hereunder by City. 7.2 Owner Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance. During each annual review by City, Owner is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, may require, thirty (30) days prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date during the Term. 7.3 Procedure. The City Council of City shall conduct a duly noticed hearing and shall determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not Owner has, for the period under review, complied with the terms of this Agreement. If the City Council finds that Owner has so complied, the annual review shall be concluded. If the City Council finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Owner has not so complied, written notice shall be sent to Owner by first class mail of the City Council's finding of non - compliance, and Owner shall be given at least ten (10) days to cure any noncompliance that relates to the payment of money and thirty (30) days to cure any other type of noncompliance. If a cure not relating to the payment of money cannot be completed within thirty (30) days for reasons which are beyond the control of Owner, Owner must commence the cure within such thirty (30) days and diligently pursue such cure to completion. If Owner fails to cure such noncompliance within the time(s) set forth above, such failure shall be considered to be a Default and City shall be entitled to exercise the remedies set forth in Article 8 below. 7.4 Annual Review a Non - Exclusive Means for Determining and nd Requiring Cure of Owner's Default. The annual review procedures set forth in this Article 7 shall not be the exclusive means for City to identify a Default by Owner or limit City's rights or remedies for any such Default. 8. Events of Default. 13 8.1 General Provisions. In the event of any material default, breach, or violation of the terms of this Agreement ( "Default "), the Party alleging a Default shall have the right to deliver a written notice (each, a "Notice of Default ") to the defaulting Party. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the alleged Default and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (ten (10) days if the Default relates to the failure to timely make a monetary payment due hereunder and not less than thirty (30) days in the event of non - monetary Defaults) in which the Default must be cured (the "Cure Period "). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in Default for the purposes of termination of this Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. If the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period, then the Default thereafter shall be deemed not to exist. If a non - monetary Default cannot be cured during the Cure Period with the exercise of commercially reasonable diligence, the defaulting Party must promptly commence to cure as quickly as possible, and in no event later than thirty (30) days after it receives the Notice of Default, and thereafter diligently pursue said cure to completion. 8.2 Default by Owner. If Owner is alleged to have committed a non - monetary Default and it disputes the claimed Default, it may make a written request for an appeal hearing before the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving the Notice of Default, and a public hearing shall be scheduled at the next available City Council meeting to consider Owner's appeal of the Notice of Default. Failure to appeal a Notice of Default to the City Council within the ten (10) day period shall waive any right to a hearing on the claimed Default. If Owner's appeal of the Notice of Default is timely and in good faith but after a public hearing of Owner's appeal the City Council concludes that Owner is in Default as alleged in the Notice of Default, the accrual date for commencement of the thirty (30) day Cure Period provided in Section 8.1 shall be extended until the City Council's denial of Owner's appeal is communicated to Owner. 8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement. In the event of an alleged Owner Default, City may not terminate this Agreement without first delivering a written Notice of Default and providing Owner with the opportunity to cure the Default within the Cure Period, as provided in Section 8. 1, and complying with Section 8.2 if Owner timely appeals any Notice of Default with respect to a non - monetary Default. A termination of this Agreement by City shall be valid only if good cause exists and is supported by evidence presented to the City Council at or in connection with a duly noticed public hearing to establish the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be judicially challenged by Owner. Any such judicial challenge must be brought within thirty (30) days of service on Owner, by first class mail, postage prepaid, of written notice of termination by City or a written notice of City's determination of an appeal of the Notice of Default as provided in Section 8.2. 8.4 Default by City, If Owner alleges a City Default and alleges that the City has not cured the Default within the Cure Period, Owner may pursue any equitable remedy available to it under this Agreement, including, without limitation, an action for a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, or specific 14 performance of City's obligations set forth in this Agreement. Upon a City Default, any resulting delays in Owner's performance hereunder shall neither be a Owner Default nor constitute grounds for termination or cancellation of this Agreement by City and shall, at Owner's option (and provided Owner delivers written notice to City within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the alleged City Default), extend the Term for a period equal to the length of the delay. 8.5 Waiver. Failure or delay by either Party in delivering a Notice of Default shall not waive that Party's right to deliver a future Notice of Default of the same or any other Default. 8.6 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre- existing condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, both Owner and City may be foreclosed from other choices they may have had to plan for the development of the Property, to utilize the Property or provide for other benefits and alternatives. 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. It is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner or City for such efforts. For the above reasons, City and Owner agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if either City or Owner fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Agreement is necessary to compensate Owner if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement or to compensate City if Owner falls to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. 8.7 Monetary Damages. The Parties agree that monetary damages shall not be an available remedy for either Party for a Default hereunder by the other Party; provided, however, that (i) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict City's right to recover the Public Benefit Fees due from Owner as set forth herein; and (ii) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict Owner's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 or the right of the prevailing Party in any Action to recover its litigation expenses, as set forth in Section 8.10. 8.8 Additional City Remedy for Owner's Default. In the event of any Default by Owner, in addition to any other remedies which may be available to City, whether legal or equitable, City shall be entitled to receive and retain any Development Exactions applicable to the Project or the Property, including any fees, grants, dedications, or improvements to public property which it may have received prior to Owner's Default without recourse from Owner or its successors or assigns. 15 8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials, Employees, or Agents. No City official, employee, or agent shall have any personal liability hereunder for a Default by City of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action. In any judicial proceeding, arbitration, or mediation (collectively, an "Action ") between the Parties that seeks to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or arises out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover all of its actual and reasonable costs and expenses, regardless of whether they would be recoverable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 or California Civil Code section 1717 in the absence of this Agreement. These costs and expenses include expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, and costs of investigation and preparation before_ initiation of the Action. The right to recover these costs and expenses shall accrue upon initiation of the Action, regardless of whether the Action is prosecuted to a final judgment or decision. 9. 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, through no fault of the Party whose performance is prevented or delayed, by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes or other labor difficulties, state or federal regulations, or court actions. Except as specified above, nonperformance shall not be excused because of the act or omission of a third person. In no event shall the occurrence of an event of force majeure operate to extend the Term of this Agreement. In addition, in no event shall the time for performance of a monetary obligation, including without limitation Owner's obligation to pay Public Benefit Fees, be extended pursuant to this Section. 10. Indemnity Obligations of Owner. 10.1 Indemnity Arising From Acts or Omissions of Owner. Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors (collectively, the "City's Affiliated Parties ") from and against all suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs) (collectively, a "Claim ") that may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions, or operations of Owner or Owner's agents, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in the course of Development of the Project or any other activities of Owner relating to the Property or pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the right to select and retain counsel to defend any Claim filed against City and /or any of City's Affiliated Parties, and Owner shalt pay the reasonable cost for defense of any Claim. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.1 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 10.2 Third Party Litigation. In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10. 1, Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any Claim against 16 City or City's Affiliated Parties seeking to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, the Adopting Ordinance, any of the Development Regulations for the Project (including without limitation any actions taken pursuant to CEQA with respect thereto), any Subsequent Development Approval, or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. Said indemnity obligation shall include payment of attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and court costs. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such Claim and City shall cooperate with Owner in the defense of such Claim. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of such Claim, Owner shall not be responsible to indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from such Claim until Owner is so notified and if City fails to cooperate in the defense of a Claim Owner shall not be responsible to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City during the period that City so fails to cooperate or for any losses attributable thereto. City shall be entitled to retain separate counsel to represent City against the Claim and the City's defense costs for its separate counsel shall be included in Owner's indemnity obligation, provided that such counsel shall reasonably cooperate with Owner in an effort to minimize the total litigation expenses incurred by Owner. In the event either City or Owner recovers any attorney's fees, expert witness fees, costs, interest, or other amounts from the party or parties asserting the Claim, Owner shall be entitled to retain the same (provided it has fully performed its indemnity obligations hereunder). The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.2 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 10.3 Environmental Indemnity, In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10.1, from and after the Agreement Date Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any and all Claims for personal injury or death, property damage, economic loss, statutory penalties or fines, and damages of any kind or nature whatsoever, including without limitation attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs, based upon or arising from any of the following: (i) the actual or alleged presence of any Hazardous Substance on or under any of the Property in violation of any applicable Environmental Law; (ii) the actual or alleged migration of any Hazardous Substance from the Property through the soils or groundwater to a location or locations off of the Property; and (iii) the storage, handling, transport, or disposal of any Hazardous Substance on, to, or from the Property and any other area disturbed, graded, or developed by Owner in connection with Owner's Development of the Project. The foregoing indemnity obligations shall not apply to any Hazardous Substance placed or stored on a separate legal lot within the Property after the Lot Termination Date for said lot, as provided in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.3 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 11. Assignment. Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign (hereinafter, collectively, a "Transfer ") Owner's fee title to the Property, in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, fret, or corporation (which successor, as of the effective date of the Transfer, shall become the "Owner" under this Agreement) at any time from the Agreement Date until the Termination Date; provided, however, that no such Transfer shall violate the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et se 4.) or City's local subdivision 17 ordinance and any such Transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of Owner's rights, duties, and obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement as to the Property or the portion thereof so Transferred and shall be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (i) no transfer or assignment of any of Owner's rights or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of the Property; and (ii) prior to the effective date of any proposed Transfer, Owner (as transferor) shall notify City, in writing, of such proposed Transfer and deliver to City a written assignment and assumption, executed in recordable form by the transferring and successor Owner and in a form subject to the reasonable approval of the City Attorney of City (or designee), pursuant to which the transferring Owner assigns to the successor Owner and the successor Owner assumes from the transferring Owner all of the rights and obligations of the transferring Owner with respect to the Property or portion thereof to be so Transferred, including in the case of a partial Transfer the obligation to perform such obligations that must be performed off of the portion of the Property so Transferred that are a condition precedent to the successor Owner's right to develop the portion of the Property so Transferred. Notwithstanding any Transfer, the transferring Owner shall continue to be jointly and severally liable to City, together with the successor Owner, to perform all of the transferred obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement unless the transferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be only with respect to the portion of the Property so Transferred in the event of a partial Transfer. City shall provide such a release upon the transferring Owner's full satisfaction of all of the following conditions: (i) the transferring Owner no longer has a legal or equitable interest in the portion of the Property so Transferred other than as a beneficiary under a deed of trust; (ii) the transferring Owner is not then in Default under this Agreement and no condition exists that with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a Default hereunder; (iii) the transferring Owner has provided City with the notice and the fully executed written and recordable assignment and assumption agreement required as set forth in the first paragraph of this Section 11; and (iv) the successor Owner either (A) provides City with substitute security equivalent to any security previously provided by the transferring Owner to City to secure performance of the successor Owner's obligations hereunder with respect to the Property or the portion of the Property so Transferred or (B) if the transferred obligation in question is not a secured obligation, the successor Owner either provides security reasonably satisfactory to City or otherwise demonstrates to City's reasonable satisfaction that the successor Owner has the financial resources or commitments available to perform the transferred obligation at the time and in the manner required under this Agreement and the Development Regulations for the Project. 12. Mortgagee Rights. 12.1 Encumbrances on Property. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner in any manner - from encumbering the Property, any part of the Property, or any improvements on the Property with any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or operation of the Project. IV 12.2 Mortgagee Protection, This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Nevertheless, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in the Property or part of the Property by a Mortgagee (whether due to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination, or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee who takes title to the Property or any part of the Property shall be entitled to the benefits arising under this Agreement. 12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 12.3, a Mortgagee will not have any obligation or duty under the terms of this Agreement to perform the obligations of Owner or other affirmative covenants of Owner, or to guarantee this performance except that: (i) the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop the Project under the Development Regulations without fully complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (ii) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, that performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance. 12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. Each Mortgagee shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive written notice from City of: (i) the results of the periodic review of compliance specified in Article 7 of this Agreement, and (ii) any default by Owner of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. Each Mortgagee shall have a further right, but not an obligation, to cure the Default within ten (10) days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a monetary Default and within thirty (30) days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a non - monetary Default. If the Mortgagee can only remedy or cur a non - monetary Default by obtaining possession of the Property, then the Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through a receiver or otherwise, and to remedy or cure the non - monetary Default within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession and, except in case of emergency or to protect the public health or safety, City may not exercise any of its judicial remedies set forth in this Agreement to terminate or substantially alter the rights of the Mortgagee until expiration of the thirty (30) -day period. In the case of a non - monetary Default that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within thirty (30) days, the Mortgagee shall have additional time as is reasonably necessary to remedy or cure the Default, provided the Mortgagee promptly commences to cure the non - monetary Default within thirty (30) days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. 13. Miscellaneous Terms. 13.1 Notices. Any notice or demand that shall be required or permitted by law or any provision of this Agreement shall be in writing. If the notice or demand will be served upon a Party, it either shall be personally delivered to the Party; deposited in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid; or delivered by a reliable courier service that provides a receipt 19 showing date and time of delivery with courier charges prepaid. The notice or demand shall be addressed as follows: TO CITY: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 Attn: City Manager With a copy to: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 TO OWNER: Golf Realty Fund One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Robert O Hill With a copy to: Tim Paone Theodora Oringher PC 535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Either Party may change the address stated in this Section 13.1 by delivering notice to the other Party in the manner provided in this Section 13. 1, and thereafter notices to such Parry shall be addressed and submitted to the new address. Notices delivered in accordance with this Agreement shall be deemed to be delivered upon the earlier of: (i) the date received or (iii) three business days after deposit in the mail as provided above. 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking, The Development of the Project is a private undertaking. Neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect, and each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement forms no partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind. The only relationship between the Parties is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property by the owner of the property. 13.3 Cooperation. Each Party shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party to the extent consistent with and necessary to implement this Agreement. Upon the request of a Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record the required instruments and writings and take any actions Fill as may be reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 13.4 Estoppel Certificates. At any time, either Party may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting that that Party certify in writing that, to the best of its knowledge: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding on the Party; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if this Agreement has been amended, the Party providing the certification shall identify the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in Default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement and no event or situation has occurred that with the passage of time or the giving of Notice or both would constitute a Default or, if such is not the case, then the other Party shall describe the nature and amount of the actual or prospective Default. The Party requested to furnish an estoppel certificate shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt. Requests for the City to furnish an estoppel certificate shall include reimbursement for all administrative costs incurred by the City including reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the City in furnishing an estoppels certificate. 13.5 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; and "may" is permissive. 13.6 Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 13.7 Waiver. The failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, and failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon a Default by the other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the other Party in the future. 13.8 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be identical and may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without any other counterpart, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same agreement. 13.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter addressed in this Agreement. 21 13.10 Severability. The Parties intend that each and every obligation of the Parties is interdependent and interrelated with the other, and if any provision of this Agreement or the application of the provision to any Party or circumstances shall be held invalid or unenforceable to any extent, it is the intention of the Parties that the remainder of this Agreement or the application of the provision to persons or circumstances shall be rendered invalid or unenforceable. The Parties intend that neither Party shall receive any of the benefits of the Agreement without the full performance by such Party of all of its obligations provided for under this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend that Owner shall not receive any of the benefits of this Agreement if any of Owner's obligations are rendered void or unenforceable as the result of any third party litigation, and City shall be free to exercise its legislative discretion to amend or repeal the Development Regulations applicable to the Property and Owner shall cooperate as required, despite this Agreement, should third party litigation result in the nonperformance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 13.10 shall apply regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs and after the Termination Date. 13.11 Construction. This Agreement has been drafted after extensive negotiation and revision. Both City and Owner are sophisticated parties who were represented by independent counsel throughout the negotiations or City and Owner had the opportunity to be so represented and voluntarily chose to not be so represented. City and Owner each agree and acknowledge that the terms of this Agreement are fair and reasonable, taking into account their respective purposes, terms, and conditions. This Agreement shall therefore be construed as a whole consistent with its fair meaning, and no principle or presumption of contract construction or interpretation shall be used to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against either Party. 13.12 Successors and Assigns, Constructive Notice and Acceptance. 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. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to Development of the Property: (i) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (ii) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successor in interest during its ownership of the Property or any portion thereof Every person or entity who now or later owns or acquires any right, title, or interest in any part of the Project or the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision of this Agreement. This Section 13.12 applies regardless of whether the instrument by which such person or entity acquires the interest refers to or acknowledges this Agreement and regardless of whether such person or entity has expressly entered into an assignment and assumption agreement as provided for in Section 11. 22 13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The only Parties to this Agreement are City and Owner. This Agreement does not involve any third party beneficiaries, and it is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person or entity. 13.14 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced consistent with the internal laws of the State of California, without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any Party 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, or the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Parties waive all provisions of law providing for the removal or change of venue to any other court. 13.15 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. All of the Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Exhibits A and B are attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference as follows: EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION A Legal Description of Property B Depiction of the Property 13.17 Recordation, The City Clerk of City shall record this Agreement and any amendment, modification, or cancellation of this Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange within the period required by California Government Code section 65868.5 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.090. The date of recordation of this Agreement shall not modify or amend the Effective Date or the Termination Date. 23 SIGNATURE PAGE TO ZONING IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC BENEFIT SPACE AGREEMENT ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron Harp, City Attorney "OWNER" IC By: "CITY" 24 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Its: Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , 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 their signature on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and ' 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 their signature on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State -25- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY [TO BE INSERTED] EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF PROPERTY [TO BE INSERTED] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Definitions ........................................................................................... ..............................2 2. General Provisions .............................................................................. ..............................6 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation ............................. ..............................6 2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement .................................................. ..............................6 2.3 Owner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement .. ..............................6 2.4 Term ........................................................................................ ..............................6 3. Public Benefits .................................................................................... ..............................7 3.1 Public Benefit Fee ................................................................... ..............................7 3.2 Other Public Benefits .............................................................. ..............................8 4. Development of Project ...................................................................... ..............................9 4.1 Applicable Regulations; Owner's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals .......................9 4.2 No Conflicting Enactments ..................................................... ..............................9 4.3 Reservations of Authority ...................................................... .............................10 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps .................................................. .............................12 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ....................................... .............................12 6. Enforcement ....................................................................................... .............................12 7. Annual Review of Owner's Compliance With Agreement ............... .............................13 7.1 General ................................................................................... .............................13 7.2 Owner Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance .. .............................13 7.3 Procedure ............................................................................... .............................13 7.4 Annual Review a Non - Exclusive Means for Determining and Requiring Cure of Owner's Default ........................................................ .............................13 8. Events of Default ............................................................................... .............................13 8.1 General Provisions ................................................................. .............................14 8.2 Default by Owner ................................................................... .............................14 8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement ................................. .............................14 8.4 Default by City ....................................................................... .............................14 '8.5 Waiver .................................................................................... .............................15 8.6 Specific Performance Remedy ............................................... .............................15 8.7 Monetary Damages ................................................................ .............................15 8.8 Additional City Remedy for Owner's Default ....................... .............................15 8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials„ Employees, or Agents ........................16 8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action .......................16 9. Force Majeure .................................................................................... .............................16 i Page 10. Indemnity Obligations of Owner ....................................................... .............................16 10.1 ................................................................................................ .............................16 10.2 Third Party Litigation ............................................................ .............................16 11. Assignment ........................................................................................ .............................17 12. Mortgagee Rights ............................................................................... .............................18 12.1 Encumbrances on Property .................................................... .............................18 12.2 Mortgagee Protection ............................................................. .............................19 12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated ...................................................... .............................19 12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure ............................19 13. Miscellaneous Terms ......................................................................... .............................19 13.1 Notices ................................................................................... .............................19 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking ............................................... .............................20 13.3 Cooperation ............................................................................ .............................20 13.4 Estoppel Certificates .............................................................. .............................21 13.5 Rules of Construction ............................................................ .............................21 13.6 Time Is of the Essence ........................................................... .............................21 13.7 Waiver .................................................................................... .............................21 13.8 Counterparts ........................................................................... .............................21 13.9 Entire Agreement ................................................................... .............................21 13.10 Severabil ity ............................................................................ .............................22 13.11 Construction ........................................................................... .............................22 13.12 Successors and Assigns; Constructive Notice and Acceptance ..........................22 13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries ................................................. .............................23 13.14 Applicable Law and Venue .................................................... .............................23 13.15 Section Headings ................................................................... .............................23 13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits .................................. .............................23 13.17 Recordation ............................................................................ .............................23 -ii- A MICHAEL RECUPERO, ESQ. November 16, 2011 Commissioners, Newport Beach Planning Commission C/O Ms. Kimberly Brandt and Ms. Marlene Burns CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Correspondence Item No. 2c & 3b Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. POST (CERTIFIED MAIL) Re: November 17, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda Items 2 (PA 2005 -140) and 3 (PA2008 -152) Dear Commissioners: This letter is written on behalf of one -half of the ownership of the Newport Beach Country Club and Tennis Club (the "Properties ")' which you are considering tomorrow night. Comments on Agenda Item 2 (PA2005 -140): Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. We would reiterate our support for the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. plan as a reasonable exercise of our tenant's authority to improve the leasehold interest, with the inclusion of the revised frontage road (Attachment 1) as reflected in the most recent staff report. The Frontage Road. The frontage road is preferable from a planning standpoint, and: 1. Is the preference of the Applicant and the above referenced ownership interests; 2. Has been modified to be one -way, narrowed and provides for more desirable turning movements than originally proposed; 3. Provides a greater landscaping setback from PCH to the parking lot (approximately 20' difference) as compared to the "no frontage road" option; 4. Serves the operational needs of the IBC leasehold as well as the longstanding needs of the adjacent Armstrong Nursery; 5. Is consistent with mandates of the City's traffic engineering constraints. ' The Fainbarg Family Trust (managed by Irving Chase), the Mira Mesa Shoppping Center -West, and the Mesa Shopping Center -East (managed by Elliot Feuerstein), collectively own 50% of the Properties. 31877 Del Obispo St. • Suite 204 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 -3228 Ph: 949429.6300 • Fax: 949.429.6303 City of Newport Beach rylr. November 16, 2011 ..\l!T� Additionally, Attachment 2, the July 13, 2010 letter from the Tenant to the City, describes why maintaining the frontage road is the most prudent and legally defensible option. This should be considered in conjunction with Attachment 3 which sets out the relevant recorded documents, including the Termination of Access Easement document (Recordation No. 19970630399). The Termination only purports to conditionally terminate certain historic easements, and not others. Simply stated, the public record suggests that enforceable easement rights to the 26.5 -foot easement (See, document Nos. 92- 662454 and 93- 0139174) continue to exist, in favor of Feuerstein and Fainbarg. No Encumbrance on Fee Interest. Finally, we understand that the Applicant is required through the IBC Development Agreement to provide security for the leasehold improvements. We understand the Tenant has the right to encumber its leasehold interest, however, we do not consent to any new encumbrance or obligation, recorded or otherwise, which affects the underlying fee. Comments on Agenda Item 3 (PA2008-152): Golf Realty Fund We incorporate by reference the earlier letters on file relative to our position on this Planning Application and reiterate our position that Golf Realty Fund lacks the right to unilaterally entitle this property.z Development Agreement. Inasmuch as the City has been provided with the title report, and the Owner's Agreement, we believe the City's decision to withhold the GRF Development Agreement from our review until yesterday is inequitable and unjustified. The Development Agreement suggests that it is binding on the "Property" as defined in section 2.2. and is required to be recorded. Our review of the law suggests that it be amended to require the consent of the Property owners, not just Golf Realty Fund. It should also set out the City's expectation that future discretionary permits and ministerial (building and grading permits) will require all owners' consent. Planned Community Text. The current Planned Community Text draft does not adequately provide the owner flexibility to adjust the mixed -use element of the zoning allowed by General Plan Land Use designation MU -1­13. As 50% of the ownership of this property has not approved the current development plan, we believe that providing such flexibility, and including a specific provision which allows for staff -level amendment, may ultimately allow the parties and the City to meaningfully address a revised plan on a go forward basis. 2 We continue to believe that the City's reliance on the former Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.90.030(C) in denying our Client's the right to participate on this project is misplaced when the City is clearly relying on the amended Municipal Code for all other matters related to this project. PAGE MICHAELRECUPERO,EsQ. City of Newport Beach November 16, 2011 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, W2 )� Michael Recupero, Esq. Ecc: Commissioner Ameri Commissioner Kramer Commissioner Toerge Commissioner Hawkins Commissioner Myers Elliot Feuerstein Irving Chase John Olson, Esq. Tim Paone, Esq. Leone Mulvihill, Esq. Mam PAGE MICHAEL RECUPERO, ESQ. C::ij 0 io a I I 1 Dr-f N✓GG 1�+FG STI 91" 11 i e to //- /o 336'To7RG 5 /errE ?� wnT- 33 � LM CAA PLANNING July 13, 2010 City of Newport Beach Attn: Rosalinh Ung Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: PA 2008 -152 Newport Beach Country Club, Frontage Road Access Easement Dear Ms. Ung: You recently forwarded to CAA Planning a copy of a First American Title Report (First American Report) dated June 2010 and asked for our review related to the access easement. The First American Report does not identify the existence of an access easement over the frontage road paralleling East Coast Highway. However, the 2008 Fidelity National Title Report (Fidelity Report) submitted by the Newport Beach Country Club (NBCC) does identify this easement. As you know, that easement has been, and continues to be used by motorists who patronize the Armstrong Nursery. Based on our review of the First American Report, we concur that it does not disclose the 26.5 foot access easement (Instrument No. 93- 0139174) identified in the Fidelity Report in favor of Russell Fluter, included as Attachment I. The Fidelity Report correctly captured the 1993 Easement Deed granted to Russell Fluter by the Irvine Company, included as Attachment 2. As we have previously discussed, a 25 foot access easement over the frontage road held by Messrs Feuerstein and Fainbarg was terminated in 1996. The termination of the 25 foot easement is included as Attachment 3. Records maintained by the County of Orange Recorder's office show a 2009 quitclaim deed and release of easement (Instrument No. 93- 0139174) from Mr. Fluter to Messrs Feuerstein and Fainbarg. The quitclaim deed and release of easement is included as Attachment 4. The County Recorder's office does not show any subsequent action by Mr. Feuerstein or Mr. Fainbarg to terminate the 26.5 foot easement. We can assure the City of Newport Beach that our client, the NBCC, would have gladly foregone the excessive time and resources to produce site plan alternatives retaining the nursery access easement over the frontage road. You have asked why the 26.5 foot access easement does not show on parcel map 79 -704. It is our understanding that parcel maps are not revised or updated to display such easements. This is why the 1980 parcel map does not depict the 26.5 foot easement from 1993. We contacted First American Title Company in an effort to determine why their report does not capture the 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 • Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581 -2888 • Fax (949) 581 -3599 i Ms. Rosalinh Ung "` July 13, 2010 Page 2 of 2 26.5 foot access easement over the frontage road, but they have not responded to our inquiry. In an abundance of caution, the City may wish to inquire of Mr. O'Hill whether he has documentation verifying the termination of the 26.5 foot easement following the 2009 release from Mr. Fluter to Messrs Feuerstein and Fainbarg. Please contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. Shahaffne Chief Executive Officer cc: Mr. Dave Wooten Mr. Patrick Alford Attachments: 1. Excerpt from 2008 Fidelity National Title Report showing 26.5 foot access easement in favor of Russell Fluter 2. 1993 26.5 foot Access Easement Deed 3. 1996 25 foot Access Easement Termination 4. 2009 Quitclaim of Fluter 26.5 foot Access Easement to Feuerstein & Fainbarg Branch :C18,User :3004 `D8 OWoucstecl By .'.r..:;ity National Tide RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL DOCUMENT: Arnold D. Feuerstein, Trustee Allan Fainbarg, Trustee 129 W. Wilson St., Ste, 100 Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 Attention: Irving M. Chase, Esq, L4 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Station ID :EEI'K Recorded In Offlcial Records, Orange County Tom Rely, Clerk - Recorder lPlllllllllllllllllllllllll @IIIIIIIIIIIIIIPIlilllglllllll 32.00 2009000658760 02:18pm 12/08/09 108 402 Q01 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Documentary Transfer Tax: $0 The value and consideration is less than $100.00 and there is no additional consideration received by the Grantor, R & T 11911 QUITCLAIM DEED AND RELEASE OF EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, RUSSELL FLUTER, an individual ("Grantor "), remises, releases and quitclaims to ARNOLD D. FEUERSTEIN, TRUSTEE OF THE FEUERSTEIN COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST dated April 13, 1982, an undivided one -half interest, and ALLAN FAINBARG, TRUSTEE OF THE FAINBARG FAMILY dated April 19, 1982, an undivided one -half interest, (collectively, "Grantee "), all of the Grantor's right, title, and interest in and to that certain non - exclusive easement granted pursuant to that certain instrument entitled Easement Deed (Amling's) ( "Deed ") recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California on March 1, 1993 as Instrument Number 93- 0139174, or by any other instrument, as such easement is legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property"), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Grantor hereby releases all rights and obligations associated with the easement pursuant to the Agreement. From and after the date this Quitclaim Deed and Release of Easement is recorded, title to the Easement shall vest in the Grantee. Grantor has caused this Quitclaim Deed to duly executed on October 2009. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS RECORDED THIS INS7Rl1MENT BY REOUEST.dS,.N ACC� UNLY AND HAS NO j EXAWNE7 I f FOR REGULARITY AND SUFFI' IENCY OR A3 ITS EFFECT UPON THE TITLE TO ANY aEAL PROPERTY THAT MAY BE DESCRIBED THEREIN, ORANGE, CA Document:QE. 2009.658760 Printed on:71612010 4:29 I'M 1'_u5x,l 1 �l ���,✓ Pagc:I of Branch :CLR,Oser:3004 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Easement Station ID :EEUK AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTHWESTERLY 26.50 FEET OF PARCEL PARCEL MAP NO. 79 -704, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 152, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE, CA 1Docament:Q E 2009.658760 Printed on:7/6/2010 4:29 PNI 11age:2 of 3 Branch :08,13ser :3004 A.P.N.: STATE OF N I h t IAtcA, )SS Station ID :TAJ ;K File No.: dniehaus (dn) COUNTY OF OfO ) Ctl I [ , On Q 0 j before me, vuS� Wcj f Notary Public, personally appeared e- e/(- who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be/ person whose name(} is /arasubscnbed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she/they executed the same in his /hei theh authorized capacity(lies}, and that by hisjher/their signature/s) on the instrument the personX, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. iVrTNESS my hand and official seal. SUy1N L pgKTEp3 C°rtvr 0 1673021 a ® M°10ry 8h&II° • C°AIaN° f Sign re oforge county My Comm 3xWrm,Nd 90, 201 all My Commission Expires: This area for of dal - notarial -�seal Noia (Z�tr Name,` I Phone: Notary R i'stration � County of Principal Place of Number: c d Business: f:[I Page 3 of 3 ORANGE, CA Docun ent:QE 2009.658760 Printed on:7 /6 /2010 4:29 PM Page:3 of 3 Armstrong (Amling) Access Easement 10/24/2011 parties Date Instrument Description Width Date signed recorded Grantor Grantee 92- 662452 Irvine Company Amling Nursery Declaration of access easement 25 feet 9/29/1992 10/1/1992 Owners (Amling's Nursery) 92- 662454 Irvine Company Russell Fluter -A Grant Deed subject to the 10/1/1992 single man Declaration of access easement dated 9 -29 -1992, recorded concurrently 93- 0139174 Irvine Company Russell Fluter -A Easement Deed (Amling's) 26.5 feet 2/12/1993 3/1/1993 single man 93- 0139175 Irvine Company Russell Fluter- First Amendment to access Increased to 26.5 feet 10/15/1992 3/1/1993 Amling Nursery Easement 92- 662452 Owner 93- 0158180 Irvine Company Fainbarg Grant Deed No width specified 3/3/1993 3/9/1993 19970630399 Feuerstein & Termination of Access Easement 92- Document references easement (25 12/13/1996 12/8/1997 Fainbarg 662452 & 93- 0139175 ft.) and amendment (to 26.5 ft.);therefore termination is 26.5 ft. 19960167327 Russell Fluter Fainbarg Grant Deed Grants non - exclusive easements as set 4/2/1996 4/4/1996 forth in 92- 662452 19960167328 Russell Fluter Feuerstein Grant Deed Grants non - exclusive easements as set 4/2/1996 4/4/1996 forth in 92- 662452 2 8760 Russell Fluter Feuerstein & Quitclaim Deed and Release of Release 93- 0139174 to Feuerstein and 10/23/2009 12/8/2009 Fainbarg Easement Fainbarg Correspondence Item No. 2d & 3c Burns, Marlene Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:06 PM To: Burns, Marlene Subject: GRF - Compromise Plan #11 Attachments: 11.11.16 LS response to IBC- LeeSak comments.doc; ATT28003202.htm; 11.11.15 Compl1.pdf; ATT28003203.htm For admin record... From: Leland Stearns rmailto: LELAND Ca1STEARNSARCHITECTURE.COM1 Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:04 PM To: Douglas Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh; Brandt, Kim; Tim Paone; Byron de Arakal; Robert O Hill; Campbell, James; Michael Toerge; Bradley Hillgren; Robert C. Hawkins; Fred Ameri; Kory Kramer; Dave Wooten; iiohnson(a)balboabavclub.com; pdickey newportbeachcc.com Subject: GRF /IBC Compromise Plan #11 Per Robert O Hill's request I am sending you Compromise Master Plan #11 and a written response to your memo of Nov. 2, 2011. SA SA job #9602 November 16, 2011 BY EMAIL: Doug Lee, AIA Lee & Sakahara Architects 16842 Von Kannan Ave., Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Re: NBCC PCD Compromise 11 Attached is Master Plan Compromise 11 responsive to your comment letter dated November 2, 2011. In my professional opinion, 1) Master Plan Compromise 1 I shows that the IBC Golf Clubhouse and the GRF Golf Parking Lot Design can easily work together with IBC's cooperation and 2) GRF's Golf Parking Lot design shown on Master Plan Compromise 11 is a much better aesthetic and pedestrian solution than IBC's golf parking lot. Below is a detailed response to your letter with their comments shown first in black followed by my responses in blue italics. ➢ Plan indicates 334 parking spaces but actual count is 327 plus 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard total count = 332 spaces Please see the attached Master Plan Compromise 11 where an additional 7 parking spaces have been added and 5 spaces in maintenance yard eliminated for a total of 334. (Parking Required is 244 spaces) If the GRF Golf Parking Lot design is adopted GRF has agreed to make available to IBC the non - exclusive parking easement over Corporate Plaza West for weekends and holidays for an additional 554 additional parking spaces. ➢ Plan does not address existing access easement. If easement is maintained, this will further reduce parking spaces. The Frontage Road Easement has been terminated. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission at their October 2011 hearing indicated that they unanimously desire a golf parking lot site plan without the hazardous and unsightly Frontage Road. If Frontage Road remains the primary loss will be to the significant landscape buffer along PCH and traff c safety. Until that Public hearing IBC has always indicated that IBC preferred a site plan without the Frontage Road. s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com ,SA ➢ Plan does not allow semi - trucks to maneuver in the parking lot. No staging areas for major events. Please see the LSA Study and Stearns Architecture prior Major Tournament Staging Plan demonstrating that trucks can maneuver in the parking lot and staging areas for major events can be accommodated. ➢ Plan reduces the upper level prime parking by 32 spaces. The IBC plan has approximately 80 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF Compromise 11 has 57 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF plan makes all the parking better and does not have the significant grade difference between prime golf parking and secondary parking shown in the IBC plan requiring stairways with an extensive number ofsteps from the very large secondary parking area. Master Plan Compromise 11 has 2 additional parking stalls adjacent to the Go f Clubhouse. ➢ Plan provides only one sidewalk in the parking lot. Travel distance to the sidewalk at the east parking lot is approximately 290' and approximately 230' at the west parking lot. This layout will encourage members to "cut through" the landscaped islands and between cars (shortest path to the front door. Two more pedestrian sidewalks have been added in attached Compromise IL The Master Plan Compromise I1 is more pedestrian and golf cart friendly. (Seethe LSA Study) )o The primary access to parking from the Porte Cochere is offset requiring two turns to access parking lot. With both the GRF and the IBC plans there are two turns. With Master Plan Compromise]] there are two turns when leaving the Porte Cochere and going to the parking area. With the IBC's schematic plan there are two turns when leaving the parking area and returning to the Porte Cochere. ➢ Plan encroaches 10' -20' into the golf course at the 18th green area. Please see the revised Master Plan Compromise 11 which eliminates encroachment. ➢ Plan encroaches into Maintenance Yard. Please see Master Plan Compromise 11, which eliminates this very minor encroachment. ➢ 5 spaces in the Maintenance yard should be deleted. This space is allocated for golf course maintenance bins. See attached Master Plan Compromise 11 where the 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard have been deleted. s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com SA ➢ Due to the terraced parking concept, taller plant material will be required to effectively conceal the automobiles. See attached section. With the terraced design the goal is not to conceal the cars but to mitigate the "Sea of Asphalt" and to create afar more aesthetic environment and public view from PCK Much of the time the parking lot is mostly empty. ➢ Plan indicates reduced service yard. Please see the attached Master Plan Compromise 11 with no reduction to Maintenance Yard area. ➢ Plan indicates an 85' driveway along Coast Highway between NBCC and the Nursery. City may have some issues. Please see Master Plan Compromise 11, which eliminates the 85' driveway and is now identical to IBC's Preliminary Site Plan. ➢ Orientation of the Clubhouse has changed. The Golf Clubhouse in Compromise I is now in the identical location as IBC's Preliminary Site Plan. On a related point since I have not heard back from you regarding development of the cohesive, comprehensive Landscape Plan, Master Plan Lighting and Sign Plan which I assume we are in agreement on doing. Sincerely yours, Leland Stearns cc: Michael Toerge, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner Robert Hawkins, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner Fred Ameri, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner Kory Kramer, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner Kim Brandt, City of Newport Beach, Community Development Director Jim Campbell, City of Newport Beach, Principal Planner Rosalinh Ung, City of Newport Beach, Associate Planner Dave Wooten, IBC, President & CEO Jerry Johnson, IBC, EVP & CFO Perry Dickey, Newport Beach Country Club, President Tim Paone Byron de Arakal ROH s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com C D I ) 15th GREEN n GATE driving range FUEL ISLAND CHIPPING GREEN THE VILLAS 18th GREEN a GATE " TRASH ENCL. SERVICE ONLY GATE F1 ° AT SUB -AREA 9th GREEN CART STAGING / IBC PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE LOCATION MEMBER'S Q _ ENTRY THE GOLF CLUB FS 2' � BACK DROP SUB -AREA C 1 FF = 113.00' y 2 - 1 0 x m GATE ELIVERY D SERVICE GOLFER'S YARD ENTRY Z 5 1 9' _�- x F 12.E = OFF ° 1 1 o PN PNO p K� o �� y 1 N 10 C 1' 1 y \� 5 ps _ _ - - - - - - - - 105. 4 - S 107.2' ' TE FS 068 - - 107 ` S 1 _ .0' 8' ix -- - - - - - - -- 1 o s - ` S10 _ 1 4. 26'-o" \� ° 1 FS 105.T� �t 104.7' N 33 TOTAL PARKING STALLS / rn / O o S 3. - ° 1 �� 261.0" --4 ° F 10 S 1 �o ° .o S/ st S _ 1 2. ( .1' _ 102. - _ 102.01 • ' - 10 o -9 F 02' _ o - S 100.7' - - �° CD ^' x OFF— FS 98' +/- 777177:1177 x FS 97' x FS 98' - o— — — — — — sa 0 S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE A \� /l■ 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 0 gr CLUB 11 i o G2 �o T L4 ��u ---------------- ____ � �- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY I_ w V Q w t— w z Owner Golf Realty Fund One Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NBCC Planned Community Newport Beach, CA 92660 Master Plan Compromise 11 Showing IBC Proposed Golf Clubhouse & GRF Parking scale 1 "= 40' -0" Description Nov. 15, 2011 Project Number ski 775 T L4 ��u ---------------- ____ � �- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY I_ w V Q w t— w z Owner Golf Realty Fund One Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NBCC Planned Community Newport Beach, CA 92660 Master Plan Compromise 11 Showing IBC Proposed Golf Clubhouse & GRF Parking scale 1 "= 40' -0" Description Nov. 15, 2011 Project Number ski Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community << ;g7�� Planning Commission November 17, 2011 Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (PA2008 -152) Current General Plan S RS -D Cv 52 } t zo ou v 9 RM o 22R nil cogsrHwvF F 00 ONF - OR t' o Sq rFR , TFH Golf Club Site, 133 acres PR(Parks and Recreation) Recreational (golf course) Anomaly #74 • 35,000 s.f. clubhouse F 46 MU -H CO -G 45 Tennis Club Site, 12 ac. MU -H3 /PR (Mixed -Use & Parks and Recreation) Commercial, residential, recreational (tennis club) i Anomaly #46 • 3,725 s.f. clubhouse • 24 tennis courts ��tivvvoRr O em r U i 41 OVL a. 2 Golf Realty Fund Legislative Action �� 3 Planned Community ;c Encompasses 145 acres Development Plan Adoption 133 ac. golf club site 12 ac. tennis club site w Golf course 35,000 s.f. golf clubhouse F0'�y�P 7 tennis courts 31725 s.f. tennis clubhouse t9� 5 single family homes 27 hotel rooms, including ancillary meeting & spa n 3 Golf Realty Fund Development Applications 133 acre golf club site Site Development Review Limited Term Permit for Golf course 35,000 golf clubhouse Ancillary maintenance Parking lot Entry drive Temporary use of trailers TN 12 acre tennis club site Tentative Tract Map Transfer of Intensity Limited Term Permit Site Development Permit for 7 tennis courts 3,725 s.f. tennis clubhouse 5 single family homes 27 hotel rooms, including ancillary meeting & spa Temporary use of trailers ��tivc!voRT r °9<icoa''�P C! Newport Beach I Country Club, Inc. Mo Legislative Actions 1° General Plan Amendment Planned Community Development Plan r 133 acre golf club site Anomaly #74 9 56,000 s.f. PCDP Section 3.B.1 Golf Clubhouse Building Area 3999 56,000 s.f. ��tivc�voRT o m� 0 i a °9<icoa''�P 5 Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. Development Applications Site Development Review y ti Limited Term Permit 133 ac. golf club site a°;rQ►.+ 54,819 s.f. clubhouse 041, 017 ,_ Ancillary maintenance Parking lot Entry drive Temporary use of trailers F1.���s'QNF U S 6 r i ", _I Golf Realty Fund (PA2005=140) Mitigated Negative Declaration No Significant Impacts Land use Traffic -Aesthetic Recreational The architectural style is a matter of preference and is not a determinative factor in accessing land use impacts O B ���.o E"°ONr � 3 Planned Community Development Plan Encompasses the entire 145 -acre project site 133 acre golf course site Golf course 35,000 sf. golf clubhouse Ancillary maintenance facilities 12 acre tennis club site Tennis club with 7 tennis courts 3,725 sf. tennis clubhouse 27 hotel rooms including the ancillary spa and meeting rooms 5 single - family homes O B ���.o E"°ONr � 2 Transfer of Development Applicant proposes a transfer of 27 hotel rooms from Anomaly #43 to Anomaly #46 pursuant to General Plan Policy Host Hotels and Resorts (Marriott Hotel) Vested right to develop 611 hotel rooms Suggests a "use conversion solution" as an alternative where the elimination of 17 tennis courts can be converted to hotel rooms or building floor area Staff believes Host does not have a vested right to develop 611 hotel rooms - May 11, 2005, administrative amendment to Site Plan Review #29 reduced the maximum room count from 611 to 532 Potential conversion does not create a traffic issue Potential conversion not consistent with the General Plan as the site is limited to 3,725 sf. General Plan allows for the transfer of development O B ���.o E"°ONr � 10 Comparison Site Plan Comparison plan prepared by the applicant Not an amendment of the application and applicant is not requesting its approval Illustrates possibility that the applicant's parking lot layout could accommodate the larger clubhouse proposed by NBCC, Inc. Vo 11 Development Agreement A 10 -year term Conveys a vested right to develop Public Benefits Public Benefit fee: $93,000 per dwelling unit and $10 per square foot of golf and tennis clubhouse Project provides for visitor serving uses Project provides aesthetic enhancements Project will host numerous events of significant social & economic benefit to the community O B ���.o E"°ONr � 12 Recommendation Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Adoption of a Planned Community Development Plan proposed by staff for the entire 145 -acre project site Approval of the requested Transfer of Development Approval of Site Development and Limited Term Permits, as proposed by applicant for the 12 -acre tennis club site Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, as proposed by applicant Adoption of the draft Development Agreement UON 13 r i ", _I Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (PA2008 -152) Mitigated Negative Declaration No Significant Impacts Land use Traffic Aesthetic The architectural style is a matter of preference and is not a determinative factor in accessing land use impacts O B ���.o E"°ONr � 15 Legislative Actions General Plan Amendment 35,000 sf. to 56,000 sf. for Anomaly #74 Planned Community Development Plan Amendment Golf clubhouse from Applies to the ' W� 35,000 sf. to 56,000 sf. •ra n�l-F r^li ih r-; +-o r%r%l%i 1 tETAM rG 0 GHWAY Alternative Site Plan Modified Frontage Access � � � � ! 1651 � -. --+ `��,t; • ti 930 TOM PAii/C . 9FWG£9 Alternative Frontage Access Driveway Alternative Site Plan Modified Frontage Access Applicant's preferred plan, but does not eliminate the frontage road as desired by the Commission Provides enhanced screening of parking lot and hides the fence as requested by the Commission Provides " "exit only" access to Armstrong Nursery at signal and avoids potential internal circulation Provides additional flexibility for special events Proposed driveway must be widened to 20 feet O B ���.o E"°ONr � 19 Frontage Road Design Condition 5. The preferred parking lot design eliminates the frontage road that provides access from the entry driveway to the Armstrong Nursery property to the west of the project site as shown in Exhibit A2C dated September 19, 2011. In the event that the applicant must provide frontage road due to private easement obligations, the parking lot shall be designed in conformance with Attachment PC4 of the November 17, 2011, Planning Commission Staff Report, including vehicle access be limited to one -way east -bound movements. 0-1141 20 Parking Lot Design Condition 7. A minimum of 334 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for the Golf Course and its clubhouse. The design of the parking lot may be modified provided it meets applicable safety and design regulations or standards as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The final parking lot layout including the orientation of the drive aisles and parking spaces shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Director, with appropriate notification to the Planning Commission and City Council. 21 1 Development Agreement A 10 -year term Conveys a vested right to develop Public Benefits Public Benefit fee: $10 per square foot of golf clubhouse (maximum of $560,000) Project provides for visitor serving uses Project provides aesthetic enhancements Project will host numerous events of significant social & economic benefit to the community EwPoFr O B ���.o � 22 Recommendation Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Approval of General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum building area for the clubhouse Adoption of a Planned Community Development Plan amendment to increase the clubhouse building area Approval of the Site Development and Limited Term Permit, as proposed by applicant for the 133 -acre golf club site Adoption of the draft Development Agreement o 23 r i ", _I NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB, INC. CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT FROM AUGUST Entry Drive Widened Porte Cochere Reoriented and Shifted Southerly Perimeter Fencing Redesigned and Reduced in Height Signage Reduced to Enhance Corner Open Space Pad Elevation Lowered, Grading Quantities Reduced Parking Lot Landscape Setback Increased IRVINE TERRACE ENTRY DRIVE �a R ING m (D rh.; _01 TYR kCES) REMOVE Y 1 a EXISTING SIDEWALK VG EXISTNG CURB EXISTNG CURB IEW RETURN TO REMAII - CON IST�CT NEW RETURN TO REMAIN THIS SIDE - -- -CURB REiHRN THIS61DE -- THIS SIDE PREVIOUSLY REVISED PLAN WITHOUT PROPOSED PLAN ACCESS EASEMENT W EXISTING SIDEWALK REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT VV EXISTING SIDEWALK VG EXISTNG CURB EXISTNG CURB IEW RETURN TO REMAII - CON IST�CT NEW RETURN TO REMAIN THIS SIDE - -- -CURB REiHRN THIS61DE -- THIS SIDE PREVIOUSLY REVISED PLAN WITHOUT PROPOSED PLAN ACCESS EASEMENT W EXISTING SIDEWALK REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT PORTE COCHERE `OPEN LANDSCAPED AREA PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PLAN `OPEN LANDSCAPED AREA REVISED PLAN FRONTAGE ROAD EASEMENT —. easie'sen + r N49AU'ka� rM - isi sa +eesl Ti -w:te aeevs® 945 .. - _ _ _ _ _- —— Zzns.ccssse.seuexrl wrc. xoAruuvc�` -- mnee� xusnvc �msrms _...... _ seax¢0°sioimswv $1OF1Y"`" '""" COAST HIGHWAY PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PLAN REVISED PLAN WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT !`q SIGNAGE /CORNER OPEN SPACE Entry Monument Sign Reduced from 10' maximum height to 7' maximum Sign area reduced from 180 square feet to 155 square feet Reduced sign size will maximize open space at corner of East Coast Highway and Irvine Terrace PAD ELEVATION/ GRADING QUANTITIES Lowered finished floor by 1 foot Reduction in grading by 5,000 cubic yards Reduction in heavy trip traffic associated with import of fill material from approximately 27 days to 21 days BUILDING HEIGHT S m•�.ac; SITE SECTION A -A SITE SECTION B-B SITE SECTION C-C onorceeoa�wsc vrenrra numw.ae �NNi44W w R-1 .l .`r SITE PLAN c o =W A k .b CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT FROM OCTOBER Narrowed Frontage Road to 15' Restricted Access to One -Way Eastbound Only Signage and Turn -Outs to Prevent Wrong Way Traffic Increased Total Landscape Setback to 28' from back of Sidewalk Separated Berm and Perimeter Fence by 25' Placement of Berm Away from Fence Obscures View of Fence from East Coast Highway UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH ONE -WAY FRONTAGE ROAD NOTE — — —_ P REFERTOOMLgUWINGFORWOU ON WE GENERALNOTES • �w...raw.v..0 ..mxau r. ""`,.. °° wmROSeoureRxnTE SRE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB ► TM BERN ., NEWPORTBEACH, CAUrONNin UPDATED LANDSCAPED BERM/ PERIMETER FENCE SECTION F COAST l 7' l 18' 15' 4 HWY SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE BERM ONE WAY DR. 5 NFWTZTX mil SECTION 1/817 = 1'- 0" 13 V�I�tl m n n II a - e k �I - - ` 4 t ail ■ ■ � I ■n IMAGE BOARD PREVIOUS DESIGN �--IC REVISED DESIGN NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORN,P AM BANQUET ROOM 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 Holidays (e.g., Easter, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving,) Increase from existing banquet room by approximately 1,500 square feet MONDAY TOURNAMENT BOOKING SUMMARY 2011 DATE EVENT 1/24/11 Toshiba Sponsor Day 3/7/11 Toshiba Classic 3/21/11 Cystic Fibrosis 4/25/11 Skipper Dick Memorial 5/2/11 Juvenile Diabetes Research 5/9/11 Child Help 6/13/11 Class Fund 6/27/11 Survivor's Memorial Fund 8/15/11 RMJ Golf Classic 8/29/11 O.C. Alumni Association/ Ernst Young 9/12/11 Drive for a Cause 9/19/11 Sage Hill School 10/3/11 St. Margaret's School 11/14/11 Mariner's Christian School BENEFITS (Charity/Organization) 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% volunteer organization — all monies go to community charities Fundraiser for school Fundraiser for school Fundraiser for school MEN'S 2011 TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE 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 Four Ball Spring Classic 4/30- 5/l/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 Member -Guest 8/10/11 Men's Guest Day 8/12/11 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 11/5/11 Junior Club Championship 11/23/11 Turkey Shoot 12/7/11 PGA Pro -Am LADIES' 2011 TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE 1/4/11 Installation 2/3/11 Sadie Hawkins Invitational 2/17/11 General Meeting Play Day 3/20/11 Couples St. Patrick's Day Event 3/31/11 Ladies Guest Day 4/28/11 WSCGA Foundation Guest Day 5/6/11 Couples Twilight Golf 5110, 12, 17, 19/11 Ladies Club Championship 5/11/11 U.S. Open Qualifying 5/15/11 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 Day 8/17 -19/11 Ladies Seahorse Classic 9/8/11 General Meeting Play Day 9/13,15/11 Mary 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, 17/1 l Ladies President's Cup 11/22/11 Turkey Shoot 12/6/11 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 5/26/10 USC Fraternity Luncheon 5/26/10 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 5/26/10 CDM Cheerleading Annual banquet 6/12/10 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 SPECIAL EVENTS 2010, CONTINUED DATE GROUP EVENT 8/1/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8/14/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8/18/10 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 8/16/10 50th Anniversary Dinner 8/20/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 9/11/10 Wedding Ceremony /reception 9/18/10 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 Gentlemen'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 HSNO Corporate Holiday Party 12/4/10 NB Newcomers NB Social Holiday Party 12/11/10 Horizon Tech Corporate Holiday Party 12/18/10 Meridian Link Corporate Holiday Party 12/20/10 Northwestern Mutual Corporate Holiday Party CMFBTI[iINO lT� WMiYnYmO � _�Tl Yp� IAA E %�STHG \i t NURSERY I NOTAPARi TIIIII mTI TTt111O11111 If NOTE A. REFERTO CNIL0 WING FOR GRADES ON WE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB i� mR�9 tl11YWA C PARKING REQUIREMENTS . ',ipenTeaar�wllralnwo '� .ice Ml0}J. ib � .IF]AUaI, wuw - AepWSm Ie� �� Iw Covw ]]IW 4' 3i]ITd .Rn♦pnq sew° Rma sores ImE /s.n 0'oY ey Wy 9f:Od Yvl BWYp - We1Pmn ]SOmb i E MM prUw -Clf ]]Yltl Ea4't WJJ 10 E uY I.r_ 'ROfr'Sp 21WE 'trwv -B SeSd ']mb/OOOd /9 giMw -HuM \f0r'I.IEgd �1 WI/BSDtl� e ' w99'rrm Fsope:�Mwl q TaY1FE:mYAd:M: ]N - EMir /niY \: � AtlYO 9 TpYpwW: ]N mR�9 tl11YWA C Rom CYWwn Yn Ml0}J. ib L,BWd ]]IW 4' 3i]ITd faiESi6 GnPan 0'oY ey Wy 9f:Od Yvl BWYp ]0�0J YVtBw:p Yf Y i E MM bIFryO E uY I.r_ a avY giMw E>9'mp CWO w99'rrm Cai1Bm t -0' GENERAL NOTES •iiYggnpq A] . �acKeceooe �' �- ,» I REVISED SRE PEAK WRN ACCESS EASEFnERT A -30 NEWPORTBEACH, MIFDRNIA °°F` UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH FRONTAGE ROAD �� 31YY suYW�iWY 10 IAdiimu e9(Y SI -I Ja1 %Y59 %- �B B Fplrtm mel ieuIMN�Y�TM�d� ]L P�eMM R6 Meeryp isuI MYWFPa'MM� 9 ]L PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY NOTE A. REFER LG CNIL DM ING FOR GMMS Q SITE 01ziyiyi1.1:i1:3x_My:well] .rr:rmtol:3 BEFORE AND AFTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB ro wixw � aaix� .ba° I wz mna'iww .waawm ��? +exaawm err wawa xmv .w.."° wax• xw �.a.wiwmrrm.. ero....mere.wwa..ewr m area,e..a....oezae� °wow GENERALNOTES .arawo.aam.z seiasso srte evez wrtx nccsss swsszvrt- rnswous rux ovsianv NEWPORT BEACH, cnurovwu L4° oa1 I _,,. ., UPDATED SITE PLAN WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROAD I... -= EN.�1p99i9M��gW��,� HOt A1MN� — MT-Tff 7.1I I NOTE A REFERTOGIVILDEAMNGR)RGMCES ON SITE _ PARKING REQUIREMENTS weumm� wr.e. n�ww Nr: m . INali ENT.s Mao �e.e. u bTMw, m - rra.msa. la m. .0 F.�u°e.�uuM+sa RMIa P.R I�.YIEf11 Ib l:V(f BfIMiINS - B.Ni.IPmn ]lO.m AMRi. Re SMq.. ISMS9 - I:iFIf.OWC Ni •. Neiad Floe ®�BWil �Y�350✓ e umpmnNl 1 �° Tb.1FM..MnMYM: >. y w uR .cna NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA GENERALNOTES BYaw Oenn�o'. as M.w6W M..W IfmmmniP ..CLIC / REVI5EO51TE PIMI WITiWR n.E.E EASEMENT A -x V ucTEM1l u_ w A NNN PERIMETER FENCING BEFORE PERIMETER FENCING AFTER FRONTAGE ROAD l _I LANDSCAPING PER V DRAWING O PERIMETER FENCE SECTION CMU RETAINING WALL CLUBHOUSE PARKING MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF AND GOLF REALTY FUND TEAM Five meetings between the teams since August 4 Planning Commission hearing Project Architects met twice and collaborated on: Irvine Terrace Entry Porte Cochere Perimeter Fencing NBCC has agreed to collaborate with Golf Realty Fund on: Light Fixtures Signage Landscaping PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ar emtea m. e t••sPACFSI\ 0 0 00 SM IG�IEPIOtp5]SPoCES IEO SaS TOTAL PARKING SPACE \ ffi6MLE69 FASELFM GlE -� A SEftNLEJ '`ERI511NG �ab1M F �- Fllp/NIIG Srt£VYLR IAbNN S A " m ° I u PREVIOUSLY "PROPOSED PLAN �e it r' s COAST Al REVISED PLAN WITHOUTACCESS EASEMENT REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT SPACES) 7:, wit 0 0 NAJL�R es • ure !�lQ (SI SPACES) ,, TMd9 iFl M ar emtea m. e t••sPACFSI\ 0 0 00 SM IG�IEPIOtp5]SPoCES IEO SaS TOTAL PARKING SPACE \ ffi6MLE69 FASELFM GlE -� A SEftNLEJ '`ERI511NG �ab1M F �- Fllp/NIIG Srt£VYLR IAbNN S A " m ° I u PREVIOUSLY "PROPOSED PLAN �e it r' s COAST Al REVISED PLAN WITHOUTACCESS EASEMENT REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT PARKING LOT ORIENTATION � a�J ' a .a.I ar 111T�114� � P T =E �Ill� crcncn !$ =ia Pno2raac ngE rcno_ _ ?e Yun .:+o= UPDATED ME PLAN — ONE—WAY FRONTAGE ROAD UPDATED ME PLAN — ONE—WAY FRONTAGE ROAD R UPDATED LANDSCAPED o EG3 nNn10pEG°30 nNn1[ TER PENCE SEC TMN e "E NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB Newport Beach, California SHEET INDEX: M1 D]O`OAAENANIEPnA.A RAH .V] LDEMENALLSTAA.NEMH A4A 111 A. RMSED Sin RMI wii ACCESS RASEMENiAAMENT A-A En ANNIED ERE FLLN WR AWESS EASEMENT- EOSN,O ECTOKSCIM,,A -A. .C..1 N. 4C. D D� .WO.SE WER4v M}GPD PENNED On 0.AN.M T ACCESS EASEMENT. PRENWE MI} MXD RY AGD RENEED& ULAN WIM1CCEtl EVEMEM M3D-ED RENEED 61n 1E RNI WIMILfEta EIEEMEXI E%IElllq OL WiME.wNCE Wn.M ELEWIfMB IF/8id WE611 fAU..I p£R4v M3D-Po PENNED In M1.W WIINICCFSB E/EFMENI- FAEYlp1S MNDV VY .3E WRRAL RAxN.CpNY0NDX8 of XEY AREAe N3 4RDYX0 LFIEL RDOR RAH A, YWEM IFY£L RIN/1RAX ALAN AO M.0. .V] OORNdNORMELEV ON6 RA9IONO(. E.NA-N31 M.AV AO N.1 4Y C'.... MID ECTOKSCIM,,A -A. .C..1 N. 4C. D D� 0.11 NO FIPCNLAN 6FlEVPTON} MI} NAMRNPHCE AANnNANCE OA.:. MN A...I AIMSOSTNE M1Rq NA Nn WC E.... OL WiME.wNCE Wn.M ELEWIfMB IF/8id WE611 11 n. REM OED NREMNNAM LANDECAR MNWITIiW] ANi B EARNFNi N3 N.ii NE NEED RIELIMIwRY LAWSMEE RANNlIMA5ES9 EVEMEM L--1 NTRY fWWE SF C] ACN FXCbTNNO LECWXNbJII GLW X X Va NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB r' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 0B01P a-V ✓ ,1= VICINITY MAPw,.I j► X EXISTING SITE PLAN I OEMOLITIONPLAN A -IA a r r-- °l-- NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNIA TEMPpPMi � WIUVESi I ,' —a�� sNE PLAN A IFF 65N:MIAM �� A0.�Ou(IECIS AIA aaYr• m � ✓ICINITY MAP ,.,a, NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPT NEWPORT BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE �p0 E RESIDENTIAL T} FASHION ISLAND OOLF COURSE: 123.5 AC RESIDENTIAL CLUMOUSE OEVEL01WWAMA ,an RESIDENTIAL ,`x"_ NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA GENERAL NOTES • N+>wa�mvuse. Ax . Gnwvvn TY[�' ilpva6iaoaasaal ,� •xcacmro s REWSW OVERALL 517E PLAN WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT A -7A LR a RTM AIA W,x ,rv„ ,ixx la LIN&`AKA AIA ®,C8 uxi° euaewu� ouyo.r. ooensw 3+e�a uFm m.mzm mans meom Wrm "¢`y'v Im Ra fm 3 ni Bm6 Cm�irc. Q0.'Otl }giept }JfOa a.m. eaaip 2a�oa wfo. Naa�R: }�esa Tm Eaaa Tm raW awN cs�w ay.. iu.- raw wyns unis. fxa ww rq.. 1e'a i2' m'ana i cw.i aweas Ms M •1J19va .N. •1J1ltw W mfmm T:f(Ru •a}29a Q.Wa � �6m211 tMt }IauiAwYtl6pavew a aW2euoweua..W WeeraWpn }I pYYawmn�tl Wwmhtlaswap W ewme! GENERAL NOTES • N+>wa�mvuse. Ax . Gnwvvn TY[�' ilpva6iaoaasaal ,� •xcacmro s REWSW OVERALL 517E PLAN WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT A -7A LR a RTM AIA W,x ,rv„ ,ixx la LIN&`AKA AIA ®,C8 uxi° le leTEE t�l IS MRF _[ NOTE A REFERTO CIVIL DRAWING FOR GRADES ON SUE CM 31W ME mm NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NE'AIPORT BEACH. ,. . YKWT[OORFIMUMRER p 11113 NIIR(INO OF M"REOUIRF REIM /Elc. MENi (FTL1+81 GoXVUf Bsprm - ReguWian 18Mks Courees pNR01e PNYq Ma M. Esla&mXM: .FVeo eesMF 1 MRgTR® .BOaNmMnl aOaNF 114F /95 tl1 1M .9aMe1 R�Own 3W �F olnei Uan: Grtm IYJNI,E01Y 1R -- ftsISR Z,wd 1�N - Manbvru 18_ =mdl -B ea1188 Fbess 1 N 1 Fwlmea lunalp M ToYl psAlnE apulrN: Jy1 NaRInY pmNGN: SNnG�" ]01 a Tal upwJ: ]q ROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMAF __ FlMrufr awxwEE awlouv cmnNis c tlk Itl Fbv AJNyj l0,firol„ W F1p ylyyY R 'C2Yitl 5 ]ily ��� CarlBm: F.COY Bp 51we[e 9110 a1 — NMi &bnj F_j_Qi1 N BUby B,YSy T9 T. EamWq ml Tapl Pna ll$bY.am' 69.M9p RIPry LYMnss- )]'8 Nnro. f8nm IYyu CMBm td NMA bg' IFd Wii 9q: ]I'deea Waame. b -RMfli -WAM i1 Gm5bAnldbpym ®. GENERAL NOTES BIiYq OnOtlq Onup. Mt • L4W.aBn il➢a il➢a V91FW 9pYWb1 • MLCYAA REASEO SUE PUN WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT AdC CNWU =Ie u.lan eem leTEE t�l No"M NOTE R REFERTO CIVIL DRAWING FOR GRADES ON SUE GRTUW � o rp ►p ",. .pp, ME mm 1�31!1 N NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB MMM NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA l I GENERAL NOTES N�E9�on4�o. Ai f4W.�B'n *I➢" *ro"ne6WBpYWbI OLCYAm REVISED SITE CLUESHOUSEC LR6SNAHNL sole awnF4rn u, 1 i _ a Fill I►1- Av1yia ' .01 �7:[K�l11ltL'i'IK�IL:' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY unxc nprofr auwawx auwou� c lyeB f%ou ]0�)Np an'51 3]99f1 5 3ily cOn e..: ewop ese sw.a. v+on Mtlm. &wnJ: t0�_01 W by BYSy i FmWp i G,qN Ma J s09 Ma' 69.M9p BJOry CYYYns- ]]4 YNnr fdmv �� NfiA bh: IBd Wii A\q: ]I'dew PY 0.w9i Biwwfll x.. a. -n�uw. iun .InsR wrpw to -acmw + -osm 1 6.! 80AwpAbp]Im®. u„xy�oxwa�m"yax..i ....x°xlx. GENERAL NOTES cam�,m,py. *ro. vaPW BPBwNI � . eetmmoa REVISED SITE PLAN WaMM fl ESSEASEMENTPREVIOUS ro OVERLAY -- NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORRIA �' .I I °„m".� / PIK 7--1-477- F %ISTING GRSERV NOTAPART NOTE A: REFER TO CNILORAWING FOR GRADES ON SITE caerSTn w INS NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA YKC1R[6011Y XYYlK pYmIMO MMM16 a KAnmO K Inc. xexr IoTAUCI Gon Vie¢ -� 18Mki W'NA. 110 ru1b Ea4ry 6 pNYq - XeaIIpB FWine1�91 '1 Nilli3yl al EsledMniNf: .S mY mrw 1Mnrr .maeu I Zorn �YMorro L to Pry s -B - XeaIIpB FWine1�91 '1 Nilli3yl al Fadnin lm .. TaYl psAlnp ipulryl: lH NihlnY MnYMM: Ge M Nwrenaw TOYIpuWrq prglMi e iM ROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMAF Ma IDW'brte. cNObux 001Op &Wry: ]0101 Icmwa+lt� -atMx I� -osm I GENERAL NOTES FIYq Wlpllgdep: MI f4r:WnTtA Tpi NBYi1/9pYWb1 KFYAr r,q �— eo REVISED SITE PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT A LEFY6IrIAIA ��] wp�uCT�e "A°IA GART,RML G mdy,L .�r ROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMM, � G L yp[ AR Mp IDJNLii AS] .�® li$9 31,A91 m Can �m A I �ro���9iDir� / 1 �� � � 8m 001Op 6NN GUaC 9)f n &Wry: ]0101 Wm BUby BY n16mLL9 iatl Rgal JI SA9 Ma' 69.0 J _ L BIIry Lbgtaw: ]]'4mv CLYnro. fX u � I NorMA�n"wT - - LmwN -acmw -aern II GVa�Pnitll. p]I�. izt EfYpJtlo�pi50sbnN.J1.11YYbPl, NOTE r A:REFFERTOCIVILDRAWINGFORGIUDES SITE ON SITE _ GENERAL NOTES '. rn+masa Tiyr TI➢a VBI1W 6PYWM - ecCx Am RENSEG SITE PLAN WITH �' �� GLUEBHGU6� ENT- EXISTINi NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB a Ago { {G LFFY6SNANAM NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA °°°I° ,., °�RE"ns"°IA oP� „ °• uOEjOO� eA E° _ — ——— NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 f Ago. Te.o. GENERAL NOTES Pop& nYa W. Rl ilp� -A EP�bI Is_- REVISED SITE PLAN WRR AG ESS EASEMENT PREVIOUS PIAN OVERLAY A-20-PO AgRpl(IEIA �fi v6IrCT1AIA re,o-,f PREWOUSLV REVISEDFI PROPOSED PLAN PORTE COCHERE PNEVIOUSLY PROPOSED PIAN REVISED W OVT ACCESS EASEMENT RENSEDPLA YflI ACCESS EASEMENT IRVINE TERRACE DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH. CAUEORNIA w r ' I PREVpUSLV PROPOSED PIAN R MEDPUWWRHACCESSEASEMENT LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG PCH PMMISO 6- COMPPARISONS OF KEYAREA£ Mli_..._.. AREA TABULATION' - ZIPPER LEVEL: 20.520 SF - GROUND LEVEL: 30,593 SF TOTAL: 51,213 SF NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB -rm �r NEWPORT BEACH, MIFOFNw N10 a0411 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (20,520 S.F.) AREA TABULATION: -UPPER LEVEL: 29.529 SF - GROUND LEVEL: 30,593 SF TOTAL: 51,213 SF NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNiA '�. —� I UPPER LEVF1 � � ROOR PLAN moo �.... �.... mm.n C ~� I � f- I r T CART BARN (5.704 BY (ANCILLARY USE) AREA TABULATION: -CART BARN: 6,)00 SF -BA6 STOR.(OROUNO FLR.): 3,808 SF TOTAL: 8.310 SF I►I MITI aQ A 9 .01 AS] w 01 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Nm.ii I'klI: Kyj iA a .01 A01 w NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA EWI%AENTSTOBE CONCF EOFRgA VKKFJ TRELLIS PNBLIC VIEW OF PRCN i TYRM �, �- v I ROOF PLrW SOUTH ELEVATION 1 i m NORTH ELEVATION NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORTBEACH, MIFORNiA t "d' I �v�noRs moi;i EAST ELEVATION NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA pp vov 4 m 1 SERVICE YARD 6VKVIET C£WEAY WEST ELEVATION ��� E�evATwRs ulafrtcrs u, moiii 4 b Pi SECTION B - B SECTION C - C NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNIA "'�'� cwe�wuse sscnwu MF OM �uf1EM CR AIA AIA 'N moiii SITE SECTION A-A sxaoeEnauowE uMnxouww� .. Ai2 SITE SECTION B-B -4 k SITE SECTION C-C SITE PLAN A jr- SITE SECTION D-D NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNIA C A-10 MOMM AIA mMi MIN �j �.T EAST ELEVATION ^V® i �� f �� +►F. ,'x a� � tit u �� �,� , e1� ~••• WEST ELEVATION •'.are a s x�x rwxrtx.xcF rwo it I MINTENANCE FLOOR PLAM n LR6SNANAM ARpC1uOE AU aS iauorex, sax 1 l Y N�1n[Im wxxae � wren FLOONPLAN(ONE STONYANCILL YUSE)^� M� ew_ �• SOUTH ELEVATION NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA NORTH ELEVATION w.,.,..�. MINTENANCE FLOOR PLAM n LR6SNANAM ARpC1uOE AU ROOF PLAN I'MATITI A a .01 A01 w NEWPORTBEACH, MIFGNNin FENCE , -r BUILDING it _� 4y�,�at°. � • now r R ft�Lt�� ♦y�aiF fA 7�t9 SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA a� IMINTENANCE BUILDING ELEVATIONS v e m ss (MMdLL USE) LR 8IN: AM om�] oe tact A0.OuDpECT S AIA �..,. EAST ELEVATION APB t {I� NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ti�:�r '-, :� � far•. ,;'• WEST ELEVATION' IMINTENANCE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DMILLARV USE) IF[6INCT lAM nYn� �M !Uu AIA LOW LANDSCAPING , " l LANDSCAPING PER'L "DRAWING SIDEWALK--,, CMU RETAINING WALL STREET SIDE O NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PERIMETER FENCE DESIGN NEWPORTBEACH, DALIFORNIA dnn PwrtP�utne�wnEl PA RC COAST HIGHWAY NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RMTPH6fR`�Cplfl HAM. PILETIE t RE SEO PRELIMINARY � IANNSCAPE PIAN WITIAMT ACCESSEASEMENT L.11 c �T 11 -1 NOT A PMT L. M �U C C) ) PACIFIC C T HIGHWAY �NT� MM7 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LZ REVISED PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN W ITH �CIMS�EMENT L-12 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 1 TECHNICAL SITE PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT FOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB Som F � -_ ••r' l I ' WIEb kHY9lff llB ��— e�a11fRM1B)RN P3 ��— 0 — —i nernucY. �3 �� sEE arEErz Eax — arEflNLEY810.0 G0.F CWM1f _ __ COAST' HIGHWAY s acRM.0 am.m T.... r >_r VN2w16 ewng.wsrma .mi .. P o e.a _ day tECFPJICAL SRE I WITH ACCE56 EAST I aMlmn BONNIE OOONE TERRACE xPE5mG1�FalA� k1 EBFNEEH TECHNICAL SITE PLAN FOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB I I I BONNIE OOONE MRMCE -1 P' fX9B ear kti EXISTING BOUNDARY FOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB 6:j J. b, �y ti� Rb •I �yy. �:f K�Lt' h19g :W �W�tM.G j pEAGE HAMMY PARM 1 PM 79- 7048.02 AG ....ruc •.`f •S PMEM AHEA l � i9�'�� ` d�i 1' .3. 902 AC d i.a. 9 ,y �•s S02 AC 1 MC AL SR P N - ti u ®Ixvmn 1 (�. `r'V .....wr.. r li i Ft9 M�1� iX�GM1Y�YIXUB,WG Z"'k9e 1.J;�v.'En,n,.}�,'��� =`•LT— 1 roMncr: vEwrcw orxeY rNesmumuo __��mm�1� FgdD? 2 FUSCOE q 2 EXISTING BOUNDARY FOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB 6:j � \ ��pltw • �:f K�Lt' h19g :W �W tMAG j pEAGE AMM PY PARM 1 PM 79- 7048.02 AG •.`f PMEM ME1 w .3R 1 � 4M�'�� p`Q,/ .njy✓'S' 902 AC alb• � 902 AC .,m tECFPJICAL SRE RAN Wn ACCESS EASEGW S�J•s� li i Fta�i � � Jne..w. M�1� iX�GM1Y�YIXUB,WG { .•� ` x�wcm FRm� __A j FUSCOE q 2 SPECIAL EVENTS 2009 DATE GROUP EVENT 1/1/09 British American Assoc. Luncheon 1/7/09 Helpmates Company reception 1/18/09 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 1/18/09 Amigos Viejos Seniors networking group 2/20/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 2/21/09 Baby Shower Private luncheon 3/19/09 Memorial Service Celebration of life 4/25/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 5/13/09 US Open Qualifying for US Open 5/13/09 CDM Cheerleading Banquet 5/20/09 UCI Employee Luncheon 5/23/09 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 5/24/09 Jones 50`h Anniversary Party 5/27/09 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 5/30/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 6/3/09 USC Fraternity Luncheon 6/13/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 6/14/09 Macintosh Memorial Service 6/16/09 Sherman Garden Luncheon 6/16/09 Graduation Dinner parry 6/17/09 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 6/20/09 Beacon Bay Breakfast meeting 6/26/09 Blackburn Family get- together 7/2 -22/09 Newport Beach Breakers Tennis match 7/22/09 Kissen Wedding Ceremony /reception 7/25/09 Memorial Service Member celebration of life 7/30/09 British American Assoc. Luncheon SPECIAL EVENTS 2009, CONTINUED DATE GROUP EVENT 8/1/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8/8/09 Seaberg Anniversary Party 8/14/09 Price Waterhouse Cooper Employee party 8/15/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8/22/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 8/29/09 Memorial Service Member celebration of life 9/9/09 British American Assoc. Luncheon 9/18/09 Northwestern Mutual Seminar /luncheon 9/19/09 CDM Class of 1959 Reunion 9/29/09 Memorial Service Member celebration of life 10/10/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 10/28/09 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 11/11/09 Social Event Private party 11/14/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception 12/3/09 HSNO Company party 12/5/09 Horizon Tech Company party 12/12/09 NB Newcomers Holiday party 12/17/09 Price Waterhouse Cooper Company party 12/21/09 Northwestern Mutual Company party 12/26/09 Wedding Ceremony /reception SPECIAL EVENTS 2008 DATE GROUP EVENT 1/6/08 Toastmaster Seminar 1/20/08 MBK Seminar Seminar /dinner 2/9/08 Helpmates Staffing company reception 2/20/08 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 2/23/08 Voltmer Anniversary party 3/15/08 Lake Birthday party 3/21/08 Cuavas Private party 3/29/08 Member Memorial Celebration of Life 4/6/08 OC Symphony Concert and dinner 4/16/08 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 4/27/08 CDM Cheerleading Banquet 4/30/08 USC Fraternity Luncheon 5/14/08 US Open Qualifying for US Open 5/28/08 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 6/12/08 Northwestern Mutual Seminar /luncheon 6/18/08 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 7/12/08 60th Anniversary Dinner 7/23/08 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group SPECIAL EVENTS 2008, CONTINUED DATE GROUP EVENT 8/10/08 Mersch Family get- together 8/16/08 Vanderpool Private dinner 8/20/08 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 8/23/08 Member Party Private dinner 8/28/08 Price Waterhouse Cooper Employee party 9/6/08 Wedding Ceremony /reception 9/11/08 CMAA Luncheon meeting 9/16/08 British American Assoc. Luncheon meeting 9/17/08 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 10/8/08 Northwestern Mutual Seminar /luncheon 10/11/08 Wedding Ceremony /reception 10/15/08 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 10/18/08 Memorial Service Celebration of life 10/25/08 Dinner Party Private party 11/5/08 7 C's Breakfast OC Gentlemen's networking group 12/5/08 HSNO Corporate party 12/12/08 Hilton Costa Mesa Corporate party 12/16/08 Promontory Bay Association party 12/17/08 Amigos Viejos OC Seniors networking group 12/21/08 Maggard Family Private party 12/22/08 Northwestern Mutual Corporate party PARKING LOT Before - Landscape Buffer 5' from back of sidewalk to frontage road 7' from back of frontage road to parking lot Total 35' After - With Frontage Road 5' from back of sidewalk to frontage road 10'5" from back of frontage road to parking lot (3.5' increase) Total 38'5" After - Without Frontage Road 20' from back of sidewalk to parking lot NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB Planned Community District Application PA 2005 -140 November 17, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PCD • Master Plan Reorientation - Golf Parking Lot - Golf Clubhouse - The Bungalows - The Villas - The Spa - Tennis Clubhouse - Stadium Court • Community Outreach - Stakeholder Input - Plan Evolution Newport Beach Country Club - PCD NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PCD • Expanded GC Parking - 34 More Parking Spaces - 334 Exclusive Parking Spaces - 90 over Required Parking - Additional 554 Non - Exclusive Parking Spaces • Addresses Irvine Terrace Concerns - 700' PCH Buffer - Parking Lot Design • Open Space Views Building Footprint Preserves PCH Golf Course Views The Golf Clubhouse Proposed IBC Goll Clubhouse evcaeds the recent voter approved General Plan by 20 (t00 sa e an i Proposed IBC Got Parking Lot is 166.36a so It ofasp6all 150'slargerthantare PropeM Owner Plan. Proposed IBC Clubhouse M1ontege and proposed walls eliminate mcuall, all vlans of the gall course nom the PCH and Entry Proposed IBC Clubhouse coding is 140 / Green wider and I W' feet claser to i In cornpaMOn to Vie Pupped, Owner Plan 11 Tee Property Owner Plat Maintenance Bli F.tppnt 2,8]5 s4 f1 8.5" Ma11 w It errs x Proposed IBC Plan crowds the existing 16th "T' Ma In Tee Prance Patch. Green Green I BN Green 260' r W pp Property Owner .13,14 f III _ •�' Gnu Cpt 1 e— - -- IBC Clubhouse h ,.— ____ Fnptprint �ei 30,693 so It , �♦ prpypead wil r� — j 1 Prop" Garner Han Iles ]8.9]0 sq If or 25oti more landscaping than the IBC Plan This significantly anhances views from t Irvine Terrace. PCH and ending the Country 400' Club I Estent of SC Proposed IBC Clubhouse rs 100 If closer pr.,i and t20 M wider than ma Pool Owner t. PeMin9 Lot Plan as viewed from PCH J ARMSTRONGS NURSERY IvMla. w Properly Omer Golf Clubhouse bas a <W foot setback from PCH protecting the emeting golf coume views aril providing a strong Entry attached while presprwng e.rsong views 10 Open Space Property Owner Golf Palo, Lot s mono mothers and generous landscaped setbacks reduces the visual dominance of the parking lot and Creates a significant landscape Conrdo, 9d,exce to PCH. E,taal .1 184C ePar l T O e F U SIR e ut Tee precuts Oreen C.Trincental berth faalllles with large prefunction areas are not typical and are IMh &. Progeny Owner �� / Inconsistenl with Me private gat clubhouse. Got, Clubhouse / � Footprint 26.044 sq n / b IBC's propose0 banquet facilities and \ \a prelunctlon areas are beyond the needs of exdus. prwaw grri and will Eyte t of Gretlirlg_ �' � / \ g cBate aadhonal trarocana golf member onnias. \ ThepropmesiBCClubhouseislWtl �� IBC Clubhouae �` A \ closer to PCH and 120 at wider than Me / 1 �' -- Footprint ,� % `` 'k Property Owner s clubhouse IW Green 30,693 eq tt ` * / 6lsling Can , . / Balm lobe ` witembdrs `� Removed we Entry IDs IBC flan proposes a now ma�nlenerroa r' 1 builtltng anal BIZ test doses 10 aide / J�.��� -- w� \ amroeching upon Me Valid green i. - - - -� I Banquet te eg High Wells Entry No imperil re Given le Get[ Entry It 20 Btpa ,6Th Tea% .. k / i -if — r— °— r �i• _. 1 - pp s RaUlning Wall J/ / £M --- — 1 Refuse gWall / I R.- I / I I L 300' IBC maintenance . Bldg Footprint i Euera of %opeM / 9.565 aq n The proposed IOC parking lot has dean Qypefe proposal expanded to the west and wAl requhe the / Parking Lot I 11 removal of existing trees / __t _ —� L— The proposed IBC Pian increases the crimper of parkmg spaces from nodd' ` and mcmases the asphalt area maintaining a swap meet appearance to the parking of Long Idem south rows of parking mail des shopping tamer appearance of the parkmg lot. cirm un .— . —.all .. eu., o— PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The proposed IBC plan has i continuous parking Spaces backing up 10 PCH wrtneut even a landscape pocket to break up the parking �I![A3lC�I!It1.T.S�171!� identical straight . narrow landscagee setback along PCH homage as exists today Fencing and pilasters located an the PCH lust behind feral GOLF COURSE P4RKING - COAST HIGHWAY Truck Type Rear Dump Truck Bottom Dump Truck Yards Per Truck 10 cu yds 14 cu yds Total Truck Trips 3,906 2,790 Daily Trips - Assumes 15 Trucks, 4 cycles per day 60 60 Total Work Days 65 47 Total Months 3.25 2.35 124'+/- closer 0 Coast .00 —` w` 16C Proposed Clubhouse f�-PW ___-- -____ Ex ist_ in G 9__� rade NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PCD • IBC Requested Parking Lot Changes - Same Secondary Access - Same 334 Parking Spaces - 3 Pedestrian Sidewalks - No Encroachments - Same Orientation of Clubhouse • Eliminates Grade Difference .9 Feet & 12 -18 Steps • Retains Promised Parking Lot Design - 700' PCH Buffer - Softens "Sea of Asphalt" Compromise Plan 11 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PCD • Secondary Access for Deliveries • 334 Parking Spaces • Retains Aesthetic Entry Window Design Landscape Buffer along PCH - Enhances Public Open Space Views - Retains Possibility of Preserving Existing Public Views to Golf Course Open Space Master Plan Compromise The White Hole Plan