Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0_Newport Beach Country Club_PA2005-140
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 20, 2011 Agenda Item: 2 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway • Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002 • Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 • Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 • Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001 • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008 • Temporary Structures Use (Limited Term) Permit No. XP2011 -004 • Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -003 APPLICANT: Golf Realty Fund, Property Owner PLANNER: Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner (949)644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov INTRODUCTION On August 4, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application submitted by the Golf Realty Fund to redevelop the existing golf course clubhouse and tennis club. During the hearing, the Commission expressed general acceptance of the project; however, many issues remained unresolved. The Commission directed staff and the applicant to address conflicting elements with the Newport Beach County Club (NBCC) application. Issues associated with the frontage road easement, hotel transfer request, loss of tennis courts, parking lot design for the proposed golf club site, golf clubhouse building height, and bungalow encroachment on the adjacent property were expressed during the hearing. The Planning Commission also directed staff to further refine the alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) and supported Site Development Review (SDR) process as proposed by staff in the alternative PCDC. The applicant has submitted plans for a SDR application (Attachment PC1) including a site cross - section as requested by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending the following: a) Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) Adoption of Planned Community Development Plan as proposed by staff, c) Approval of Tentative Vesting Tract Map, Transfer of Development Rights, Development Agreement, and Limited Term Permit, and Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 2 d) Approve Site Development Permit for the improvements to the Tennis Club portion of the project site only. 2. Continue the hearing to November 3, 2011, for the adoption of the resolution. DISCUSSION Staff met with both applicants on several occasions to address the issues raised at the prior meeting and conflicting site plans. Each applicant has their own desire for the architectural style and size of the golf clubhouse, parking layout, and overall landscape preferences. Because of these unresolved differences, a composite site plan as it relates to the clubhouse and parking lot is not possible. The applicant submitted a "white hole' site plan that exhibits a general outline of the location of a new clubhouse with the applicant's parking lot design in an attempt to demonstrate that this plan could accommodate a larger golf clubhouse. The "white hole" site plan was submitted for analytical purposes only and it is not proposed by the applicant. The "white hole" site plan remains the same for the Tennis Club portion of the project site (bungalows, villas, tennis courts, tennis clubhouse and associated access and parking). NBCC indicates that the larger clubhouse, and additional parking required cannot be accommodated within the applicant's proposed site plan. Staff agrees that the "white hole" site plan cannot accommodate the NBCC proposal without a significant redesign. Issues from the Prior Meeting 1. Frontage Access Easement Comment: Has the frontage access easement been terminated? The applicant submitted a copy of the Termination of Access Easement (Attachment PC2) showing the document terminates the access easement by the owners of the Armstrong fee interest and was properly executed and recorded ( "Frontage Road Termination "). The existing access easement is approximately 26.5 feet wide. Although the termination document attached describes the easement as being 25 feet wide, two title companies stand by their opinion that there is 1.5 feet remainder because it is clear in the body of the document itself that the access easement/frontage road easement was terminated. The applicant has contacted Fidelity National Title Company to seek removal of the easement from Fidelity National's Preliminary Title policy issued to the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. Elliot Feuerstein, co -owner of the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites and also land owner of the adjacent Armstrong Nursery property (beneficiary of the easement) disputes the Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 3 termination and supports the frontage road easement remaining to serve the Armstrong Nursery property. The ongoing dispute over the existence of the easement is a private matter. The easement appears to be terminated; however, if the easement and driveway is maintained, the applicant would need to redesign the parking lot and the extensive landscaping along Coast Highway. 2. Hotel Transfer Comment. Provide status of the hotel transfer and further interaction /communication with Marriott. The applicant has made arrangements to meet with representatives of HHR Newport Beach LLC ( "Host "), which owns the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa to discuss the hotel transfer request. No updates were given to staff by either the applicant or Host prior to the preparation of this report. Staff continues to believe that the requested transfer is consistent with the General Plan and can be approved if determined appropriate. 3. Loss of Tennis Courts Comment: The loss of tennis courts could be potentially a loss of recreational resources. The number of tennis courts proposed has been designed to meet the needs of the Tennis Club's current membership. The applicant consultant has advised that an appropriate "rule of thumb" is to provide one court for every 35 members. By providing a total of seven courts, the tennis club will be able to meet demand for up to 245 members. The current membership is 224 and will allow modest growth of the membership. As a private club, its courts are not generally available for the public to use. While the tennis club has allowed the Corona del Mar and Sage Hill tennis teams to use the facilities in the past, it was a temporary accommodation to allow the schools to complete work on their own courts. The reduced number of courts will reduce peak hour play and it will spread out play more evenly throughout the day. It is not anticipated that club members will choose other courts due to scheduling issues especially given the proposed renovations to the clubhouse and courts. Consequently, there is no expectation that there will be any impact on public recreational use at courts open to the public. Additionally, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the project site is located within an area that has adequate park and recreation facilities, due to this reason, there is no significant impact on recreational uses anticipated. The reduction in the number of courts should not impact public tennis playing opportunities, overburden the club, or place an increased demand on public facilities. Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 4 4. Property Ownership Interests & authority for development Comment: Provide information as to the property ownership interests & authority for development on the golf club site. The applicant maintains that he is the managing owner of the Newport Beach Country Club property (both golf course and tennis club sites). The application has been appropriately filed in accordance with the City procedures and regulations. Whether or not the applicant can construct the project given the current ownership agreements and lease provisions remains a private matter. Please see the attached letter dated October 5, 2011, from Alan Kessel of Baker Hostletler (Attachment PC3). 5. Site plan and parking lot design Comment: The orientation of the parking lot The applicant's design provides parking spaces that are perpendicular to the clubhouse and Coast Highway and it would require users to walk between parked cars to access the clubhouse. The NBCC design provides parking spaces that are parallel to the clubhouse and Coast Highway. Both designs have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for safe and efficient vehicle operation. Both designs meet City standards and they will adequately serve their respective clubhouse. Staff does not have a preference for either design but notes that the larger NBCC clubhouse cannot be accommodated within the site plan as proposed by the applicant without significant redesign. 6. Encroachment of Patios for the proposed Bungalows and Landscaping Into NBCC Lease -hold. Comment: The Golf Course leaseholder has a concern about the patios of the bungalows encroaching on their lease. The site plan proposed by the applicant has four (4) patios and landscaping that encroach on the Golf Course leasehold. The bungalows can be built with or without the four (4) extended patios and the revised new language in the site development review application is intended to allow for that possibility if an accommodation cannot be reached with the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. to allow the proposed encroachments. The encroachment of these patio features across the property line does not conflict with applicable building, subdivision, or zoning provisions. The proposed patios are important amenities to the bungalows and should the encroachment of the patios as proposed be infeasible due to the lease (a private matter), adequate area exists where they can be redesigned to eliminate the encroachment. Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 5 7. Building height comparison Comment: Provide additional information as the relative differences in heights of the projects (proposed by the applicant and Newport Beach Country Club, Inc.) and how the height of the proposed buildings compares to the existing golf clubhouse. The applicant has provided cross sections (attached as Exhibit 11 of the Newport Beach Country Site Development Plan) showing the applicant's proposed golf clubhouse and the Newport Beach Country Club's at the north and west elevations. The chart below provides a comparison of building height: 'As measured from the lowest existing grade 2 Width is measured parallel to East Coast Highway Alternative Planned Community Development Plan The attached alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) that contains necessary use and development regulations to accommodate the applicant's project with more flexible architectural guidelines to facilitate project implementation. The draft has not prescribed architectural theme. This PCDP has been further refined from the prior draft with input from both applicants (Attachment PC4). The development limit for the golf clubhouse can be modified depending upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Development Agreement The draft development agreement and a discussion of its contents are provided in a separate report. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Planning Commission provided comments to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to potential land use impacts of the two projects, the applicant's and the Newport Beach Country Club's (i.e., interface and cumulative impacts); the applicant's proposed planned community development plan; potential impacts of the loss of 17 tennis courts; and potential aesthetic impacts of the elevations, perspectives, and cross sections for the project. Response to these comments have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC5. Additionally, response to comments received from KLR Planning also have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC6. Existing NBCC, Inc. Golf Realty Fund He ght at Peak 22 feet 50 feet, 9 inches 53 feet, 6 inches Distance from Coast Hwy 344 feet 300 feet 424 feet Building Width 262 feet 378 feet 265 feet 'As measured from the lowest existing grade 2 Width is measured parallel to East Coast Highway Alternative Planned Community Development Plan The attached alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) that contains necessary use and development regulations to accommodate the applicant's project with more flexible architectural guidelines to facilitate project implementation. The draft has not prescribed architectural theme. This PCDP has been further refined from the prior draft with input from both applicants (Attachment PC4). The development limit for the golf clubhouse can be modified depending upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Development Agreement The draft development agreement and a discussion of its contents are provided in a separate report. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Planning Commission provided comments to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to potential land use impacts of the two projects, the applicant's and the Newport Beach Country Club's (i.e., interface and cumulative impacts); the applicant's proposed planned community development plan; potential impacts of the loss of 17 tennis courts; and potential aesthetic impacts of the elevations, perspectives, and cross sections for the project. Response to these comments have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC5. Additionally, response to comments received from KLR Planning also have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC6. Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 6 An Errata to the MND (Attachment PC7) has been prepared to provide clarifications to the project and will not result either in the creation of any new impacts or more severe impacts than these identified and described in the MND. The analysis presented in the MIND, therefore, remains adequate and recirculation of the document is not required. Alternatives The Planning Commission has the following options 1. In association with staff's recommendation outlined above, approve Site Development Review as submitted by the applicant for both the Tennis Club and Golf Club. This option would preclude the NBCC Site Development Permit application. 2. Deny the project. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code due to the addition of Site Development Review application. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Correspondence Received Staff received a letter dated September 27, 2011, from Irving Chase and Elliot Feuerstein, co- owners of the Newport Beach Country Club properties requesting that the Golf Realty Fund application be continued to a later date so that unresolved issues between the owners can be resolved (Attachment PC8). Prepared by: Submitted by: �� � " 1" b-W 'E!T=a FtRsalinh Ung, Associat Pla ner J m Campbell, Principal Planner Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Site Development Plan (with exhibits) PC 2 Termination of Access Easement PC 3 Letter dated October 5, 2011 from Alan Kessel of Baker Hostletler PC 4 Alternative Planned Community Development Plan PC 5 Response to Planning Commission on Draft MND PC 6 Response to KLR Planning PC 7 Errata to the MND PC 8 Letter dated September 27, 2011 from I. Chase and E. Feuerstein F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 152 \PC Staff Report.docx Tmplt: 11/23/09 Attachment No. PC 1 Newport Beach Country Club Site Development Plan (with exhibits) ,gOEWED eY OOMMUNITY oc7 U 6 2011 O� DEVELOPMENT Pvs Y OF NEWPORT 0 Newport Beach Country Club Site Development Plan Revised October 5, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 Purpose .............................................................................. ............................... 1 1.2 Location ............................................................................. ............................... 1 1.3 Relationship to Existing Uses ............................................ ............................... 1 1.4 Relationship to Newport Beach Municipal Code, General Plan, Zoning Code and CoastalLand Use Plan ....................................................... ............................... 2 a) Zoning Code and General Plan .................................... ............................... 2 b) Relationship to Coastal Land Use Plan ........................ ............................... 2 2.0 Permitted Uses ............................................................................... ............................... 2 2.1 The Tennis Club ................................................................ ............................... 2 2.2 The Vill as ........................................................................... ............................... 3 2.3 The Bungalows .................................................................. ............................... 3 2.4 The Golf Club .................................................................... ............................... 3 3.0 Development Standards ................................................................. ............................... 4 3.1 Tennis Clubhouse .............................................................. ............................... 4 a) Building Square Foot age .............................................. ............................... 4 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 4 c) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 4 d) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 4 3.2 The Vill as ........................................................................... ............................... 5 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 5 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 6 c) Exterior Walls .............................................................. ............................... 6 d) Architectural Features .................................................. ............................... 6 e) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 6 f) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 6 3.3 The Bungalows .................................................................. ............................... 6 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 6 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 7 c) Setback Requirements .................................................. ............................... 7 d) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 7 e) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 7 3.4 Golf Clubhouse .................................................................. ............................... 7 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 7 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 8 c) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 8 d) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 8 3.5 Architectural Style ............................................................. ............................... 8 3.6 Building Materials ............................................................. ............................... 8 a) Roof ............................................................................. ............................... 8 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 b) Windows and Main Entry Doors ............................ c) Plaster ...................................... ............................... d) Stone Veneer Walls ................. ............................... Landscaping................................... ............................... Overall Parking and Circulation .... ............................... Electrical Lighting Fixtures ........... ............................... Sign Regulations ........................... ............................... a) Permitted Signs ........................ ............................... b) Sign Restrictions ...................... ............................... c) Sign Maintenance .................... ............................... Curb and Gutter — Fire Hydrants ... ............................... Parking Lot Striping ....................... ............................... Drainage & Water Quality ............. ............................... Grading.......................................... ............................... 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 4.0 General Conditions and Regulations ............................................. ............................... 12 4.1 Interpretation and Conflict with Code ............................... ............................... 12 4.2 Mechanical Equipment Enclosures — Noise Attenuation .. ............................... 12 4.3 Maintenance of Private /Common Areas ............................ ............................... 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Name Exhibit Number MasterPlan .......................................................................................... ............................... I Tennis Clubhouse & Bungalow Spa — Elevations & Floor Plans (4 pages) ....................... 2 LandscapePlan .................................................................................... ............................... 3 Golf Clubhouse — Elevations & Floor Plans (4 pages) ........................ ............................... 4 The Villas— Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan (6 pages) ...................... 5 The Bungalows — Elevations & Floor Plans (1 1 pages) ...................... ............................... 6 ExistingUses Aerial Map .................................................................... ............................... 7 Parking& Circulation Plan .................................................................. ............................... S Electrical — Master Plan Lighting and Fixture Types & Section (2 pages) ......................... 9 SignPlan .............................................................................................. ............................... 10 Goli'Clubhouse Cross Sections ........................................................... ............................... 1 1 LIST OF TABLES Table Name Table1 — Land Uses Acreage ............................................... ............................... "Cable 2 — The Villas Development Standards ...................... ............................... Table3 — Overall Parking ..................................................... ............................... �G�iVED By PCOMMDNt1 t �p11 r Cj ov*- ,0PM,Nl 1q C�yOF NeftPO�� Page 2 5 ......... 10 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Newport Beach Country Club Site Development Plan (SDP) is to provide a greater level of detail to ensure the coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive planning required in Section 20.35.010 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Newport Beach Country Club Planned Conmumity Districts (PCD). 1.2 Location The SDP is located within the Newport Beach County Club Planned Community District (NBCC PCD) in the City of Newport Beach in the County of Orange, in the State of California. The SDP is 145± acres generally bordered by Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Jamboree Road to the west, Santa Barbara Avenue and Newport Center to the north, and Granville Drive and Corporate Plaza Drive to the east as detailed on the map below. UnYSIU'f7�CCljlt}�C V b nv F�mnii` 1.3 Relationship to Existing Uses �I "t of J� A SDP Boundary 7 \ APU 11 Pyt a �. _ 9, c (% - � 'iy SOH MIOUE - \ � 4 � S The SDP has approximately 700 linear feet of frontage along Pacific Coast Highway and is in proximity to several residential communities including Irvine Terrace and Granville. See Exhibit 7 "Existing Uses Aerial Map." -1- 1.4 Relationship to Newport Beach Municipal Code, General Plan, Zoning Code and Coastal Land Use Plan a) Zoning Code and General Plan The NBCC PCD zoning designation was adopted in 1992 by Ordinance Number 91 -47. The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the Tennis Club, Villas and Bungalows Sub -Areas as Mixed Use — Horizontal 3/PR which, among other uses, allows for condominium and single- family residential uses, hotel with auxiliary commercial uses, and private recreation uses (tennis chub), The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Golf Club Sub - Area as Park and Recreation which allows for the golf course and accessory uses. This SDP is consistent with the NBCC PCD and City's General Plan land use designations. General Plan Anomaly 46 comprises the private tennis club, 27 hotel bungalows with auxiliary uses and 5 semi - custom residences, and Anomaly 74 of the General Plan comprises the private golf club. b) Relationship to Coastal Land Use Plan The SDP is located within the Coastal Zone and development shall be in compliance with a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. 2.0 PERMITTED USES SDP is comprised of the private tennis club (The Tennis Club Sub - Area), 27 short -term stay hotel bungalows with auxiliary uses (The Bungalows Sub - Area), 5 semi- custom single - family residences (The Villas Sub- Area), and the private golf club (The Golf Club Sub - Area), The Sub -Areas are shown on Exhibit 1 "Master Plan." The following Table gives acreages for each of the SDP Sub - Areas. Table 1— Land Uses Acreaee SDP Sub -Areas Approximate Acres The Tennis Club Sub -Area 4.62 The Villas Sub -Area 1.25 The Bungalows Sub -Area 3.44 The Golf Club Sub Area 133.01 2.1 The Tennis Club The Tennis Club Sub -Area shall have the following permitted uses substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan" and Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans ": a) 7 lighted championship tennis courts including a lighted Stadium Court b) Tennis Clubhouse -2- 2.2 The Villas The Villas Sub -Area shall have the following permitted use substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan" and Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan ": a) 5 Single - Family Detached Homes 2.3 The Bungalows The Bungalows Sub -Area shall have the following permitted uses substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan," Exhibit 2 `Bungalow Spa" and Exhibit 6 "The Bungalows ": a) 27 Short -Term Stay Hotel Units b) Concierge Office and Guest Center C) Swimming Pool and Jacuzzi d) Spa (serving health drinks, health snacks, light breakfast and lunch items) and Fitness Centel- 2.4 The Golf Club The Golf Club Sub -Area shall have the following permitted uses substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan" and Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse ": a) Golf Course and Practice Facilities b) Golf Clubhouse C) Restaurants (Dining Room and Grill) d) Bar (19th Hole) e) Private Banquet Room and Meeting Rooms f) Pro Shop g) Locker Facilities h) Golf Cart Storage (Below Grade) i) Golf Snack Stand j) Private Hand Car Wash (Designated Area) k) Golf Course Maintenance Facility (Greenskeeper) 1) 2 On- Course Restroom Facilities -3- 3.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The SDP Development Standards ensure the harmony and continuity of design parameters that are respectful to the property's California coastal heritage and the property's prominent location within the Newport Center Platming Area. The below development standards have been established to achieve overall SDP continuity and quality for land planning, building mass, scale, architectural design and details, building materials, landscaping, handscaping, and lighting. Additional purposes of the design standards are as follows: a) To provide the City with the necessary assurance that the SDP shall be developed in accordance with the design continuity, quality and character in the SDP. b) To provide guidance to tenants, design professionals and builders in order to maintain the desired design character and appearance. C) To provide guidance to City staff, Planning Commission and City Council in the review of future development plans in the SDP. 3.1 Tennis Clubhouse The following development standards shall apply to the Tennis Clubhouse: a) Building Square Footage The maximum size of the Tennis Clubhouse is 3,725 square feet.' See Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans." b) Building Height The maximum building height for the Tennis Clubhouse is 31 feet (See Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans ") and shall be measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof. c) Parking Requirements A minimum of 4 parking spaces per tennis court. d) Screening i) Roof Equipment — All mechanical roof equipment (except roof vents) shall be designed and screened with compatible building materials. i All square footage stated under "Development Standards" is gross square footage. M ii) Trash Enclosures — All trash enclosures shall be screened by a minimum five - foot block wall, plastered to match the building. The trash containers shall be covered to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. iii) Pool / Spa Equipment — All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum five -foot block wall, plastered to match the building. iv) Tennis Courts — The Villas shall be screened from the tennis courts by a minimum five -foot block wall, plastered to match the adjacent Villa or by a ten - foot chain link fence covered by a windscreen. The exterior perimeter of the tennis courts facing Granville Condominiums, Granville Drive and facing The Tennis Club parking lot shall be screened by a ten -foot high tetmis court chain link fence covered by a windscreen. 3.2 The Villas The following development standards shall apply to The Villas Areas: Table 2 - The Villas Development Standards Villa Designation Villa A TTM Lot #1 Villa B TTM Lot #2 Villa C TTM Lot #3 Villa D TTM Lot #4 Villa E TTM Lot #5 Lot Depth (Min) See Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Dimensioned Site Plan" Lot Size 5,295 sf 5,857 sf 9,283 sf 17,1.51 sf 8,686 sf Side Setback to Nearest Villa See Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Dimensioned Site Plan" Roof Area (eaves but not trellis) Lot Coverage (including eaves) (Max) 67% 63% 54% 35% 54% Building Height (Maximum above Existing Grade) 24' 32' 36' 40' 26' Parking Spaces (Enclosed Required) 2 2 3 3 2 Electric Cart Parking (Enclosed) 0 1 1 1 0 Uncovered Off - Street Parking (Minimum Required) 1 1 2 2 2 a) Building Square Footage The maximum square footage of each of the single - family homes including any guesthouses shall not exceed by more than 1% the square footage for each of The Villas shown on Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan." -5- b) Building Height The maximum building heights for The Villas are shown on "Table 2 — The Villas Development Standards" in Section 3.2 and shall be measured from the existing grade to the peak of roof. Chinmeys, as depicted on Exhibit 5, pages 1 through 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan," may extend beyond the maximum peak roof height by a maximum of 18 inches plus an additional 18 inches for Gladding McBean Windsor clay chimney pots used for architectural screening. C) Exterior Walls i) Walls surrounding courtyards within The Villas (shown on Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan ") are allowed up to a maximum of 6 feet high in any setback except in areas directly facing the golf course. ii) Terrace walls directly facing/adjacent to the golf course are allowed up to a maximum of 3 feet high from finished floor grade of the front of each Villas facing the golf course. d) Architectural Features Architectural features such as, but not limited to, roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, and wingwalls may extend a maximum of 3 feet into any street, side or tract boundary setback, but may not extend past any property line. e) Parking Requirements Parking requirements for The Villas shall be consistent with "Parking Spaces (Enclosed Required)" and "Uncovered Off - Street Parking (Minimum Required)" shown on "Table 2 — The Villas Development Standards" f) Screening i) Roof Equipment — There shall be no mechanical roof equipment allowed, except for roof vents which shall be copper material. ii) Pool / Spa Equipment — All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum four -foot high block wall, plastered to match the building. 3.3 The Bungalows a) Building Square Footage The Bungalows is comprised of 27 bungalow hotel units totaling a maximum of 28,300 square feet and maximum 2,200 square foot Concierge & Guest Center, all shown by the Floor Plans M on Exhibit 6, pages 1 through 11. The Bungalow Spa, which is an auxiliary use for and part of The Bungalows, a maximum of 7,500 square feet, as shown on Exhibit 2. Therefore, the total Bungalows Sub -Area building square footage is a maximum of 38,000 square feet. b) Building Height The maximum building height of The Bungalows shall be 32 feet and shall be measured from the existing grade to the peak of roof. Chimneys, as depicted on Exhibit 6, page 11 of I 1 "The Bungalows — Elevations and Floor Plans," may extend beyond the maximum peak roof height by a maximum of 18 inches plus an additional 18 inches for Gladding McBean Windsor clay chimney pots used for architectural screening. C) Setback Requirements The setback requirement shall be a minimum of 5 feet from property line. See Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan." d) Parking Requirements The parking requirement shall be a minimum of 50 parking spaces as shown in Section 3.8 "Overall Parking" and Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan." e) Screening i) Mechanical Enclosures — There shall be no mechanical roof equipment allowed, except for roof vents which shall be copper material. ii) Trash Enclosures — All trash enclosures shall be screened by a minimum five - foot block wall, plastered to match the building, and the trash containers shall be covered to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. iii) Pool / Spa Equipment — All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum four -foot block wall, plastered to match the building. 3.4 Golf Clubhouse The following development standards shall apply to the Golf Clubhouse: a) Building Square Footage The maximum size of the Golf Clubhouse shall be 35,000 square feet as shown on Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans." The below -grade cart parking shown on Exhibit 4 page 2 of 4, auxiliary buildings such as the Greenskeeper Building and Starter Shack, both shown on Exhibit 1 "Master Plan," and the two bathroom facilities existing on the golf -7- course shall not be included in the overall development limit of 35,000 square feet as allowed in Anomaly 74 of the City's General Plan Land Use Element. b) Building Height The maxinnun building height for the Golf Clubhouse shall be 50 feet as depicted on Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans" and shall be measured from the existing grade to the midpoint of the sloped roof. Chimneys, as depicted on Exhibit 41 pages 3 and 4 "Golf Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans," may extend beyond the 42 -foot ridge roof height by a maximum of 18 inches plus an additional 18 inches for two Gladding McBean Windsor clay chimney pots used for architectural screening. C) Parking Requirements Parking for the Golf Club and Golf Clubhouse shall be a minimum of 244 parking spaces, however Exhibit 1 Master Plan shows 334 parking spaces. d) Screening i) Roof Equipment — All mechanical roof equipment (except roof vents) shall be screened from horizontal view in a manner compatible with the building materials. ii) Trash Enclosures — All trash enclosures shall be screened by a minimum five - foot block wall, plastered to match the building, and the trash containers shall be covered to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. 3.5 Architectural Style The architectural style within the SDP shall be classical California Mediterranean, as shown on Exhibit 2 pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3, Exhibit 4 page 3 of 4, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. 3.6 Building Materials a) Roof Except for skylighted areas, all pitched roofs shall be covered with Gladding McBean clay tile Number 8 Blend with Italian or Berkeley pans and Cordova covers, set with natural gray mortar (the Roof Material). If the Roof Material is not available, a compatible alternative as determined by the City Planning Director shall be substituted. b) Windows and Main Entry Doors The Tennis and Golf Clubhouses shall use Torrance Steel Window Systems or equivalent as shown on the elevations for the Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse," Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse," Exhibit 5 "The Villas," and Exhibit 6 "The Bungalows." The main entry doors may be unique %1 as to design including material and color. All steel windows and doors throughout the SDP shall be finished medium bronze color to match the steel windows and doors within the SDP. At The Villas and The Bungalows in locations where there are small secondary operable windows, wood windows may be substituted. C) Plaster All exterior plaster shall be steel troweled with a refined Santa Barbara Smooth Finish and Omega Base 10 final color coat with no integral color and unpainted. For the Tennis Clubhouse and Golf Clubhouse, the exterior plaster shall be applied over masonry block to mitigate against cracking over large surfaces and to eliminate the long screed lines 4 inches above finished grade for a higher quality appearance and durable finish. d) Stone Veneer Walls La Playa Beach Stones, 3" to 5" size mix, installed on edge with raked joints matching the installation shown below. La Playa Beach Stone 3.7 Landscaping Landscaping shall be in all areas not devoted to structures, parking and driveways. Landscaping shall consist of a combination of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements. A detailed landscaping and irrigation program by a landscape architect or licensed landscaping contractor consistent with Exhibit 3 "Landscape Plan" shall be approved by the City Planning and General Services Departments prior to issuance of building permits, and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 3.8 Overall Parking and Circulation a) Overall Parking — Consistent with the development standards contained in this Section 3.0 and Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan," the following is a summary of the parking provided within the SDP: -9- Table 3 - Overall Parking Land Use Parking Required Additional Parking All Time + Night + Weekend The Tennis Club Sub -Area 28 10 + 188 + 366 The Bungalows Sub -Area 34 16 + 188 + 366 The Villas Sub -Area— Villa A 3 The Villas Sub -Area — Villa B 3 +I Cart Garage The Villas Sub -Area — Villa C 4 1 +1 Cart Garage The Villas Sub -Area— Villa D 4 1 +1 Cart Garage The Villas Sub -Area — Villa E 4 The Golf Club Sub -Area 244 56 366 Additional Weekend and Holiday Parking: Approximately 554 parking stalls within adjacent Corporate Plaza West are available on weekends and holidays through a recorded parking easement, with 188 adjacent parking stalls available after office business hours. b) Vehicular Circulation — Vehicular Circulation is shown on Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan." C) Pedestrian Circulation — Pedestrian Circulation is shown on Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan." 3.9 Electrical Lighting Fixtures All parking lot and private street lighting fixtures shall be fixture type "A" and "Al" as shown on Exhibit 9 `Electrical Fixture Types & Section" and installed in the locations shown on Exhibit 9 "Electrical Master Plan Lighting." a) Ground Mounted Air Conditioner Compressor Units — All ground mounted air conditioner compressor units shall be screened by landscaping. 3.10 Sign Regulations The purpose of this section is to define and provide development standards for all applicable signage located within the SDP. a) Permitted Signs i) Newport Beach Country Club Monument Identification Signs A Monument Sign, identifying the Newport Beach Country Club and including the Sea Horse logo, shall be located on the wall at the terminus of the main entry drive to Newport Beach Country Club off Pacific Coast Highway as shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page I of 6 and depicted on page 6 of 6. -10- ii) Monument Directional Signs Monument Directional Signs identifying The Bungalows, The Tennis Club and Bag Drop shall be located at the secondary entrances as shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page 1 of 6 and as schematically depicted on pages 3 of 6 and 6 of 6. iii) Addressing The numbers in all addresses shall be spelled out and placed in the location shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan." The address numbers for The Villas shall be spelled out and placed on the mailbox pilaster behind the curb for each of the five single - family Villas. iv) Stop Signs and Fire Lane Signs Stop Signs and Fire Lane Signs shall be as depicted on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page 6 of 6. V) Brass plaques embedded into the ground surface are permitted. b) Sign Restrictions i) The letter dimensions, sign height, design and materials of all signs shall comply with Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan." ii) Any permanently installed monument or pole sign clearly visible from the SDP private streets not shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" is prohibited except for necessary signs approved by the City Planning Director and matching the design, materials and size for the Bag Drop Monument Directional Sign or Fire Lane pole sign, both as depicted on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page 6 of 6. c) Sign Maintenance Signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors, shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance, structure and lighting features. 3.11 Curb and Gutter — Fire Hydrants New curb and gutter shall be Davis Color "Sandstone" integral color concrete with a light wash and sealed with Seal & Enhance sealer. Curb required to be red shall be Davis Custom Color "Fire Engine Red" integral color concrete with a smooth trowelled finish with NO PARKING FIRE LANE embossed on the top of the curb and sealed with Seal & Enhance sealer. Fire hydrants shall be polished brass. 3.12 Parking Lot Striping All parking lot striping shall be green except for handicap parking lot striping which shall be blue. -11- 3.13 Drainage & Water Quality The landscape medians and the landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway in the large golf club parking lot within the Golf Club Sub -Area shall have curb slots to allow storm water into the landscape area reducing storm water in the storm drains. 3.14 Grading The grading plans for Tennis Club, The Bungalows and The Villas Sub -Areas together shall have balanced grading without the need to import or export dirt. Likewise, the grading plan for the Golf Club Sub -Area shall also have balance of grading without the need to import or export dirt. The depth of cut and fill for the SDP is shown on Exhibit 11 "Depth of Cut & Fill & Golf Clubhouse Sections." 4.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS 4.1 Interpretation and Conflict with Code Whenever the regulations contained in this SDP conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in this SDP text shall take precedence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations are not provided within these SDP regulations. All development within the SDP boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and other governing building codes. Final plans shall substantially conform to the SDP and may include minor refinements from the Exhibits. All interpretations of the SDP shall be made by the City Planning Director, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. 4.2 Mechanical Equipment Enclosures - Noise Attenuation Prior to final building permit clearance, all new mechanical appurtenances (i.e., utility vaults and emergency power generators, etc.) shall be enclosed. Noise associated with generators shall be attenuated at side property lines adjacent to residential uses to 55 dBA. The enclosure design shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and be approved by the City Planning and Building 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 tine building materials prior to final building permit clearance. Rooftop screening and enclosures shall be subject to the requirements of the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone. 4.3 Maintenance of Private /Common Areas The tenant / operator of The Tennis Club shall maintain The Tennis Club Sub -Area; the tenant / operator of The Bungalows shall be responsible for maintaining The Bungalows Sub -Area including the adjacent street, Bungalows parking lots and the lettered common lots for The Villas Sub -Area. -12- , THE VILLAS SUB AREA THE GOLF CLUB 0 ra< SUBAREA ' FR U(E - GREEN• HIT;..G GFUi i — I N!(to oq/ Ff/ A \ NR j� THE `,TEN IS CLUB SUBAREA W_ ,r GLOB b " { L( ' �11.1� 1VAStl MASTER PLAN •THETENNIS CLUB - 1 new stadium court - Tennis Clubhouse • THE VILLAS 5 single family homes • THE BUNGALOWS 27 guest rental units • THE GOLF CLUB NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 1 0 N!(to oq/ Ff/ A \ NR j� THE `,TEN IS CLUB SUBAREA W_ ,r GLOB b " { L( ' �11.1� 1VAStl MASTER PLAN •THETENNIS CLUB - 1 new stadium court - Tennis Clubhouse • THE VILLAS 5 single family homes • THE BUNGALOWS 27 guest rental units • THE GOLF CLUB NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 1 TS TCAMS COURTS - I N smug• x S 'bI 1itirt TENNIS CLUBHOUSE & BUNGALOW SPA FLOOR PLAN TENNIS CLUBHOUSE: • PROSHOP • LOBBY • OFFICE • LOCKER ROOMS • STORAGE SHED (see 4 of 4) 3725 square feet SPA FOR THE BUNGALOWS: • SPA • FITNESS • BELOW GRADE STORAGE 7490 square feet KEY PLAN NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s 2 ARCHITECTURE 500 BmaA% Laguna Bmh, (A 92651 1 0 F 4 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 .__. Itallannfans and Cordoba covers Identical to plaster in a Yonne- Fashion Island. shade of off white. A. VIEW FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DRIVE ENTRY Existing Giade (dashed) @ face of building, hp. f p1, rrt TENNIS CLUBHOUSE &BUNGALOW SPA ELEVATION MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system ,KEY PLAN B n L NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadnay Laguna 9each,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2 0 F 4 Existing Grade (dashed) ® face of building, typ. Beach stone planter wan. VIEW FROM NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE ENTRY n.t.s 0 ■ ■ 5 -nrt TENNIS CLUBHOUSE &BUNGALOW SPA ELEVATION MATERIALS • sinooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system ,KEY PLAN _ 1 y . B NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadmy Laguna Beaci 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 3 0 F 4 South Elevation West Elevation Hoot Plan ■ North Elevation Floor Plan East Elevation TENNIS CLUBHOUSE & BUNGALOW SPA STORAGE SHED MATERIALS • painted concrete masonry units • painted metal roll -up doors NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broa&my Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 4 0 F 4 ' ISN GREEN ' TEE 1&A GREEN r, 1 �y UN rRY CLUB ('D' y r% \ 17�.• }' T rh`I F �i1'•i �'j t I, ill ip HIGHWAY _ ..... _ PACIFIC COAST NF CF TFR'pp OR �J o (D w eo E E V =M PRELIMINARY / SNACK // PANLIO:J LANDSCAPE PLAN BDiAN:ULI4EY CIXwON. �• ACCEM /SKCM1FN iAEFSIfSBO %Y.W3fU1!III ' :.� CWiD4+Aw% ...1' t�Rp,SAGG�EOW rA`M MCENDN VLEwJMSYU`gPE YALLLLIXIFYIIKKiLtFf111PBOXM0.SM1.M L. A '.'`:s�" tliPL$SifUEi IIIDWLMS CE1 Wf FWdY'rM(IYWGCM LFI'DNXENTFD WY K41Si(FVFYINA TD4PFY FAF FCNLVS rttIKA Ld`IMNYF0.IJA GREEN MCXUCINDTREEl(IY BO %NN31VIE ffLt1 . WVSIWFFf1N1 ALSROrrNE TihTAN4C0`IFFATA WfVt.S BD% . �.. CLLFH'.NAtvAt 41.ITPEf: it pl�R aAIGC.py{K ✓u/ ,y' tl a+.F (i[FLOW4Mf1 ! Fxsnrvc rani TOUrARI �Y r, 1 �y UN rRY CLUB ('D' y r% \ 17�.• }' T rh`I F �i1'•i �'j t I, ill ip HIGHWAY _ ..... _ PACIFIC COAST NF CF TFR'pp OR �J o (D w eo E E V =M PRELIMINARY EAHIBI I LANDSCAPE PLAN BDiAN:ULI4EY CIXwON. ��; �\ ACCEM /SKCM1FN iAEFSIfSBO %Y.W3fU1!III ' :.� CWiD4+Aw% ...1' t�Rp,SAGG�EOW rA`M MCENDN VLEwJMSYU`gPE YALLLLIXIFYIIKKiLtFf111PBOXM0.SM1.M 31IE1 A '.'`:s�" tliPL$SifUEi IIIDWLMS CE1 Wf FWdY'rM(IYWGCM LFI'DNXENTFD WY K41Si(FVFYINA TD4PFY FAF FCNLVS rttIKA Ld`IMNYF0.IJA /\ MCXUCINDTREEl(IY BO %NN31VIE ffLt1 . WVSIWFFf1N1 ALSROrrNE TihTAN4C0`IFFATA WfVt.S BD% . �.. CLLFH'.NAtvAt 41.ITPEf: . i rnutlmwuA a+.F (i[FLOW4Mf1 Fxsnrvc rani TOUrARI .'��' \ WALIOIGSPYIA AO'.4STA ME %IW1fA4 rµN M[ENI I.Wi. PICf1N%WNLfMS MENPIf MmMDFSYNi VS M/ fA31WL r>EFSTO[f YJY! VALE YGVBf If WIOfIKn•+IWIYYI Cyfg11N5 yfCkS fWAiwR VLAIIS rxxLrcvJArbw' arLAUREL LLITMMF➢l.LNIAEVA.Sl1H AUSIMILW IMTI( pp.VfYACCVLiEN f4TM1YLFwR' srBnlvA NCww cvllBwwvA�du NF DMY Y W IB514 L4(fw M.NIwrtL SRO bhl{S PXh09 WTTFNlY l:6 Vn [fGILOtttL5HCK5 LEULLMJ�.L LRfMWSrE4Li VtNtLH INN(RP:HE6MY4bi FHW4[f11 WY10.k1 MSiLP.LLCE YMWMA I1(.4iFVIlGf flTN1R1 RNONQ{IfIN iW( M1bAMNE5ROE4 fKK %(MMGf AuwaEVrc waL' Inau wvm�a+l SruLIRAUfJWF Wao(rACNRf PACHLDYtNNN1AYYN0-0ES STI.v NY¢Vf NF510.V.tU 0.dNA4v5pv 1 Cb51 xOVeMM ACCENI..9L s11ULLw1Y \VLi55RE1 A(M SEEMS NDE � µAGH AWH µTIFALAIA nulu minA sfe pAM)0.�p1Yr5rtR(LI ..n CEPI W"'IX1 S1k, ELmauuu(crts FLPrgSBM tEUCTOIF%IIDNYMH0.5TllM XDF OALf eMT1wv. N'Ana x BLDNJic.s +LLNBE0.GUCJMVNS UDOE[0.GMF4 YIKUSEFC21 YJCU SYJ1L51RCbSllfhtQ`I K4>IWf YlFI AfJ➢lMM1SSTCVlICld10 L0.Yw T¢N+IE IN(rIlU MYiIEVDEM6 VJIIAYA IWANUN RPfSY SEAIAHWEA pry.IypyryRgRDSrMTA' M1'DSTMIE 0.05FNNY SEACN.S BYWIIINA VHBS FON YNES (14V 1PY M9LNIIH 9IF1 6W6l:NMIF/. YEG6 Ed#JInYa1FA dSiKNf01KtlNATOPJA SCA4Ei lAtAflET`MF g111C1US M40.lu POYI11Wraff W+F aMTNDIafNwspupVEraN YpGNA CPEEH% NOTE: TST.LLL ttFnGY BFACM <p&EAy� Tr I:ISWtINIGME/S A49 A0.piND MFLAYA ..T,Hi SEIFCiED SKGWEN TPEfl NBCC Planned Community MJSDeslgn Group, EAHIBI I temuace ArU3eCWle GF�� 3 _` F++kat (8�9165D'ABS lu lSL916lSKN I OF I I M' FdUN' M j'RO( r OFFICES ftft _ _ r FOYER / '. 0 0000 woo 0000 / / ! 1 1, 1l, 0 10 20 30 FT wf GOLF CLUBHOUSE Total= 35000 square feet UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Upper Level = 16900 sf KEY PLAN 47 iR� I c�2 / J• i NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT A ARCHITECTURE i 500 Broadway Laguna Bedch,CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 4 THE GRILL 'fff$I}] MEN'S LOCKER PRO SHOP f�fff ft,,, 7KITCHEI N- r._���,;. �-�! #] ,."•« WOh9EN5 iu _ LOUNGE T�7 II b • NOWNS LOCKER f ��ti 1 A1.. :v 0 10 20 30 FT wf GOU CLUBHOUSE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Lower Level = 18100 sf Below Grade Storage Excluded: 6000 sf KEY PLAN t — C l < d `I 1� \1 �f(u(i✓� NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2 OF 4 WOMEN'S touNGE euixr A. VIEW FROM PARKING AREA B. VIEW FROM GOLF COURSE nu. GOLF CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system KEY PLAN uum 1 NBCC Planned Comnuutity s t e a r n IS EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 4 500 Broademy Laguna Beach,CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761 %0 3 OF 4 el4d�g gWel&S W)a late d W�FLrg C. VIEW FROM 18TH GREEN CIS D. VIEW FROM WEDDING LAWN nos GOLF CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system KEY PLAN r C�t1 NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 4 500 B)oadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 316 1560 401`4 ROOF PLAN Fi G' ]i tl 7 Eyy�1r EMMA 1. al mo Lf t ,y _U',1N6P.001A Flllal 1 rr vie intro 1 a 17 D cw� irt1�Pn` nv :r, E: FLOOR PLAN a. .. b 7— r. e m ~S ,a air 9.6' _ _P V Ridge +23' -0" above — a4b *allrer11 :Mm<Mr.rpA eRw For, Auto Mat at un +eolwlw Existing Grade (d3fied) P lace of bldg. tire. r . Ridge K2' -6" above jexisting grade �r�rmrlt " I is illlllll�l h "" � nrtier,�`�tlltl�111114 .. � i; . �MMM Aurocaat --- .... -. ` w.r,raaasx. ExlsUng Grade (dashed) 519E EAWARGi CONCEPT ELEVATIONS PLAN A 0�5 =5 25 FT THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN A 2201 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #B with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN d � V�b A �, .1 Q >Pt �2 s� NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadv,ay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 0 F 6 .11:ftt Ifs E:1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN KWTIR (L PHU 51UDI GARAGE 1 lj005 PITCKN ',!;5 11 rl LOWER FLOOR PLAN I 12 GWC()UInSE p4p. .31' 0, 000 ................................. ............................................... 5 t I ELUATIC41 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS PLAN B 0 5 15 25 FT MW6=0=ffi� ROOF PLAN 64 U ZA..,. ed a IWIIOW , THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN B 3193 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel-troweled exterior plaster III, La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN o t1 S>ilrY3 NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n Is ARCHITECTURE 5 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2 0 F6 ---------------- YlIMOM AMMIRT Pxxt 131.41- ........... ..... 03 eXr��rp�,ffN O .................. ........... .................... ............ ................... . .. AUTO CIDURT SIN ELEVATION 000 ................................. ............................................... 5 t I ELUATIC41 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS PLAN B 0 5 15 25 FT MW6=0=ffi� ROOF PLAN 64 U ZA..,. ed a IWIIOW , THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN B 3193 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel-troweled exterior plaster III, La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN o t1 S>ilrY3 NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n Is ARCHITECTURE 5 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2 0 F6 ROOF PLAN IW.P I1I�.� eT�01�T r\; I.00r. InJhI` I / L �! f�I1P1 L LOWER FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT PLAN �I I eAOt Q v4t 6'•YryM,L•,n e'•rY•eran.. .an.,n.oa wmlro,,:•. •r•NnNa. n,oPlmP., gn•rNV .1s'O'akoava ^naek ..............................I e W., o8g ry MCN ROM "TO own .JSO' Free• rq 4 6YY.q WN•n � QJ 10'awe 4 &.99T'k v \'¢W ,JOV 601f CUu3SF WU (OOPS[ mh.•. , ba N W u!ln .H.v OM• nY.in w:w JOf IIIea110'1 .................. ............................... ws•w� aUIO (alil ron4w, ^ercu Browny wpvonen. ..................................................................................... . . . .. SIN REVA011 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS ur ,T4P..IIV 7 p41H �8FDi00V SO14� oV�.. —1T +1 n'.f N : htl2fLJ P11N`�1116� elwN `III MA51FR n,116i Pa�IHI SEOFOOl1 - a — r.11 OFFI,nI i 1 I i —s i UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PLAN C 0 5 �5FT "CaOeu ie el THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN C 1F � F,1 MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster � 1 wFJI and Cordova covers j PFWOOV I KEY PLAN i 1 i 1 _ LOWER FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT PLAN �I I eAOt Q v4t 6'•YryM,L•,n e'•rY•eran.. .an.,n.oa wmlro,,:•. •r•NnNa. n,oPlmP., gn•rNV .1s'O'akoava ^naek ..............................I e W., o8g ry MCN ROM "TO own .JSO' Free• rq 4 6YY.q WN•n � QJ 10'awe 4 &.99T'k v \'¢W ,JOV 601f CUu3SF WU (OOPS[ mh.•. , ba N W u!ln .H.v OM• nY.in w:w JOf IIIea110'1 .................. ............................... ws•w� aUIO (alil ron4w, ^ercu Browny wpvonen. ..................................................................................... . . . .. SIN REVA011 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS ur ,T4P..IIV 7 p41H �8FDi00V SO14� oV�.. —1T +1 n'.f N : htl2fLJ P11N`�1116� elwN `III MA51FR n,116i Pa�IHI SEOFOOl1 - a — r.11 OFFI,nI i 1 I i —s i UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PLAN C 0 5 �5FT "CaOeu ie el THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN C main house 4283± square feet + guest house 390 t square feet + basement 223 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN � d �v> 4. /> NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broadway Laguna Bed(h,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 J 3 O F 6 IL f'14W �. — 64: A,1 EeC. q .a(t� I UPPER FLOOR PLAN J., l s w i Z e o - G i I' I VJ I Lx UGGE 3 III L� LOWER FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT PLAN _ - . - -. - - -.. ____ 1a._ .- SY. tl(1 „�V Fc3p -:' -` -��� � 1FW I:G /Ghf (6uJE 'ai.if, 1S'< 11E 11 li I1 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS I4= i I I ROOF PLAN PLAN D off er— THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN D main house 4696 ± square feet + guest house 601 ± square feet + basement 1087 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel- troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN r\ h� 4 h; �Z ,545 NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broad.vay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 J 4 O F 6 F�'q "1,rz I6«a), IWO WVMK..I :.rin�.0. a�fifr M<a r.r� wOna�•1 PFM EIFVAIq!1 II — M1 d eVASFFV. �� Fftr00:' _, � 1 uN6n EtliAr oa � Q9k1 y 5110. F.III Fi 5'rq�r -e fHC < -1 exec 0'b] yp P E9t.15' 0't \ubC: ryGaae `\ F'6y..il' o't[mees' -99'x\ r '1[111► ll��ll Il[IL�. ,Q� N Mlll[IIIIN ��: CONCEPT ELEVATIONS 0 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS 0 2,635 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone O 0 and Cordova covers KEY PLAN 5 5 !A 7T.1-1 BfDF(p`f — mo j,l,l L t' 1. (Ir4l erlll ,� _ F 5IUU1 I 1 ,.> FIRST FLOOR PLAN q YM (LL1'.111 % SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 1525 FT ROOF PLAN THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN E 2,635 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend N8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN J. � V Y S �ZTi2 Zi NBCC Planned COnununity EXHIBIT 9 t e a Y M S ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beath,CA 92651 9493767160 EA %9493761560 5OF6 0 25 50 10OFT North THE VILLAS DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN - BLOW UP NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 6 OF 6 GUEST CENTER 10 15 FT W� BUNGALOWS R PLANS F IERGE & GUEST MEETING CENTER 2170 gross square feet KEY PLAN , 4, i NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 6 500 Broadway Laguna Beach.CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 of 11 PALMERO 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS PALMERO 775 gross square feet Site Plan Code: P Quantity:2 KEY PLAN Y / \J l/ it � r « tir NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE Vh 500 Broadway taguna Beach,CA 92651 9493767160 FAX 9493761560 2 of 11 hi win hi win UPPER LEVEL win win 0 5 10 15 FT LOWER LEVEL THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS LA JOLLA 2485 gross square feet Site Plan Code: LJ Quantity: i KEY PLAN NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE Vh 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 3 of 11 OJAI 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS OJAI 855 gross square feet Site Plan Code: 0 Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN Ah c r F'r NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beath,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 4 of 11 hi win hi win hi win kitchen hati, dressing bath bedroom 1 5'x18' porch do g 0 e� hi win hi win hi win hi win X bath dressing bath 0 L bedroom d,,,,,'n g _17 �0, F7 FJ -closet bedroom of UPPER LEVEL UNIT LOWER LEVEL UNITS 10 MONARCH LA QUINTA (2 units shown) 0 5 10 15 FT 8 0 k-.7 0 THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS MONARCH 1070 gross square feet Site Plan Code: M Quantity: 2 LA GUINTA 570 gross square feet Site Plan Code: LQ Quantity: 6 KEY PLAN NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 6 SW Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 5 of 11 WIRTIV, 0 5 10 15 FT high windows THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS BALBOA 2109 gross square feet Sie Plan Code: B Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN !� c h i / v NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE hV 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 6 of 11 LOWER LEVEL UNIT PALMA LOWER LEVEL UNIT ALISAL 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS PALMA 805 gross square feet Site Plan Code: PA Quantity: 1 ALISAL 830 gross square feet Site Plan Code: A Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN i ��✓i � � �r7 y �� r�d�n j , '�° r/ NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE 6 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,(A 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 7 of 11 balcony UPPER LEVEL UNIT SOL Y MAR 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS SOL Y MAR 1080 gross square feet Sie Plan Code: SM Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN I:. v 0 i L� > NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 8 of 11 DEL MAR 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS DEL MAR 1035 gros square feet Site Plan Code: DM Quantity: 2 KEY PLAN u t r u Cr ri i 1• ';• ,gam �,���/ �i'� i l r t" NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE /6 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 9 of 11 hi win hi win RANCHO VALENCIA hi win hi win hi win hi win hi win hi win RANCHO VALENCIA 2 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS RANCHO VALENCIA 1 1035 gross square feet Site Plan Code: RVi Quantity: 6 RANCHO VALENCIA 2 1545 gross square feet Site Plan Code: RV2 Quantity: 3 KEY PLAN r n S; l of (c`lf rs' ( NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE /6 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 10 of 11 GREENSKEEPER 1---R'ETAI L NURSERY ffl fEN CARTBARN 0 i a 1 / CONDOMINIUM ^ OFFICES Cq �Q BANK �Q N� \ � AN` /�YF e 1/ • �f: - pCgrCFNTF9 11,(X':5 LSff': N ' I A( ',0 TENNIS CLUB v, =3.125 SF i lFF GAFFY ppIFEEN PU 1 0 EfiFIry GOLF CLUBHOUSE& ACCESSORY BUILDINGS =32,470 Sf i `R v ro r C W Z O vCi OFFICES m 0 A m Z m � 1 m 4� rl BANK & OFFICES OFFICES OFFICES' PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OFFICES EXISTING USES AERIAL MAP NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 7 500 Bloatlray Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 1 cx P5• 4e[Fn � �% V \ \ F O A ii77 \ a 7 4 tt D A LF\ THE VILLAS / ro 3. `\ SUB AREA �-- - -- � \ m � THE E GOLF CLUB SUB-AREA ;ta`P r p l' - V F1. n " 0 � /� � �" 'i • � �2 T — PARKING & CIRCULATION PLAN Tennis Club Sub -Area parking ❑ - 38 stalls Bungalows Sub -Area parking ❑ - 50 stalls Parking easement area ❑ - 188 stalls +/ ❑ 366 stalls +/ Golf Club Sub -Area parking ❑ - 334 stalls THE ( BUNGALOWS - >Y tit GIVEN <�� ,\ THE r r, - �O TEN IS C % SUBAREA GBERI j J 1 exe¢ ❑sreexca NOTE: Parking m common between Bungalows & ( The Villas � Sub Areas. B ; n a NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach ,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 O F 1 . ......... . D- /< 's tL, " J) ? CORPORATE PLAZA MST 2 - --------------- - - - - - - - ---- 1 - - - CORPORATE PLAZAVIEST PRELIMINARY SITE LIGHTING STUDY 0 25 50 100 Pr North ELECTRICAL MASTER PLAN LIGHTING NBCC Planned Community s t e a r 111 5 I EXHIBF /m ARCHITECTURE I u 500 Bfoadvvay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 9493761560 1 OF/ gtalr FIXNRE TYPE 'C' x....w....x,.aa�ax I ...a+xnxx>m.. a... _x. CENTER COURT (COURT #I) SECTION ® VILLA E FIXTURE TYPE *8' — — x E °r , �Mi `T�.... {},.. FIXTURE TYPE 'F DOS oeA FIXTURE TYPE 'A' AND 'A1 e FIQLRE TYPE '0' ELECTRICAL FIXTURE TYPES & SECTION NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 9 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 2 O F 2 � J i DELASHMD' FOOD EDMFNAFAE p11Sii .xlmi5aiw.- E °r , �Mi `T�.... {},.. FIXTURE TYPE 'F DOS oeA FIXTURE TYPE 'A' AND 'A1 e FIQLRE TYPE '0' ELECTRICAL FIXTURE TYPES & SECTION NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 9 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 2 O F 2 E en,,�ynoye i IOIn EE GOLFCLUBHOUSE 1311, GREEN CHICNYG GREEN M TEE MC110E GREEN j 1 T THE VILLAS Rm cRFEEN SNACK SIMI) GUITNG GREEN �1 l Bur I i( i u,I 1 qAL F a u w IOCR � SIGN PLAN LEGEND Q NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB ID Q BUILDING WALL ADDRESS Q ID & DIRECTIONAL Q BAG DROP © HANGING SIGN © STOP SIGN (LOCATION NOT SHOWN) Q FIRE LANE SIGN (LOCATION NOT SHOWN) NBCC Planned Community District GRAPHIC SOIUIIONSS EXHIBIT ENY AEII i 6P A(, If 12113 w O liSl nlS ff FII 11Y[(( -0,G 911U -I IIL s , IS? Ills IPA 161111&!118 FILE: Newp6eac6omm5ignPIan3.ai j OF6 526.11 1 St 5" CAP 's e WOMEIIS WUNGE I. T -15" L © HANGING SIGN SCALE: 3116" =1'4' FOYER Jay •R' 9'•F FAIRY A. VIEW FROM PARKING AREA KITEIIE14 nd)e. a9' abo':e e.Etiy gale BAIIOUETROOFI Oak a 40 Ame 4bN 9FA eiaurg grade IalI0F11 dashNl O late al pr[po2ed Nu!d �q hp I-ECOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1"=1'-O" w SIGN PLAN GOLF CLUBHOUSE MATERIALS • B1 - ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. • E • HANGING SIGN: FABRICATED BRONZE WITH DARK OXIDIZED FINISH. LETTER FACES POLISHED FINISH. KEY PLAN peak a 535' at,a. eJstanto g'ads IO w12Urybwkl,rg pad) '001$11W m8potM 149' above VMN REGATTAR001.9 OfficES grade( e>uLrrUbvldug pa�� dd ab02e wgUrg9�adi WABS ' f0 eherq bwddtngpad) WOMEIIS WUNGE I. T -15" L © HANGING SIGN SCALE: 3116" =1'4' FOYER Jay •R' 9'•F FAIRY A. VIEW FROM PARKING AREA KITEIIE14 nd)e. a9' abo':e e.Etiy gale BAIIOUETROOFI Oak a 40 Ame 4bN 9FA eiaurg grade IalI0F11 dashNl O late al pr[po2ed Nu!d �q hp I-ECOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1"=1'-O" w SIGN PLAN GOLF CLUBHOUSE MATERIALS • B1 - ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. • E • HANGING SIGN: FABRICATED BRONZE WITH DARK OXIDIZED FINISH. LETTER FACES POLISHED FINISH. KEY PLAN cl 0 t A NBCC Planned CommunityDistrict ©GRAPHIC 101OT10HS. EXHIBIT ENYIRO VIM-t I1(X((till: O ENVIRWSINFI PYFFG2G91111 IFI (1191 9ID 135 10 (6191 915 -W11 FILE: NewpileacCamm$ignPlan3.ai 5,26.11 2 OF 6 Italla0lam and Cordoba coven Identiml co Fashion bland. -Hope's or ocpdralent Neel windows and french duo,, All wall sur/ates will be %mouth posh Neel tmwelltd plaster In a refined Santa Barbara pnsh palnvd a ,hack .(off white. VIEW FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DRIVE ENTRY bishng cea:ie (dashedj d We of t-, 'I ng, typ o s —ia vs 0111% 000%IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '1 TtiE SPA °L 'TAN COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE M BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1/2" = 1' -0" SIGN PLAN THE SPA MATERIALS •B2- ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. KEY PLAN �b.,..y r i� s r� 4 l •j NBCC Planned Community District SOlU111 EXHIBIT ©GRAPNII flillIONNINIA1 UN tAPN1t 911T, 1957 NUN SI0E1•WI OI[W,G 911U lit Jill) 119-Ills FAX IIGI lis-011 /� O I FILE: Nawp8eacComrrSipnPlan3.ai 5.26.11 4 OF 6 M COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1" = V -0" SIGN PLAN THE SPA MATERIALS •B3- ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. KEY PLAN i z NBCC Planned Community District SOIUiIOH S t, EXHIBIT ©GAAPHI( 1XVIRONMENIAl. GAAPNG GFSIGN 84NU191100 OIAGgG till) 111(Alf) 14111A fit Fill) 135-011 /O FILE: NewpBeacCommSipnPlanlai 5.26.11 5 OF 6 PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION - TOP VIEW 20' -g" NEWPORT BEACH Z-%-- D P COUNTRY CLUB :11 Q NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT Q BAG DROP SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" 15' -4" THREE En NINE BUNGALOWS M v r ® DIRECTIONAL MONUMENT SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" 13' -10' THE TENNIS CLUB ® THE TENNIS CLUB MONUMENT SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" Q STOP SIGN SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" i< 1' 0' f f © FIRE LANE SIGN SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" SIGN PLAN hiviGYLNCl /m WALL • MASONRY WALL TO MATCH BUILDING TEXTURE AND COLOR. • BASE TRIM: INTEGRAL COLORED CONCRETE TO MATCH MONUMENT COLOR WITH A SMOOTH FINISH. • ROUND LOGO: CAST BRONZE PLAQUE - GRAPHICS AND BORDER RAISED AND POLISHED. BACKGROUND DARK OXIDIZED BRONZE. • NUMBERS, LETTERS AND ARROW: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. STOP SIGN • FACE: ALUMINUM PANEL PAINT FINISHED TO MATCH GREY BRONZE FIXTURES ON SITE. • DIMENSIONAL LETTERS: BRONZE WITH POLISHED FACE • POST: SQUARE ALUMINUM PAINT FINISH GREY BRONZE. FIRE LANE • FACE: ALUMINUM PANEL PAINT FINISHED. •LETTERS: FACE ADHERED OPAQUE VINYL. • POST: SQUARE ALUMINUM PAINT FINISH TO MATCH GREY BRONZE FIXTURES ON SITE. NBCC Planned Community District ©GNAPHIf SOIUiIONS: EXHIBIT 151 MI Xt NI.If 6AAFHI IT)III X O I 7957 M1'Y S¢IFI - 1G DI[W, G 91113 ❑t QI97 119.1135 TAX QI1l Ili $013 FILE: NevipileacCommSignPlan3 ai 5.26.11 1 6 OF 6 (S.B.) ":, (N.B.) i` v 3. PACFIC COAST HIGHWAY EXISTING GRADE SITE SECTION PROPOSED MAX RIDGE HEIGHT )VE EXIST. GRADE (THIS SPECIFIC RIDGE; 113.5 — PROPOSED GRADE LOWEST EXISTING GRADE BELOW NAV 29 DATUM NOTED RIDGE =107.5 PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE GOLF CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION 13Y CO �v0 ORY or- -KEY PLAN Zit �;• r.:. o- r ` e NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT Stearns ARCHITECTURE 11 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 O F .( Attachment No. PC 2 Termination of Access Easement C RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NBCC LAND One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Recorded in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk /Recorder 29920630399 4;29pm 12/08/97 065 22033011 2 T01 6 6.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT ,.t j A ' ,y THIS TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT is made as of November -' 30 , 1996, by ARNOLD D. FEUERSTEIN and ALLAN FAINBARG (collectively referred to as "Owners "), who are the fee owners of the property located at 1500 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property ") ARTICLE I RECITALS A. The Property is partially served for ingress and egress by a secondary access road which runs parallel and adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and is located upon the adjacent Newport Beach County Club property (the "Secondary Access "). A. The Property's rights to use the Secondary Access is by way of that certain non - exclusive easement and right of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress set forth in that certain instrument entitled "Declaration of Access Easement" dated as of September 29, 1992 and recorded on October 1, 1992 as Instrument No. 92- 662452 in the Official Records of Orange County, California, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Declaration of Access Easement dated as of October 15, 1992 and recorded March 1, 1993 as Instrument No. 93 -0139175 in the Official Records, such easement being described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ( "the Existing Easement "). C. The City of Newport Beach has requested that the Existing Easement be abandoned because the Secondary Access creates a hazardous traffic condition at the entry to Newport Beach Country Club and contributes to an unsightly condition along Pacific Coast Highway, and Owners concur and are willing to comply with the City's request to abandon the Existing Easement. tennWat.acc C D. Owners of the adjacent Newport Beach Country Club property intend to remove the Secondary Access through a portion of the Newport Beach Country Club property described in Exhibit °C" and replace it with landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway per Newport Beach Country Club Master Plan, Tentative Tract 15348, and a landscape plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. The result will be a significant aesthetic improvement along Pacific Coast Highway. C ARTICLE II TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT Owners hereby terminate and relinquish their rights in the Existing Easement. 2. Owners' termination of the Existing Easement is conditioned on the City of Newport Beach not prohibiting ingress and egress to the Property primary and direct access from the existing two Pacific Coast Highway curb cuts in front of the Property which have been in use for many years. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument as of the date first above written. ,1 INOT t Arnold D. Feuerstem 1 Allan Fambarg termw8t.8cc STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On December 13, 1996 , before me a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Allan Fainbarg, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument be, or the entity upon behalf of which he acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 014 OO�Ma IlOCAALiFORRNIA Notary Public in and for said County and State = ORANGE COUNry Comm. Expires June 10, IM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On December 13, 1996 ' before me a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Arnold D. Feuerstein, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument he, or the entity upon behalf of which he acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _ @M Public in�r said County and State C termlAat.acc 0 C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot 1 of Tract No. 11937, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 656, Pages 24 through 29, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, as corrected by that Tract or Parcel Map Certificate of Correction recorded February 5, 1991 as Instrument No. 91- 052940 of Official Records. EXHIBIT "A" terminat.acc j C ' NOM— EXCLUSIVE EASENm1T FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES AN EASEMM PON INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTHWESTERLY 25.00 PEST OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL NAP NO. 79- 704• IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BERM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOW ON A NAP RECORDED IN BOON 152, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL NAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. 64 —�� b� Ng22 3rE poQSC,r R.2ooaoo• � i.2osr bib E9 C3 v � � ea• 1 1 46.2r Nao2rarc LOT N10. 11927 14&32 247.42• �1 2S.W WOE NON —E 0"OVE FoFURFOS� Alm �X Existing Sign 14 g CLUB Noun Dym 'I-jVA—CAM) I�.I1: C� I to to o: •x a. ® VM. RESERVED 10 TIE 417 OF NOMM BEACH FOR TRWM �O.R PURPOSES 12818/16M tenni"Lacc i4. C� a�• AO•v 4 y pro 41•O Z' �X Existing Sign 14 g CLUB Noun Dym 'I-jVA—CAM) I�.I1: C� I to to o: •x a. ® VM. RESERVED 10 TIE 417 OF NOMM BEACH FOR TRWM �O.R PURPOSES 12818/16M tenni"Lacc C G NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB (Portion containing Secondary Access) Parcel 3 and Parcel 1 of 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 County. EXHIBIT "C" termmd.a C l LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE TENNIS CLUB Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102. I C LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE GOLF CLUB Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 152, Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE GOLF CLUB PARKING LOT Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 152, Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County. l,` NON— EXCLUME EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES •• AN RUMMY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTHWZSTZRLY 35.00 FEET OP PARCEL. 3 OF PARCEL NAP NO. 79- 704, IN THE CITY OF NEMPORT BEACH, COMM OF ORANGE, STATE OP CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN EDGE 152, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN TEE OFFICE OF TEE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. T R. N 10 . 1 19 3 9 84.W 16&32 247.4r AOOOAO' 20A1'OW L.2031• I h 21 W WIDE NON —VILU C mm FOPUMIOS . IND 9 �I a � 4 a j' G7 I y ti C 2 a C5 4. 1% O ^r 1 q ® ESNT. R OF NV TO TAK COY w BEACH FOR TPOM 0� LS' '•'J' P�p{�OJC%12NS%1B9E. Z �• N eFi 7X Existing Sign �J 4, CLUB Noun DEM t $9 i� WAr3r7re 114.71• O.2r23Or �� e9.=2' 7r R•25.00 R.EOAO' MN7�272'6 140A0' L.39.27' L.33A1• KD f! L M.-,, i, .r,goc Attachment No. PC 3 Letter dated October 5, 2011 from Alan Kessel of Baker Hostletler October 5, 2011 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND PERSONAL DELIVERY (aharp @newportbeachca.gov) Aaron Harp, Esq. City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 BakeraHostetler t1P 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -7221 T 714.754.6600 F 714.754.6611 www.bakedaw.com Alan J. Kassel direct dial: 714.966.8828 akesael @bakerlaw.com Re: Response to Waldron & Bragg, LLP's September 9 Letter Re Newport Beach County Club (the "NBCC Properties ") Dear Mr. Harp: This office represents Golf Realty Fund, in the ongoing arbitration with Mesa Shopping Center -East, LLC, Mira Mesa Shopping Center West, LLC (collectively, "MSC "), the Fainbarg Family Trust ( "FFT "), Elliot Feuerstein and Irving Chase (together with MSC and FFT, "Mira Mesa "). We are responding to the September 9, 2011 letter addressed to Kimberly Brandt and copied to you, sent by Mira Mesa's counsel, John Olson, in which Mr. Olson incorrectly asserts that Golf Realty Fund was removed as the "Managing Owner" of the NBCC Properties, and has no authority to act. Judge Marks of the Orange County Superior Court rejected Mira Mesa's attempt to prevent Golf Realty Fund's exercise of its rights and duties as Managing Owner of the NBCC Properties by denying Mira Mesa's Preliminary Injunction Motion, in its entirety. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the Notice of Ruling Denying Mira Mesa's Preliminary Injunction Motion. Golf Realty Fund is, and continues to remain, the Managing Owner of the NBCC Properties under the "Agreements between Real Property Owners" attached to Mr. Olson's letter (collectively, the "Agreements "). In fact, Golf Realty Fund's authority to act on behalf of the NBCC Properties and their Owners, including the processing of the entitlements now pending before the City, was recently reconfirmed by Judge Marks in her denial of Mira Mesa's Preliminary Injunction Motion, which sought to enjoin the processing of those entitlements. Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Costa Mesa Denver Houston Los Angeles New York Orlando Washington, DC 503781139 Aaron Harp, Esq. October 5, 2011 Page 2 As evidenced by the Court's denial of Mira Mesa's Preliminary Injunction Motion, FFT is not the Managing Owner of the NBCC Properties and subsequently has no right to speak or act on behalf of the NBCC Properties. Mira Mesa is being sued by Golf Realty Fund for the very conduct and interference epitomized by its counsel's September 9 letter, and that letter's false statements that Golf Realty Fund purportedly is no longer the Managing Owner. I apologize for having to take your time to respond to Mira Mesa's September 9 letter, and hope that Mira Mesa and its counsel will chose to confine the parties' ongoing arbitration to its proper venue, and subsequently will refrain both from further involving the City in that dispute, and from further interfering with the City's pursuit of its duties regarding the NBCC Properties. The City has taken the position that the parties' disagreement is a civil matter which is not for the City to resolve. That has been, and remains, the correct and appropriate response. We appreciate the City's measured approach. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, Alan *elsxsel cc: Kimberly Brandt AICP, Community Development Director Michael Torres, Esq. Deputy City Attorney Leone Mulvihill, Esq., Assistant City Attorney David Kiff, City Manager Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Michael Toerge, Newport Beach Planning Commission Bradley Hillgren, Newport Beach Planning Commission Robert Hawkins, Newport Beach Planning Commission Fred Ameri, Newport Beach Planning Commission Kory Kramer, Newport Beach Planning Commission Tim Paone, Esq. John S. Olson, Esq. Paul B. George, Esq. 503781139 w< F 6 � 0 a m 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP ALAN J. KESSEL (State Bar No. 130707) VIKKI L. VANDER WOUDE (State Bar No. 180087) 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900 Costa Mesa, California 92626 -7221 Telephone: (714) 754 -6600 Facsimile: (714) 754 -6611 Email: akesselQbakerlaw.com Email: wanderwoude@bakerlaw.com LANE POWELL PC PAUL B. GEORGE (California State Bar No. 55147) 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, Oregon 97204 -3158 Telephone: (503)778 -2100 Facsimile: (503) 778 -2200 Email: georgena.lanepowell.com Attorneys for Defendants ROBERT O HILL, an individual; GOLF REALTY FUND LP, a California limited partnership, formerly known as NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and O HILL CAPITAL, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, formerly known as O HILL PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FILE[ SUPERIOR COUP T 4 IFdONVA COUNTY 9k k C €NTRA6dU1 ,-H TER MAY 232011 ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the Court By H. MITCHELL ,DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MESA SHOPPING CENTER -EAST, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, V. ROBERT O HILL, et al., Defendants. 503587981.1 Case No. 30-2011-00451572 Assigned For All Purposes To: The Honorable Linda S. Marks Department C -7 NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND NOTICE OF POST - ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE Hearing Date: May 20, 2011 Time: 10:30 a.m. Dept: C -7 Post - Arbitration Status Conference Date: January 19, 2012 Time: 8:45 a.m. Dept: C -7 Complaint Filed: February 18, 2011 Trial Date: None NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION a ..l w= xis W � Y 6 9 2 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on May 20, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Mesa Shopping Center -East, LLC, Mira Mesa Shopping Center -West, LLC, and the Fainbarg Trust Dated April 19, 1982 (collectively, "Plaintiffs "), came on for hearing in Department C -7 of the above - entitled Court before the Honorable Linda S. Marks, Judge presiding. Gary A. Waldron and John S. Olson of Waldron & Bragg, LLP, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Alan J. Kessel and Vikki L. Vander Woude of Baker & Hostetler LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants Robert O Hill, Golf Realty Fund LP, and O Hill Capital. After considering the pleadings and papers filed with the Court, and hearing oral argument, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in its entirety. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Court has scheduled a post - arbitration status conference for January 19, 2012, at 8:45 a.m., in Department C -7 of the above - entitled Court. DATED: May 20, 2011 503587981.1 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP By: Alan JXssel Attorneys for Defendants ROBERT O HILL, an individual; GOLF REALTY FUND LP, a California limited partnership, formerly known as NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and O HILL CAPITAL, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, formerly known as O HILL PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION `al r� F < � x °¢o a m 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Kimberly A. Spake, declare: I am employed in Orange County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within - entitled action. My business address is 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900, Costa Mesa, California 92626 -7221. On May 20, 2011, I served a copy of the within document(s): NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELEMNARY INJUNCTION AND NOTICE OF POST - ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE BY FACSIMILE: From facsimile number (714) 754 -6611, I caused each such document to be transmitted by facsimile machine, to the parties and numbers indicated above, pursuant to Rule 2008. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. ❑1C BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated above, on the above - mentioned date. I am familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to each person[s] named at the address[es] shown and giving same to a messenger for personal delivery before 5:00 p.m. on the above - mentioned date. BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: by transmitting via electronic mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address(es) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. Gary A. Waldron, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs John S. Olson, Esq. Waldron & Bragg, LLP 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage 503587981.1 NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION d J C e J N m� c. <F x�o ,y Cu s m 1 211 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 20, 2011, at Costa Mesa, California. Kimber A. Spake 503587981.1 _ 2 _ NOTICE OF RULING RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Attachment No. PC 4 Alternative Planned Community Development Plan ,A^k Newport Beach Country Club ,000%, -� 1166", Alternative Planned Community. •I^ Development Plan Date August 4 October 20, 201 Ordinance No. Adopted due 2.0 3.0 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Introduction and Purpose ................................................ ............................... 4 General Conditions and Regulations ............................... ............................... 5 Land Use and Development Regulations ........................ ............................... 10 3.1 Golf Club ............................................................... ............................... 10 A. Golf Course ..................................................... ............................... 10 B. Golf Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses ................. ............................... 10 1. Building Area .............................................. ............................... 10 2. Building Height ........................................... ............................... 10 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses ............................ ............................... 10 4. Parking ....................................................... ............................... 11 5. Fencing ...................................................... ............................... 11 3.2 Tennis Club ........................................................... ............................... 11 A. Tennis Courts .................................................. ............................... 11 1. Number of Courts ....................................... ............................... 11 B. Tennis Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses ............. ............................... 142 1. Building Area .............................................. ............................... 142 2. Building Height ........................................... ............................... 14-2 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses ............................ ............................... 12 4. Parking ....................................................... ............................... 12 3.3 The Villas .............................................................. ............................... 12 1. Number of Units ......................................... ............................... 12 2. Development Standards ............................. ............................... 13 3.4 The Bungalows ..................................................... ............................... 13 1. Number of Units ......................................... ............................... 13 2. Permitted Ancillary Uses ............................ ............................... 13 3. Building Area .............................................. ............................... 134 4. Building Height ........................................... ............................... 134_ 5. Building Setbacks ....................................... ............................... 14 6. Parking ....................................................... ............................... 14 3.5 Signs ..................................................................... ............................... 14 A. Sign Allowance ................................................ ............................... 14 B. Sign Standards ................................................ ............................... 145 Site Development Review ............................................... ............................... 16 4.1 Purpose ................................................................ ............................... 16 4.2 Application ............................................................ ............................... 16 4.3 Standards ............................................................. ............................... 16 4.4 Exhibits ................................................................. ............................... 17 4.5 Public Hearing - Required Notice ......................... ............................... 17 4.6 Expiration and Revocation Site Plan Review Approvals ...................... 17-8 2 4.7 Fees ...................................................................... ............................... 17-8 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Name Exhibit Number VicinityAerial Map ................................................................ ............................... A Conceptual Master Site Plan ................................................ ............................... B Table Name LIST OF TABLES 3 Page .......................... OP 13 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (the PCD) is composed of the Tennis Club and the Golf Club 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 classification and development of coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive planning project with limited mixed uses, including the private Tennis and Golf Clubs, 27 short -term rental units called the Bungalows with a spa /fitness area, and 5 semi - custom single -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. .— 0 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 7:00 10:00 p.m. the interior of a building unless a Special Events 3. Archaeological /Paleontological Resources 40k, within the PCD shall Permit is obtained. Development of the site is subject to the provisions regarding archaeological and paleon'alpgical resou 4. Architectural Design be confined within 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. The development shall should be well- designed with coordinated, cohesive architecture and plaRned, exhibiting athe highest level of architectural and landscape quality in keeping with the PCD's prominent location in the Newport Center Planning Area. Massing offsets, variation of roof lines, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design accents on all building elevations shall be provided to enhance the architectural style. Architectural treatments for all ancillary facilities (i.e. storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures) shall be provided. 5. Building 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 Storage Areas 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 A shall be subject to permits issued by the Community Development Department. 9. Gross Floor Area Gross floor area shall be defined as the total area of a building including the surrounding exterior walls. 10. Height and Grade The height of any structure within the PCD shall not exceed fifty (50) feet, unless otherwise specified. The height of a structure shall be determined and measured in accordance with the Grade Establishment and Height Limits and Exceptions Sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and any amendments shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director T' 11. Landscaping /irrigation Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in all areas not devoted to structures, parking lots aad- driveways, walkways, and tennis courts to enhance the appearance of the development, reduce heat and glare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen adjacent land uses, and preserve the integrity of PCD. Landscaping and irrigation shall consist of a combination of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements. Landscaping shall be prepared in accordance with the Landscaping Standards and Water- Efficient Landscaping Sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 12. Lighting — Outdoor 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 engineer. All lighting and lighting fixtures that are provided shall be maintained in accordance with the approved lighting plans. 2 13. Lighting — Parking Lets & 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 Municipal Code and shall be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer. If the applicant wishes to deviate from this lighting 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 Non - Residential Uses All loading and unloading of goods delivery shall be performed onsite. Loading platforms and areas shall be screened from public view. 15. Parking Areas Parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turnaround areas, and landscaping areas of the parking lots shall be kept free of dust, graffiti, and litter. All components of the parking areas including striping, paving, wheel stops, walls, and light standards of the parking lots shall be permanently maintained in good working condition. Access, location, parking space and lot dimensions, and parking lot improvements shall be in compliance with the Development Standards for Parking Areas Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16. Property Owner Approval 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, heating, ventilation ducts and exhaust vents, swimming pool and spa pumps and filters, transformers, utility vaults and emergency power generators) shall be screened from public view 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 to sound rating in accordance with the Exterior Noise Standards Section of the Newport 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 Condominiums, Granville Drive, and the Tennis Clubhouse parking lot shall be screened by 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. Special Events Temporary special community events, such as PGA Senior Classic golf tournaments, Team Tennis, Davis Cup Matches, and other similar events, are permitted in the PCD, and are 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. 0 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 places, and may not be located in the required parking areas. If trash container storage areas cannot be located out of public view, they shall be screened from public view. Screening shall consist of fences, walls, and landscaping to a height at least 6 inches above the tops of the containers. 245. Trash Enclosures for Non - Residential Uses All trash enclosures for non - residential uses shall be provided and in accordance with the Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 256. Tennis Club Site Phasing Plan The phasing plan for the tennis club site which is- consistsed of the tennis club, villas and bungalows shall be subject to a site development review process. 27. Water Service Water service to the PCD will be provided by the City of Newport Beach and will be subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees as prescribed by the City. 9 3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 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 prae#cs facilities (i.e. putting green, driving range, snack bar, starter shack, restroom facilities, etc.). B. Golf Clubhouse and Ancillary Us 1. Building Area The maximum allowable gross floor area for a golf clubhouse building shall be 66-,0GG35.000 square feet, exclusive of any enclosed golf cart storage areas ramp and washing area. The cR t -- mar,=, greenskeeper; /maintenance buildings, and snack bar, separate golf course restroom facilities, and- starter shack, IGGated of the golf no -r°^ and similar ancillary buildings are exempt from this development limit. 2. Building Height The maximum allowable building height for the Golf Clubhouse shall be 50 feet for pitched roof and 45 feet for flat roof design, and shall be measured in accordance with the Height Limits and Exceptions Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses The following ancillary uses are allowed: • Golf shop • Administrative Offices • Dining, assen4b4y-,-and event faeil+tiesareas • Kitchen & Bar areas • Banquet Rooms • Men and Women's Card Rooms • Health and fitness facility • Restroom and Locker facilities • Q4and Golf eClub storage areas • Employee lounge /lunch areas 10 • Meeting rooms • Golf Cart Parking Storage and Washing Area • Separate Snack Bar • Separate Starter Shack • Separate Golf Course Restrooms • Hand Carwash Area • Golf Course Greenskeeper Maintenance Facility • Temporary Construction Facilities • Guard House • Others (subject to an approval of Director) 4. Parking A y Development 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 and Associates, Inc., September 2009 for Newport Beach Country Club — Clubhouse Improvement Project): Golf Course: 8 spaces le Golf Clubhouse: Dining, assembly & eeting rooms: 1 per 3 seats or 1 per 35 square feet Administrative Office: 4 per 1,000 square feet Pro Shop: 4 per 1,000 square feet Maintenance Facility: 2 per 1,000 square feet Health and Fitness Facility: 4 per 1,000 square feet Golf Course permiter fencing shall be wrought -iron with a maximum 3.2 Tennis Club 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 stadium - center court). 11 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 the Tennis Clubhouse shall be 30 feet for sloped roof and 25 feet for flat roof design, and shall be measured in accordance with the Height Limits and Exceptions Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses The following ancillary uses are allo • Tennis Shop • Administrative Office • Concessions • Restroom and Locker f 'lities • Storage areas • Spectator seating • Others (subject to an approval Director) 4. Parking of the Community Development Parking for the Tennis Clubhouse and Courts shall be a minimum of 28 parking spaces. 3.3. The Villas Refer to Exhibit B' = Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the villas. 1. Number of Units 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 Develooment Standards Table Villa Villa A Villa B Villa C Villa D Villa E Designation TTM Lot #1 TTM Lot #2 TTM Lot #3 TTM Lot #4 TTM Lot #5 Lot Size 5,000 square feet minimum Lot Coverage (Maximum) " '°" "' �"° 65% 55% 40% 55% — 70 39 feet for sloped roof and 34 feet for flat roofadesign, measured in Building Height accordance with the Municipal Code Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions Building Side Yard 3 feet minimum Setbacks Building Front and Rear Yard 5 feet minimum m Setbacks Enclosed Parking Space for Each 2 2 3 3 2 Unit Open Guest Parking Space for One space - could be located on the private driveway – No Each Unit overhang to the rivate street /cul -de -sac is allowed 3.4. The Bungalows Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the bungalows, concierge and guest center, and spa facility. Number of Units The maximum allowable number of the Bungalows shall be 27 short -term guest rental units to be built in a clustered setting of single and two -story buildings. 2. Permitted Ancillary Uses The followina ancillary uses are allowed • Conciet"ae 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 2-.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. 3-4. Building Height The maximum allowable building height for the bungalows shall be 31 feet for sloped roof and 26 feet for flat roof design, measured in accordance with the Height Limits and Exceptions Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4.5. Building Setbacks Avm%�, The setback requirement shall be a minimum of 5 feet from any property line. &6. Parking ,1111111111L `"r Parking for the bungalows shall be a minimum of 34 parking spaces located in proximity to the use. 3.5 Signs A. Sign Allowance VAOOP* 1. One (1) single or double- faced, ground- mounted entrance identification sign shall be allowed at or near the vicinity of the Newport Beach Country Club's main entrance (Country Club Drive, Irvine Terrace and /or Coast Highway). Total maximum signage area shall not exceed one hundred eigl t* -five (43 8155) square ooc feet and shall not exceed tewseven (4-97) feet in height. 2. One (1) single 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 signagee area shall not exceed feFty- (40�- ei nty- five 75 square feet and shall not exceed six —five 5 feet in height. 3. Building identification signs shall be allowed; one for each street frontage. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum height of sb�--five (65) feet in height. The maximum signagge area shall not exceed feFtpseventy (487) 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 14 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 distance. This sign type shall not exceed a maximum of eight six 6 Lfeet 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 in length. B. Sign Standards The design and materials of Aall permanent signs in the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District that arp = visi",,p frarn any publio right of way shall be grin accordance with Sign Section 3.5, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 2. All permanent signs shall be subject to a sign permit issued by the Community Development Department. 3. All signs shall be subject to the review of the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sight distance in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Sign illumination is permitted for all sign types. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, or create the illusion of motion, in any fashion. 5. All permanent signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regards to appearance, structural integrity 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 temporary 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 [velopment Plan, the Development Agreement and the ataffdaFdTfi ndin "'ti fWth below in sub- section 4.3. 4.2 Application An approval of &Site 4Development rReview application by the Planning Commission shall be required for the construction of any new building- structure prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit or issuance of an approval in concept for Coastal Commission. Signs, cart barn, maintenance building, golf course's ancillary structures (i.e. free - standing restroom facilities, snack bar, and starter shack), tenant improvements to any existing buildings, kiosks, and temporary structures are exempt from the 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. 4.3. Standards Findings In addition to the general purposes set forth in sub - section 4.1 and in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the Site Development Review procedures established by this Section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following stars, wl app! sab4efindings: 4 1. The development 4s hall be in compliance with all other provisions of the Planned Community District Plan; 2. The 9development 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; 3. The 8development 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 to 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. Comprehensive elevations and floor plans for new structures with coordinated and complimentary architecture, design, materials and colors. 3. A parking and circulation plan showing golf cart and pedestrian paths in addition to streets and fire lanes. 4. A comprehensive, cohesive and coordinated preliminary landscape plan. 5. A comprehensive, cohesive and coordinated lighting plan showing type, location and color of all exterior lighting fixtures. 6. Comprehensive text and graphics describing the design philosophy for the architecture, landscape architecture, material and textures, color palette, lighting, and signage. 7. Text describing drainage and water quality mitigation measures. 8. A statement that the proposed new structure is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan. 4.5 Public Hearing — 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. 4.56 Expiration and Revocation Site Development Review Approvals Expiration. Any site development review granted 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 senapletien, 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 development review gFanied— approved in accordance with the terms of this planned community development plan may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such site development review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. 3. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and shall submit its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall act thereon within sixty (60) days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 4.67. Fees Wy applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the Newport Beach Council to the City with each application for Site Development Review under Manned community development plan. IN Attachment No. PC 5 Response to Planning Commission comments 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 PC Comments on the Golf Realty Fund (O°Hill) project: Comment No. 1 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 GR'F's proposed adjacent Bungalow and residential uses. 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 architectural theme. The IBC Plan proposes Prairie -style architecture for the golf clubhouse. Response to :Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response to Planning Commission Comments Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140). 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) Existingi GRF Clubhouse IBC Clubhouse Clubhouse Proposal Proposal Hei ht 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) I Ia Icy 1 O1 I Iw I� 11 I tl I b W � } O U U LL = J O �- U' O U v C J V 2 V m G O F�{l� W O U O U W W H W O W W U w W O C7 �d s � _ a xL x n W 3 U U U z Z s c R d N 7 O L a_ U LL U C 0 N R Q E O U c O .0 d N N N O U I, I, 1, I, II I II II w 0 0 U et U ti O • z 0 U w w H w' 0 x w U w O N d �= 3 a O s L x � W 3 U U m Z C R d N 7 O L L U LL 4' C O N CL E O U C O V N N N O U m b uZ U Y )" d � Z O '¢ = u 2 U a = � I y O U � " • z 0 U w w H w' 0 x w U w O N d �= 3 a O s L x � W 3 U U m Z C R d N 7 O L L U LL 4' C O N CL E O U C O V N N N O U 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, floorarea, 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, 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 (PA2005- .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 1 ") 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." 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. Response to Comments- Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) F H s a 5 Fs O E s a M N .+ C 4 O t m W d LU m N 3 O L U d N 3 O U r_ 0 u O T • � z o � ¢ X39 t, e o , m w a-ou 5 y mz - � m j � . • Z a • a `.''.d. F H s a 5 Fs O E s a M N .+ C 4 O t m W d LU m N 3 O L U d N 3 O U r_ 0 u 3` i y C O t R x > LJ N W m N 0 O L i U d L O U w O [b' Xm by o � L5 N S '• wx 0.3 vz s Z d 3` i y C O t R x > LJ N W m N 0 O L i U d L O U w O [b' W F cMn a m c y 613 VJ rn x t5 0 �U M ZL •Q RR WW W F Z W u 0 W Z 4 6 yLL d Cd N N Q O L @ X > W m W R O 3 0 R 3 R d N s 0 Q 3 U N C 01 F E �e 8 Fe t k a L 6 C9 C .. o s 'R L > x w W W a IL wlll d L F = m,w W o x o � o ?' N w a � 5 6 U - aJ2 F _ W 2 o D dN �a a W m W I- LL • • �. Z a w.i E �e 8 Fe t k a L 6 C9 C .. o s 'R L > x w W W a IL wlll d L F (� . � � } | / �§ ! ): 9 z] \ ( r H z 0 a 75 0 cc w LU w J O� Y_ Y L 0 Q W d /C C O L W 3 d N z 0 Cl- 75 0 LU w :� V_ V L O Q W E 0 L F 3 m E. v f 1 3 f 1 1 C F E c c c n co f— z 0 CL 75 0 cr w O M r y y C O Q LU d iC C L W 3 v v H z 0 CL 0 LL LL w r <F T Y Y C a '0 c x 3 w d E 0 w 3 m Attachment No. PC 6 Response to KLR Planning Comments KLR PLANNING Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2005 -14) Review of Snstsal Study1M1igated lVVegative Declaration and Auocwted Technical Stetdie.r/Doaatmews Prepared for: HIIR Newport Beach LLC BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING Golf Realty Fund is proposing redevelopment of the 145 -acre Newport Beach County, Club, located at 1600 — 1602 Last Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. According to the Initial Study, the project site is developed with golf and tennis facilities. The golf club portion of the site includes an 18 -hole golf course; a two - story, 23,460 square foot clubhouse; and an additional 9,010 square feet in ancillary- uses, including: cart barn, snack bar, restrooms, greens keeper shop, and starter shack. Parking is provided for 420 cars in the adjacent parking lot. The tennis club portion of the site includes 24 tennis courts and a 3,725 square foot .clubhouse. Parking for the tennis club is provided in a 125 -car parking lot. The proposed project would modif'v these uses by demolishing the existing golf clubhouse and the existing tennis clubhouse and eliminating 17 of the 24 tennis courts. Six of the existing tennis courts would remain, and a new stadium center court would be added, for a total of seven tennis courts. Thirty-eight parldug spaces would be provided for the temuis club. The existing tennis clubhouse and golf clubhouse would be replaced with the construction of larger golf club house (35,000 square feet in size) and a new tennis clubhouse of the same size as the existing tennis clubhouse (3,725 square feet). The project also introduces new uses on the project site, including 27 short -term vacation rentals (the Bungalows), five single - family residences (the Villas), a spa /fitness center /pool, and banquet and event space. The City of Newport Beach has conducted environmental review for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ.A). An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared for the project, and the City intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (il- L\lD). The purpose of this review of the IS /NLVD and associated technical . studies and documents is to determine the adequacy and completeness of the IS/_-\24D, based on the requirements of CEQA. In preparation of this report; the following documents have been reviewed: 1. Notice of Intent to .Adopt a Negative Declaration, City of Newport Beach; 9/16/2010 2. City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Form for Newport Beach Country Chub Planned Community (PA2005 -140); 9/16/10 3. Draft Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan; May 5, 2011 4. -Air Quality Analysis, \lewport Beach Country Club Project, City of Newport Beach, California; :Giroux & Associates; July 23, 2009 5. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Vesting Tentative Track Map 15347, Newport Beach, CA; Adams- Sneerer Civil Engineers Inc:; July'13, 2009 6. Traffic and Parking Evaluation for Newport Beach Country Club Clubhouse / Tennis. Improvement Project in the Citv of Newport Beach; Ki nley -Horn and Associates, Inc.; _August. 2009 7... Noise -inalysis, Newport Beach Country Club Project, City of Newport Beach; California; Giroux & Associates; July 23, 2009 8. Newport Beach Country Club Parking Supply Analysis; LSA. Associates Inc.; August 20, 2008 9. NPDES Technical Study for Newport Beach. Country Club Planned Community District Plan; Adams - Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.; January 14, 2009 10. Phase I Environmeutal Suite .Assessment, Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community; Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.; April 3, 2009 11. Geotechnical Report for Newport Beach Country Club; G \Ili Geotechnical, Inc.; `lay 2, 2008 Newport Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005-14) Rov+nv oflnrtiu /Sq+dj• /TditigeR</t \?egunar Drdurot+ors andJlttorrutrA &n+Giml Uarm>n+tt /S1nA.-ut August 4, 2011 Page '1 12.. Memorandum: Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for the NBCC Planned. Community, Newport Beach Country Club, Newport Beach; California; Gs�1U Geotechnical, Inc.,. April 25, 2008 13. City of Newport Beach General Plan; July 25, 2006 14. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Coasial.Land Use Plan;. February 5, 2009 15. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20 16. City of Newport Beach Policy K -3, Implementation Procedures for the California Err'iroamental Quality Act 17. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report, august 4, 2011, Agenda Item 2: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005440) 18. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report, . August 4, 2011, .. _Agenda Item 3: Newport Beach Country Club (P_C2008 -152) Additionally, a visit to the project site was conducted on July 22, 2011. . GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis . in the IS is flawed in several, aspects. The City should require that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared.. -to adequately evaluate dies full range of Project impacts, correctly ana1_yze cumulative effects, and evaluate project alternatives. The general areas of concern are summarized below and then elaborated on in other sections of this letter report. 1. L\CONSISTGNCIES /INiACCUR -ACIES IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Description is not consistent throughout the IS and the technical studies. Without a. consistent project description; the validity of the analysis is questionable. For example: On page 2 of the I9, the project description associates the spa /fitness center with the Bungalows, implying that the spa /fitness center is ancillary to the vacation home units. Page 7 of the Traffic and Parking Evaluation report (Kimlep -Horn and Associates, Inc., August 2009) identifies a spa �. associated with the tennis dub. Tlie Parking Analysis (LS A Associates, Inc., August 20,. 2008) states that the fitness center would be available for use by members and guests of the Bungalows and tennis club members. The discussion. of Proposed Improvements on page 2 of the IS Project. Description includes "cowierne andduest l�ieetinp facilftie.f'. The Parking Analysis identifies a 3,034 square foot dining room and 2,567 square feet of banquet space to be located a the golf clubhouse. These facilities would serve residents of the Villas, the Bungalows, and members of the tennis club. The facilities would also be available for `private events sponsored by a go f mevrber." As such, the banquet /event space is a separate use on the site, and it is unclear whether this use is the same as die "concaerge andauert meeting facilisre.' - The NPDES Technical Study references "golf elznict' and "a vense far astoeialion meeting and /or educational 3 retreats" These uses are not addressed in the IS Project Description and, therefore, are not adequately evaluated in the analysis of environmental effect. o Page 80 of the IS includes a reference that the project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, the plan amendment is not described in the Project Description of the IS. The details of these project features are essential in evaluating project impacts, . particularly those related to traffic, puking, and air quality. Newport Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) -._- _ -- ____ _'._._. — AuY rooj lnihal3 n� /d4iligeled\ baDedamaoe a.dAtreaated Te,,h¢,(Dox ,,,61S&d,,S August 4, 2011 Page 2 5 3. �a PROJECT SPLITTING Golf Realty Fund and International Bay Clubs are each proposing projects for the Newport Beach Counts Club site. Though there are some potential conflicts between the proposed projects, both projects could be built with minor adjustments. The has failed to study the combined environmental effects of building both projects. The result is that the public is nor informed about the true .environmental impacts of the Newport Beach Country Club . project and the iNIND understates . the impact of the overall project. Notably, the staff report supports the City issuing approvals that wound. allow both Golf Realty Fund's and International Bay Clubs' proposed projects to be built. _according to the staff reports, staff recommends a project that is larger than either Golf .Realty Fund's or International Bay Clubs' proposed projects —and that is larger than was studied in the I -fND. Considering both the Golf Realty project and the International Bay Clubs' project, the result would be the construction of the following elements: n 56,000 square foot golf clubhouse; 7 tennis courts; ® 3,725 square foot tennis clubhouse; e 5 -villas (single- fatndv resideaces); m 27 bungalows (hotel units). Obviously, such a. project has not been studied in the Mi and cannot be approved .. under the existing. FEND. Even if this were not staff's preferred alternative, the overall project (combining. Golf Realty Fund's and International Bay Clubs' proposals) needs to be studied together in a single EIR so that the project's true impacts are clearly disclosed to the public and not understated. Furthermore, staffs very recommendation is to "ronsieler the a plieant's request and totenfial alternatives." An EIR is required to evaluate project alternatives. Therefore; the I&ND cannot be adopted for the project, . and an EIR must be prepared that evaluates project alternatives such that the decision maker has the appropriate environmental document on which to bases discussion and decisions. I41SSLNG CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AN.aLYSIS Similarly, the A -CND has no analysis of cumulative impacts. This is a partictilsdy egregious error under CEQA where, as here, there are two proposed projects that are parts of the same overall project. (Citizens. Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of inyo (1955) 172 Ca1.App.3d 151, 166.) Moreover, there are other development proposals in paosi ty to Golf Realty Fund's proposed project. Golf Realty Fund's . proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts with these other proposed projects, even if it did not have its own direct impacts. The FIND does not give the City and the public adequate information to assess Golf Realty Fund's project's contribution to cumulative environmental impacts. While the IIND does address the Mandatory Findings of Significance, its response to CEQA Initial Checklist item. YVIII. b) — Does thepr jea have impaers that are individually limited, but tuvralatively Considerable ? — cannot be supported by the discussion in the Initial Study or the technical reports. There is a reasonable likelihood that, when considered with the effects of past projects, the effects of current proposals, and the effects of probable future projects, Golf Realty Fund's proposed project will a number of significant cumulative impacts. Unfortunately; the City has not provided . adequate . information for the public to assess this. But it is highly likely that the project could have significant cumulative impacts related to traffic, land . use, loss of recreational . facilities, visual impacts, seater quality, and noise. The City must study the project's cumulative impacts on all resource areas in an environmental impact report. Newport Beach Conutry Ciub (PA 2005 -14) --- Rr rr{ v afliritra7Shr1 /tllrtigzhAtYegatiae.Urrlamtmr andAnoaatel7amL+clDoarmn ttlSGrrliu August 4, 2011 Paae 3 Notably, the City's air quality consultant actually did find that the project causes a significant cumulative impact related to air quality: "Because of the PTNI -10 non - attainment status of the air basin, construction activity dust emissions are considered to have a cumulatively significant impact" (P. 20 ofiiiz Quality Analysis.) Given that the project is known to have significant cumulative impacts for air . quality; it is incumbent on the City to analyze the project for other potential cumulative impacts. 4. UNDERESTn- L,TION OF PROJECT INIPACTS Technical studies prepared for the project underestimate the project's potential impacts by ignoring certain elements of the proposed project. For example, is there dining .space that could be used for %- events and therefore generate traffic and parking needs to be analysed in Traffic and Parking Evaluation? How will the banquet and event spaces be used? Are there traffic and parking needs associated with tournaments, golf clinics, and /or education retreats? And what traffic and parking impacts result when all facilities are used at the same time? SPECIFIC COMMENTS— INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Description lacks sufficient detail to understand the project's design featues, site design, and architecture. While the Project Description includes project statistics and phasing, it does not include descriptions, photographs, or rendering of the future structures. In fact, the only exhibits relative to project design included in the Project Description ate those showing the project phasing and proposed landscaping. Additionally, the description of the proposed project is not consistent throughout the IS and in the technical studies. For example, on page 41, Aesthetics (1.e.), the maximum height of the golf clubhouse. $. presented in this paragraph is 53.5 feet. However, Table 1 (page 4) identifies the maximum height as 50 feet. The Project Description includes a spa /fimess area. The IS reEers to a fitness center; elsewhere, this project element appears to be described as a spa. The Parking Supply Analysis refers to a pool, . however, the Project Description does not mention a pool. The Land Use discussion (page. 80 of the IS) re£cicnces a Plan Amendment; however, the Project Description does not include a Plan amendment as one of the project actions. 'These inconsistencies make it difficult to review the IS and technical studies . and evaluate and understand project impacts. Inconsistencies should be corrected throughout the document. 0 AESTHETICS The evaluation of impacts relative to Aesthetics lacks an analysis of the project's design features and architecture and how those will fit into the surrounding community, and it is impossible to determine if the project would . substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and it surroundings. The proposed project includes a large building (the golf course clubhouse). that will be up to 50 feet tall and approximately 11,500 square feet larger than the existing building. It also includes 27 new hotel units and five new single - family housing units. These are all significant additions to a project site with a low degree of development. The aesthetics of tae project site and surrounding community will be substantially altered. Tlnc proposed landscaping will take time to mature and to soften the views. The project will result in a more densely developed Country Club which will result in reduction in the aesthetic quality of the area. The tennis courts are open facilities that act to provide open space in the area. The reduction in the number of tennis courts, and therefore open space, will only degrade the aesthetics of the area. An alternative site plan should be evaluated that opens up the villas and provides view corridors through the project similar to that which occurs with the existing tennis courts.. An EIR is required to address project alternatives such as thus. Newport Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) Rvrxe:v aflniLa! S u� /el'lrtrgtleA. Vegan r Dee @ration and A.riaciaterl l enrGrml Dapr entr /SN.ulier August 4, 2011 Paae 4 Me 12 The MINID does not include view simulations with the initial and mature landscaping, so the public and the City lack adequate information to assess the project's aesthetic impacts. Despite this lack of information, the likelihood that the project may block or obstruct sensitive views cannot be determined with information presented in the.NND, and it is likely that the project will have a significant impact on the viewshed. Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR that more fully analyzes the project's impacts on aesthetics and community character. 1 AIR QUALLI')' Page, 15 of the Air Quality Analysis (Giroux & Associates,. July 23,, 2009) states, "constnrcdon activity rlsut emissions are considered to have a cumulatrey significant impact" Because the South Coast .4ir Basin is non - attainment for PM10, the air quality study makes clear that a project has a significant cumulative impact . even if its 'P \410 emissions fall below South Coast Air Quality Management District's emission Thresholds. Therefore, the project has a significant cumulative impact on P11S10.. Any additional PM10 emissions will make already unacceptable P 1\110 levels worse. This is true even if mitigation reduces the PN110 emissions from the project. It is not clear why the M D does not adopt the same conclusion as the air quality study on t_1ne significance of P2410 emissions. It may be that the VND is making a "de rnirumis" finding; which is unacceptable under CEQA. The air quality study's conclusion that the project has significant cumulative impacts related to PNI10 is substantial evidence supporting fair argument that the project may have significant impacts. Therefore; the City must prepare an environmental impact report for the project. The NND brushes aside impacts to sensitive receptors.. It is likely that junior tennis players or junior golfers use the Country Club facilities and would be exposed to various au pollutants during construction. Impacts m sensitive receptors should therefore be evaluated in an environmental impact report. 4. BIOLOGIC_ \L RESOURCES In conducting a. review of the environmental documentation and associated materials for the Newport Beach Country Club project, a size visit was conducted.. The property includes many mature trees, some of which will likely be removed to allow for the expanded project. IMarme trees provide nesting opportunities for migratory birds and their removal or disturbance may cause a significant environmental impact. The City should analyze this potential impact m an environmental impact report for the project. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 61 stares; "Because the Pmposed Project will generate fewer G.HG emissions than are generated under existing environmental conditions ... it can be fidrly stated that under any (global climate change) threshold which would be permitted by CLDli, the P�nposed Project will not have a sigrnficant impact on global climate change." This statement may not be true. As noted below, the VND appears to use very aggressive and unrealistic assumptions about the number of trips the existing tennis courts produce (trips generate much of the project's greenhouse gases). A mote realistic .assessment of traffic may show that the project emits more greenhouse gases than the.. existing development. Similarly, a more realistic assessment of the proposed project's traffic may show that the project's other air quality impacts are worse than the A, ND describes. These potential impacts should be studied in an environmental impact report. Page 62 includes a discussion of speculation and CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. The use of speculation as a way to reason. away GHG emissions is inappropriate. Global climate .change is now accepted as a reality, and increases in GHG emissions contribute to worsening the effects of global climate change. _Newport Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) &axe,, oft h,1S1a61A1,o,ekd Nrgaticx Declambar aed,4ssoaaled brLaatDae�me elt /Sl mli.;r August 4, 2011 Page 5 13 6. LAND USE The land use discussion states that the PC District regulations set the m=mum Height limit at 50 -Feet: The project is inconsistent with the draft regulation in that its maximum height is 53.5 feet. However, the IS fails to discuss whether this exceedence in height results in a significant impact relative to land use or aesthetics. The .Land Use discussion also relies on the conclusion of the Traffic and .Parking Evaluation and the Newport Beach Country Club Parking Supply Analysis (LSA, August 20; 2005). As presented below, these . analyses are flawed and in need of revisions. The proposed transfer of development rights would violate. the City's Zoning Code. The City's. Zoning Code allows a transfer of development rights if certain enumerated conditions are met. -Among .'those conditions are that the owner of the transferor site must enter into a legally binding agreement that is recorded against its property: Legal Assurances. A covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded against the decreased site assuring that all of the above requirements will be met by the current and fume property. owners. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, j 20.63.080 (adopted November 1998). A legally binding agreement cannot be recorded against the transferor's property without its consent. Thais section of the Zoning Code also requires the City to make additional, specific findings before approving a transfer of development rights. Similarly, the project requires a General Plan amendment and Zoning Code :amendment to >reflect the transfer of development intensity from Anomaly 43 to Anomaly 46. The MIND does not analyze any of these required elements. If, as it appears, the City is not going to require consent from the .owner of the transferor site, is not going to require a General Plan amendment and .Zoning Code amendment, and is not going . to make the *required findings, . this will have significant land use implications. Most immediately, these requirements are designed to minimize land use conflicts from transfers of development rights. If the City does not follow its own procedures, the transfer involved in this proposed project could have land use impacts. Perhaps more importantly, by approving this project and its proposed transfer of development rights, die City would be setting a precedent. The Citv would be saving that any landowner can. transfer development intensity from other. landowners without following the requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Code. This precedent would have wide - ranging :largely negative impacts tluoughout the City on planning and land use issues. Indeed, :here is no reason for the City to .even engage in planning if it views potential development intensity as "floating" and able to be transferred without following die Zoning Code and General Plan. The City should sftudy the impacts of the proposed transfer for this project, and for the precedent it sets, in an EIR. 7. NOISE Issue question b). addresses the potential for excessive ground vibration or noise levels and concludes that there would be no significant impacts. Under the best case scenario, demolition and construction would occur over a 36 -month period, assumhig that all work at both the golf club and tennis court would occur concurrently. Worst case, demolition and constriction could take 80 months, if work is done separately at the golf club and tennis club. In addition, the project involves the use of a rock crusher, which will crush asphalt and other_ materials for use in the development of the proposed project. Given the project's proposed demolition and construction activities and the duration that those activities could occur, it is questionable that impacts relative to ground borne vibration and noise would be less than significant and would not, at least; require mitigation. This should be studied in an EIR. Newport Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) Rec e oflniti lStn ly /dAikgeted Ugat v Declamtrar anaAnociated Teenluml Donc nntr/Sbrdiec August 4, 2011 Page 6 f ,i 15 16 RECUF,ATION The project is not consistent wath the General Plan Recreation Element. Development of the Bungalows will lead to the elimination of active recreational open space through the demolition of 17 tennis .courts. The NeNrpost Beach General Plan at page 8 -7 includes a description of the Cry's recreational facilities facilities and counts among those facilities private recreational uses stating, "Private facilities, including yacht clubs, golf coarsen, and counav dubs, arc also facilities tiiat serve residents ofNewport Beach." The General Plan At page 8 -11 discusses the recreational issues- and needs of the Newport Beach community. The section . notes that, "fo]ther identified facihr;, needs include bike and pedestrian trails, . s courts, dog p rks, tot lots /playgrounds, golf driving range, public sanne recreational and lighted teen educational facilities, and public restrooms." The General Plan has identified a recreational need in the community for tennis courts, and notes that private facilities help to serve the recreational needs of Newport 13.each families. The project will result in a reduction in the number of terms courts available at the country club. The demolition of these courts is bkcly to shift the demand for temus court space ftom Ube Country, Club to the already burdened public recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, the project in further burdens being placed on public recreational facilities_ which is contrary will result to the poi +rtes_ in this Element of the General Plan. In addition; General Plan policy R 1.7 (page 8 -40) directs the City to coordinate with owners of private packs to conduct City recreation programs on private parkland. Similarly, policy R5.1 (page 3-44) directs the City to, "Utilize non-City recreational facilities and open space (e.g., Newport -Mesa Unified School District, county, and state facilities) to supplement the park and recreational .. needs of the community. \4aintain.. the use of existing shared facilities, and expand the use of non city facilities /amenincs where desirable and feasible.- Approval of the Project would undermine the ability of the City to coordinate public use of tine tennis courts at tine Country Club which would be contrary to the General Plan policy. The BIND fails to analyze whether the project's removal of tennis courts will overburden other tennis courts in the City. Given the large reduction in tennis courts (17 courts), it is likely that other tennis courts within. the City will face much increased use, which could lead to their wearing out and needing to be replaced early or pressure for additional tennis courts to be built elsewhere. The City should analyze the project's impact on recreational facilities in an environmental "Pact. report. MR NSPORT-MON /TRLAFFIC The discussion of traffic impacts associated with the project rely on the conclusion that the project would result in less trips than are generated by existing development on the project site. The analysis must also include an evaluation of tire impact the project's trips have on the surrounding circulation network: The travel patterns for hotel trips and nips for tennis club users may be very different and create different demands on the circulation system. Until a detailed traffic analysis is completed, there is not enough information in the record on which to base the conclusion. i\doreovex,- the -Nfi \D relies on trip generation rates from a manual to establish the number of trips the tennis courts currently generate. The U1ND- did not measure the trips generated from the tennis courts, . even though it world have been easy to do and is typically how existing traffic conditions are established. Given that the tennis courts are apparently underutilized (and thus are being eliminated), it seems likely that the trip generation rates used to estimate the. traffic generated by the tennis courts exaggerates the traffic the courts actually generate. if. traffic . from the tennis courts is overestimated, then the project's traffic impacts would be understated in the N ND. - Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2005. -14) aj7ulm[S&,AVILlrgad I vita Dedara[rou anAArmaater. Te<.fiieal r5 ...... (Air August 4, 2091 Page 7 The City should prepare an EIR fox the project in which it measures die existing traffic baseline and uses that. to analyze the project's traffic impacts. Without such an adequate baseline, the project's actual impacts on traffic are unknown and,unkcnowable. Relative to the discussion of construction traffic under issue question d), the project's construction . scheduled is extremely lone — 36 months as best case and 30 months as worst case. With such a long construction schedule, it would seem that local traffic will be interrupted for an extended period of time. This should be addressed under the discussion of increased hazards. 10, TvLANDATORYFLtiDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE As presented above, there are substantial_ inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and lack of analysis in the IS, which influence the determination in the slandatory Findings of Significance. For example, under issue question (a), the fact that the IS does not address the potential that mature trees provide nesting areas: fox migratory birds, leads to a conclusion of "Less than Significant" that is not supported. At the same time that the proposed Newport Beach Country Club project is being evaluated for environmental effects, a competing project is also being proposed by a different: applicant for the golf . dub portion of the project site. That project proposes demolition of the existing golf clubhouse and construction of a new golf clubhouse and ancillary .facilities resulting in 70,035 square feet— more than twice the size of the new golf clubhouse proposed by Golf .Realty Fund. An EIR should be prepared that considers the cumulative effects that could result should the City approve International Bay Chubs' .competing proposal for a 70,038 square foot golf clubhouse and Golf Realty Fund's proposal to expand other uses on the project size. SPECIFIC COMMENTS — TECHNICAL STUDIES TRAFFIC AND PARKING EVALUATION 1. Page 3, Table 2 — Project Trip Generation. — Table 2 includes a quantification of traffic .associated with the project, based on the proposed uses. However, all uses proposed for the project are not included in Table 2. For example, the project includes a fitness center and a,.spa (and perhaps a pool). (Note: It. is 7,� unclear in the Project Description to the IS if these are three separate uses or one facility.) Additionally, die project includes banquet and event space gird perhaps a dining room. Traffic associated with these uses is not included in the overall traffic assessment. These uses are separate from other uses proposed for the project and could generate traffic in addition to the trips shown in Table 2. A traffic analysis should be prepared that accurately evaluates all traffic associated with the proposed project. 2. Page S states,. "Since the proposed i \tezvport Beach Convtg Club project )Pill generate lass d i# trff, and! weak baur 1jap7c tbcrvt the ekzrtfng z /evelopnrent on the rite, no azzalyrir of tbepr yea's tzaffic impact on the surrounding street system is neco.uary." Without an analysis of traffic impacts based on the existing conditions today (i.e., a baseline derived from on -thc- ground observations), it is impossible to determine if traffic generated by the project would impact roadway segments . and /or intersections. If there is the potential for traffic from the project to impact already congested roadways and /ox intersections, significant impacts could result, despite the project's relatively small contribution. A traffic . analysis is required .. for the project to determine the project's impacts on traffic circulation in the project area. 3. Page 7, Table 3 — 'fable 3 identifies parking requirements for the project. However, Table 3 does nor . include parking required fox banquets and other events. Furthermore, the amount of parking for the Bungalows (1 space per uuut, plus 2) underestimates the project's parking needs. That rate is 20 derived from the Newport Beach Country Club Parking Supply :Analysis prepared by LSA (august 20, 2008). The Parking Supply Analysis states, "Nfany of the tno- bedroom bungaloiPs may be occapied by a jams!# or groa95 traveling together and therefore would not typscalh� reguiro brio parking spaces." An equally likely scenario is Newport Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) IL.cxev ofln¢ia[Slyd }Irlft,�etu(Nga4cx Dzdarakon andA.rtacialerllz xlulal Dabrmersk /Snalru Augus',4,20 17 Page 8 21 that families or groups would rent a two- bedroom bungalow and arrive in separate vehicles, requiring more than one parking space per unit. Additionally, the Parking Supply Stud 'v assuages that the spa (fitness center) and pool are amenities for the Bungalow guests, who will already be parked in spaces to serve the Bungalows. In reality, though, as stated in the Parking Supply Analysis, "Tbe fitness area is primaayl used by members andguests of the Bungalow, bui may also be used by members of the Tennis Club." 'l. Page 9 addresses a "parking easement" with the adjacent Corporate Plaza West development. However, there is no discussion of the details of that arrangement. How is the parking guaranteed? Additionally, the Traffic and Parking Evaluation states that "in the event that a largegalboriug occurs duneg weekday business hours, wiiicb mould cause the pctrtiing demand to exceed the parking izrppy on a typical weekday, a separate Parking 1danagemnit Plan would be inquired to address off -site parking needs'. This implies that there is the potential fox a significant parking impact that would be mitigated through a Parking l+fanagement Plan. However, the IS does not include such a mitigation measure, and there is no discussion relative to the contents of the Parking Management Plan. Therefore, the impacts have the potential to be significant and unmitigated. NOISE 1. Page 8 states that "Outdoor recreational activities at the Courtr� Club are generally very low;�ey (tennis �aradgoo and rzpresent a contirrnucrkon of eeisteng activities. No impact anal)uzs sags therefore irorrdsated for outdoorrecreatior ". While it 22 may be true that recreational activities associated with the proposed project are low key, the Noise Report should include an evaluation and conclusion as to whether those activities generate significant noise levels in the surrounding environment. PARKING SUPPLY ANALYSIS 1. Page 1 and 2 - The amount of parking required for the Bungalows (1 space per unit, plus 2) underestimates the project's parking needs. That rate is based on the assumption that "Mang of the hvo- 23 bedroom bungalow may be occupied by a famiy or group travefing togetber and therefore mound not typicazy require two parking spaces." An equally likely scenario is that families or groups would Lent a two- bedroom. bungalow and arrive in separate vehicles, requiring more than one paxlung space per unit. 2. The Parking Supply Analysis assumes that the spa (fitness center) and pool are amenities for the Bungalow guests, who will already be parked in spaces to serve the Bungalows. In reality, though, as 2� stated in the Parking Supply Analysis, "7 be fitness area a primarily used by members and guests of the Bungalows, but may also be used by members of the Tennis Club." 25 3. The Parking Supply Analysis addresses other: uses that are not described in the Project Description of the IS. For example, page 3 of the Parking Supply Analysis references "rhatgun "golf tournaments. Page 2 of the study states that the (mess center would be available for use by members and guests of the Bungalows and tennis club members, and identifies a 3,034 square foot dining room and 2,567 square feet of banquet space to be located at the golf clubhouse. These facilities would serve residents of the Villas, the Bungalows; and members of the tennis club. The facilities would also be available for `private events sponsored by a golf member." The NPDES Technical Stuciv references golf clini %f' and "a venue far association meeting and /or educational retreats." It is unclear if the Parking Supply Analysis anticipates all of these uses. - Additionally, there is no discussion of the potential parking needs if all proposed facilities are in use at one time and /or tournament(s) are also occurring. 4. Page 4 of the Parking, Supply Analysis addresses a "parking easement" with the adjacent Corporate Plaza Wiest development, which would provide 554 parking spaces to be used on evening, weekends, and holidays 26 and references large events and large garberzngs. There is no analysts as to whether the additional 554 spaces would adequately serve any additional parking needs for the project Additionally, there are no controls Newport Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) 1ii.axam of 'I�ii1 atS,xAylllr(rgete</r\Tegahrx Dedumman ant! 4troria[ed 1ernlurat:Don mn2rlSha/,er August 4, 2011 Page 9 that events at the Newport Beach Country Chub which might require .additional parking would, . in fact, be limited to evenings, weekends, and holidays. Neither the Parking Supply Analysis nor the IS explain how die pading arrangement with Corporate Plaza West is implemented for the project and what City involvement there is in the lease arrangements. Therefore, it is inappropriate to assume that .adequate parking would be available; and a potentially significant impact associated with parking could result from the project PI- L1SL.I ENZ<IRONI4ENTAL. SITE ASSESSn\,IENT The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is "hated on the planned continued use as a golf cone" and concludes, "no furtber investigation is likely ivarranted at this time." However, the project proposed an 2% intensification of uses on the project site As specifically stated in the Phase I Environmental Site Investigation, `iSoiZ sampling mould be recorsmended prior to ate redevelopment of the subject property." Therefore, soil testing should conducted, a new Phase I Environmental Site assessment should be prepared, . and the IS should be revised to document the findings of the new Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. .AIR QU ALITY,INALYSIS 11. Page 14 states "Dz+tt it ypically the primary coneenr dur=ng sonttnrctaor It is unclear if the Air Quality Analysis 281 includes impacts associated with the demolition and crushing activities. The Air Quality Analysis should include air quality impacts associated with demolition and rock crushing activities, as well as construction. 29 2. Page 15 acknowledges that only the construction schedule for the tennis club portion of the project was available, and that the .Air Quality Analysis assumes a similar construction schedule . for the golf club portion of the project. The .kit Quality analysis should be revised . to clean address both construction schedules. In reviewing the IS. and Project Description, it is unclear if construction for the project overlaps. (34 to 36 months) or occurs in a consecutive manner (80 months). If constriction overlaps, impacts to air quality= could be worsened. If construction is consecutive, impacts could be long term in nature. Even with the shortest of construction. schedules (34 to 36 months), constriction impacts will occur for an extended period of time. o. Page 15 states "construction activity dust emissions are considered to have a cueaulatively sign jicmzt impact." Yet the IS 30.1 states that there would be no significant air quality impacts. An environmental impact report should . be prepared that analyzes this significant cumulative Impact and the mate project, 4. Page 15 states, "There are fen, sensitive tzceptovr mithin 100 feet from the project construction penmetei". This implies 3� that there are some. sensitive receptors that could be adversely affected by fine. particulates. If that is the case, as evaluation of potential health risks to those "few sensitive receptors should be conducted. These potential impacts should be evaluated in an EIR. 5. Page 16 The table Included on page 16 applies to the tennis club portion of the project Is it reasonable 32 to assume that similar equipment would be required for the golf club portion of the project? If not, what additional impacts could be expected from the golf club portion of the project? 6. Page 18 includes an unsupported analysis of potential health risks associated with diesel exhaust particulates, dismissing impacts by stating "the toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour jeer day, 365 days per year, 70D ear lifeiime exposure. Public exposure to heavy equipment emissions will he an extremely small 33 fraction of ibe above dosage assumption ... Any public health rick associated with project- related heavy .equipment operations exhaust is therefore net quantifiable, but small'. If the public health risk is "not quantifiable ", how can it be concluded to be "small "? Additionally, if construction occurs over an 36 -. .month period (best. Newport Beach Conu" Club (PA 2005 -14) tiecxem afLri!ialStr(y /rKrigelee t \- egatrce Div6mlrmr mrl ltmraa[edT bn¢lDaumr rztr /SVrAier August 4, 2011 Page 10 34 case scenario) or an 80- montli period (worst case scenario), exposure to diesel particulates would occur over a long period of tune. Given the lengthy construction period and lack of conclusive evidence regarding health risk from diesel particulates, the Air Quality analysis should be revised to include a health risk assessment and an EIR should be prepared that includes this analysis. /. Pages- 19 and 20 address potential operational impacts of the project. That analysis is based on the information provided in the Traffic and Parking Evaluation prepared for the project. However, as discussed above, that evaluation is flawed and underestimates traffic associated with the project. Therefore, the evaluation of operational impacts must be .revised to account for additional trips associated with the spa, fitness center, banquet facilities; event space, dining room, tournament play, golf clinics, association meetings, and educational retreats. 8. Page 20 and Table S — The URBEMIS200: model used to calculate area source and operational emissions should be updated. to reflect actual project completion dates. �: /nth a minimum 36 -moarh 3p�. construction schedule, the project will. not be complete by 2012. additionally, the result contained in Table 5 should not be evaluated against the existing project. Instead, a determination should be made as to whether emissions levels exceed SCAQYID thresholds. GREENHOUSE GAS EA4ISSIONS 36 1. Page 25 states, "all GHG emissions are coynidered to have a cztmulative global impact Implementation of reasonably available control measures is recommended ... tMeasares that deduce tzip oangrefon or tripe lengths; measures that optimise the transportation ecieng, of a rsgion; and measuves that prerrote enemy conseryalion within a developmeet will redeue GHG erziiazmu:" The discussion goes on to recommend three GHG reduction measures Construct new commercial building to LEED'specification. Promote solid waste mioimi2ation and recycling. incorporate fast - growing, low water use landscape to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce water use. The GHG analysis does not provide any conclusion relative to whether the project results in significant impacts. It is unclear if the project is implementing any of these measures. Additionally, there is no discussion in the Aix Quality /GHG Analysis or in the IS regarding project design features that promote sustainable development. Such features could help reduce the project's GHG emissions. For these reasons, it is unclear whether the project has successfully mitigated its cumulatively significant GHG impacts. The City should study the project's GHG emissions in an environmental impact report. PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT The following potential impacts should be analyzed in an EIR: h11. Page 4 — The Preliminary Hydrology Report identifies the need for'upsizing an existing storm drain. 37 Does the project include upsizing the storm drain? If not, would any impacts on drainage (such as flooding) result? 36 12. Page 4 — The project requires construction of a new 30 -inch RCP on an adjacent property. Has the adjacent property - owner agreed? If not, is there a potential For impacts? Newport Beach Canutry Club (P-A-200-5-1.4)1. Neese v of7nrhn131 rdjlNrrigrtad Negahre Dedamtrau muL4,zaeed Tenrhrrdl Doorm.a1r15?lydw August 4, 2011 Page 11 CONCLUS'fOfif The Newport Beach County Club Initial Study lacks sufficient detail and information, fails to evaluate project impacts against the existing environmental conditions; underestimates the potential for project impacts by ignoring, project features .. which may generate traffic and parking and contribute to air quality impacts, and GHG 3,9 emissions, makes erroneous conclusions that are in conflict with or cannot be support by technical studies, ignores requirements of the _ltigmtory Bixd Act, and lacks an adequate evaluation of aesthetic and community character impacts. The City should prepare an FIR to fully analyze the project's potential impacts, thoroughly analyze the potential for cumulative impacts, and evaluate project alternatives drat could reduce or avoid potentially significant environmental impacts. _ Newpoq Beach Conutry Club (PA 2005 -14) &auv ofL+ilialShrd� /VlitigrL•d \e !m DLCIORIttOa axd�lxod�ed Ieewl Daamai+tr /Stadler August 4, 2011 Pare 12 Response to Public Comments.- KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -1401 Response to Public Comments Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund KLR Planning (Submitted with Latham & Watkins Letter dated August 4, 2011) Response to Comment No. 1 The Bungalows proposed by the applicant will consist of 27 "hotel" units that encompass approximately 29,044 square feet of floor area. A 2,170 square foot Concierge and Guest Center is also included in this development component. In addition, the Bungalow Spa, which is an auxiliary use for and part of the Bungalows, encompasses 7,490 square feet. This facility will include a fitness center, spa, spa bar and lounge. Other features include a Zen Garden, Jacuzzi and swimming pool. The pool and /or spa equipment will be enclosed by five -foot block wall. The maximum building height of the Bungalows is 31 feet, measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof. As stated in the parking analysis prepared by LSA, access to the fitness center, which is located within the Bungalow Spa, will be available to tennis club members on a limited basis. Response to Comment No. 2 The golf clubhouse floor plan has a maximum of 35,000 gross square feet, exclusive of below grade cart storage, in two stories, including approximately 18,100 square feet on the first floor and approximately 16,900 square feet on the second floor. The lower floor will accommodate the following features: Grill, women's lounge and locker room, men's locker room, and pro shop Other features included on the first floor include a cart barn and club storage. The second floor will accommodate a banquet room and kitchen, dining room, lounge, foyer, offices, private meeting and dining rooms, and a "1g'" hole." As indicated in Response to Comment No. 1, the Concierge and Guest Center is a component of the proposed Bungalows and is not associated with the Golf Clubhouse. Response to Comment Nod 3 Golf clinics, meetings, and /or educational retreats are some of many activities that may take place at the Newport Beach Country Club (NBCC). These activities are typical of golf clubs generally and, therefore, are not separate uses. Response to Comment No! 4 The discussion of project compliance with the SB 18 requirement (i.e., Native American consultation) was required for a prior submittal of the proposed project that did necessitate an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Although SIB 18 consultation did occur, the project was subsequently revised to eliminate the need for the general plan amendment, however, the reference to that discretionary action was inadvertently left in the document. An errata will be prepared that deletes the reference to the general plan amendment noted in this comment. Response to Comment No. 5 The proposed Golf Realty Fund project and the proposed International Bay Clubs project have been submitted as separate applications. Environmental review has been conducted for each application. At this point it is speculative to assume what decisions will be made by the Planning Commission and, ultimately, by the City Council with respect to either application. However, as with any land development proposal, modifications may be made to the project proposals by the reviewing body and final approval may be given to a project which differs from the applicant's original proposal. The adequacy of the CEQA Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response. to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club- (PA2005 -140) review for that approved project will be judged against the environmental review in the record of approval. That record may incorporate approved and /or certified environmental documents other than the one specifically prepared for the project application. The validity of the CEQA review will depend upon the environmental documents relied upon by the decision- making bodies at the time of project approval. Here, there are a number of possible variations of either and /or a combination of both proposed projects which could be approved or, potentially, both projects could be denied. Should a "hybrid" of these project proposals emerge and ultimately be approved by the City Council as a single project, the City Council must determine if the combined environmental analysis for both projects adequately and accurately assesses the potential impacts of the "hybrid" project. The extent, if any, to which further environmental review is required will be based upon that determination. Response to Comment No. 6 Several projects are proposed or have been approved within proximity to the proposed project, including the North Newport Center Planned Community, a 17 -lot residential development at 919 Bayside Drive, Aerie (9 condominiums that would replace a 14 -unit apartment), the Hyatt Regency Expansion project, Newport Beach City Hall and park development, the Santa Barbara Condominiums (79 condominium units), the Megonigal residence (1 single - family residential dwelling unit), and the IBC proposal for the Newport Beach Country Club. In addition, 1,750 square feet of new office space and 6 residential dwelling units are proposed for Plaza Corona del Mar. With the exception of the Plaza Corona del Mar project, each of the approved projects identified above has been subject to environmental analysis and most have evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Newport Beach Country Club project in the cumulative impact analysis presented in the respective environmental documents. Furthermore, with only two exceptions (Aerie and the IBC proposal for the NBCC, each of which included General Plan amendments), these projects were determined to be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and each, including the proposed project, were adequately evaluated in the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update. That EIR analyzed potential cumulative impacts (e.g., traffic, noise; air quality, etc.) and identified policies and/or mitigation measures to address potential cumulative impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan. In addition, where such cumulative impacts were identified in subsequent environmental analysis prepared for each project, the environmental analysis incorporated project design features and /or mitigation measures to address both project- related and potential cumulative impacts anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. As indicated in the traffic and parking assessment, the proposed' project would result in a net decrease in peak hour traffic and would not, therefore, contribute significantly to cumulative traffic impacts. As a result, the proposed project does not have any adverse incremental traffic impacts and does not contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. Similarly, post- development air and noise impacts would also be reduced when compared to existing and future conditions without the project and, therefore, will not contribute to cumulative air and noise impacts. Although potentially significant construction- related impacts may occur, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the noise, traffic and air quality impacts to a less than significant level With that mitigation, the incremental construction- related noise impacts will not be cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with the other "cumulative" projects identified above. Because the project site is not designated as an important visual resource and, furthermore, site development would not adversely affect important views from designated important view locations, the proposed project does not have any incremental adverse visual impacts. Thus, the project will not contribute incrementally to any potential cumulative visual impacts. Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response to Public Comments - KLR.Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -1401 The General Plan EIR also concluded that buildout would not result in significant cumulative drainage impacts. Project- related increases in runoff are addressed through improvements to the storm drain system, which is a requirement of each project proposed in the City. Although there will be a net reduction in the number of tennis courts on the subject property, no significant impacts to recreation are anticipated as indicated in Response to Comment No. 15 because the revised court configuration will continue to meet the demands of the club. As a result, there is no expectation that there is any incremental adverse impact on public recreational use. Because no agricultural soils, forestry and /or mineral resources exist on the subject property, implementation of the project would not contribute cumulatively to any loss of these resources. While mature landscaping that could support nesting of avian species, no habitat and /or sensitive species occur on the presently- developed property, that landscaping is not impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the project will not contribute incrementally to any potential cumulative loss to these resources. With the exception of asbestos containing materials and lead -based paint, which must be remediated in accordance with current regulatory requirements, the site does not contain hazardous materials. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR, these materials would not pose a potentially significant cumulative impact within the City and, therefore, would not contribute incrementally to potential cumulative impacts. Project implementation would result in neither the loss or existing housing nor the displacement of existing residents and, therefore, would not contribute incrementally to potential cumulative impacts to housing and population. All of the public services and utilities currently exist in the project area and are adequate to serve the existing and future development without a significant cumulative impact. Potential cumulative impacts to schools would be offset by the payment of the statutory school fees imposed by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Therefore, based on prior environmental analyses conducted for several projects which have considered the proposed project in the cumulative analysis conducted for each, including the Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, no potentially significant cumulative impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Response to Comment No. 7 As indicated in the Traffic and Parking Evaluation prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, the trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Publication (8th Edition), which is the recognized by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department as the "industry standard" for determining trip generation in the City. Based on those recognized trip generation rates, implementation of the proposed project would result in a net reduction of vehicular trips when compared to the existing land uses occupying the site. Parking requirements reflected in the initial study that apply to the proposed project are based on parking rates reflected in the City's Municipal Code as well as the proposed Planned Community District Regulations. It is important to note that the ITE trip generation rate used to estimate project- related trips (i.e., ITE #430) reflects that for golf courses. Land Use category #430 (Golf Course) is used for golf courses, including 9 -, 18 -, 27 -, and 36 -hole golf courses, which may also have driving ranges and clubhouses with a pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. According to the ITE description, most of the facilities included in this Category were located in suburban areas, with a few also located in scenic, rural Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response:. to Public Comments -.KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005-140) areas. As a result, the vehicular trips anticipated to occur as a result of these uses, which are also part of the proposed project, have been assessed in the initial study. Response to Comment No. 8 The project description presented on Pages 1 through 24 of the MND provides both graphic and narrative descriptions of each of the project components proposed by the applicant. Specifically, Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed uses. Additional detail for each of the proposed components is provided in the NBCC PCD Regulation and below. The project site encompasses approximately 142 acres, which are divided into four sub - areas identified below. Each sub -area as well as the hand car wash is described following the table. Land Use Allocations Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan Golf Realty Fund Sub Area Approximate Area (Acres) The Tennis Club Sub -Area 4.62 The Villas Sub -Area 1.25 The Bungalows Sub -Area 3.44 The Golf Club Sub -Area 133.01 Total 142.32 'Includes Golf Clubhouse; Golf Parking Lot and Hand Car Wash SOURCE: Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan (July 12, 2010 Golf Clubhouse The golf clubhouse floor plan has a maximum of 35,000 gross square feet, exclusive of below grade cart storage, in two stories, including approximately 18,100 square feet on the first floor and approximately 16,900 square feet on the second floor. The lower floor will accommodate the following features: Grill, women's lounge and locker room, men's locker room, and pro shop. Other features included on the first floor include a cart barn and club storage. The second floor will accommodate a ban�uet room and kitchen, dining room, lounge, foyer, offices, private meeting and dining rooms, and a "19` hole." Other features which currently exist and will continue to be part of the clubhouse facilities include a snack stand (180 square feet), existing golf course restroom facilities, and existing greens keeper buildings and area. The maximum height of the proposed golf clubhouse is 53 feet 6 inches, measured from the existing grade to the mid -point of the sloped roof. (The reference to a maximum 50 -foot height limit reflected in Table 1 on page 4 of the initial study referenced in this comment is incorrect and will be revised to reflect the 53 feet 6 -inch maximum height noted in this description.) Tennis Clubhouse and Courts The maximum floor area of the tennis clubhouse is 3,725 gross square feet and will have a maximum building height of 30 feet (measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof). The tennis Response to Comments =.KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Response to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -140) clubhouse includes a lobby, pro shop, office and locker rooms. A total of seven tennis courts, including one stadium court will replace the 24 tennis courts that currently exist on the subject property. Screening for the tennis courts from The Villas E will also be provided in the form of a five-foot block wall that would be designed to be compatible with the proposed Villa E, adjacent to the tennis courts In addition, the exterior perimeter of the tennis courts facing the Granville Condominiums, Granville Drive, and the Tennis Club parking lot will also be screened, utilizing the existing 10 -foot high chain link fence covered by a wind screen. Bungalows The Bungalows proposed by the applicant will consist of 27 "hotel' units that encompass approximately 29,044 square feet of floor area. A 2,170 square foot Concierge and Guest Center is also included in this development component. In addition, the Bungalow Spa, which is an auxiliary use for and part of the Bungalows, encompasses 7,490 square feet. This facility will include a fitness center, spa, spa bar and lounge. Other features include a Zen Garden, Jacuzzi and swimming pool. The pool and /or spa equipment will be enclosed by five -foot block wall. The maximum building height of the Bungalows is 31 feet, measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof. VLIII:71 The five Villas are proposed within a 1.25 -acre sub -area. Lot sizes of the single - family detached residential dwelling lots will vary from 5,295 square feet (Villa A) to 17,151 (Villa D) square feet. Homes will range in size from 2,201 square feet (Plan A) to 6,384 square feet (Plan D). The maximum budding heights (measured from existing grade) permitted for the Villas ranges from 23 feet (Villa A) to 39 feet (Villa D). Swimming pools are also permitted for each of the five Villas. Golf Club Parking Lot and Private Hand Car Wash The proposed Golf Club Parking Lot has 300 on -site parking spaces. In addition, as described in Response to Comment No. 4 of The Irvine Company„ above, an existing perpetual offsite Parking Agreement will continue to provide as many as 554 non- exclusive parking spaces on weekends and holidays to supplement the onsite Golf Club parking. The frontage road that exists adjacent to East Coast Highway will be eliminated and replaced with landscaping. In addition, a private hand car wash area is proposed within the parking lot in the vicinity of Country Club Drive: The area identified to accommodate this project feature encompasses approximately 240 square feet (i.e., 12 feet wide and 20 feet long). Use of the private hand car wash is limited to golf and possibly tennis club members only. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 4, the reference to the need for a General Plan Amendment (i.e., Land Use Element) was inadvertently left in the document after the project was revised, eliminating the need for the amendment to the Land Use Element. A General Plan Amendment is not required for the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 9 The character of the proposed project is illustrated in several elevations. As indicated in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, the proposed golf course clubhouse reflects a California Mediterranean architectural style. All exterior plaster on the structure are proposed be smooth, steel troweled and burned, and applied over masonry block to obtain a higher quality and more durable finish. Roofs are proposed to be red the and steel windows. The structure is complemented by stone veneer walls. The proposed Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa and Villas would reflect a similar character and style as illustrated in elevations shown in Exhibit 3 (Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa) and Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 (Villas - Plans A and B), resulting in a fully integrated character of each of the land use components. Response to Comments -. KLR.Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) �d ) m ^ � }( ..� ƒ« ��5: I \ ,_ � \� j \ ;( \ ( � LLI 3 3 ■ N U1 a.+ C T O L .- x > > w m w am 7 O L U N i O U L ° v o Xm WLn C I I m H `��° •'°' o � E m� 5m za N U1 a.+ C T O L .- x > > w m w am 7 O L U N i O U L W O c/) w = E M o M 2N \ _�3 9 M C r C Z o L > W N W R Q O A C 7 m v c m m N 7 O s U N 'c c d F // tl ' JJ °o 5 °o a V G a O a � L > W U N E-u Q c m a N m d t z 0 0 0 a OR J � � J °�' u � 3 0 tl m •j m� F W nN `� • • � a Y Zd x Q `.'e // tl ' JJ °o 5 °o a V G a O a � L > W U N E-u Q c m a N m d t \ 2 ! ] 3 , ® _ \ \ E ° { 9! E \ 2 ! ] ( �; 3 , ® _ \ \ E ° { 9! ( �; Response to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club. - 1PA2005 -140) The panoramic view of the ocean is available from the top of Newport Center Drive circle straight ahead down Newport Center Drive towards Pacific Coast Highway. Only a "peek -a -boo" ocean view over the existing site now occurs between the last Granville Condominium, Unit and the McMonigle Group office building and after the McMonigle Group office building located at the intersection of Newport Center Drive and the private Granville Road (refer to Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9). The improvements proposed by the NBCC PCD would not result in any significant visual impact on the view at the "peek -a -boo" ocean view between the last Granville Condominium and the McMonigle Group office building (refer to Exhibit 6, "View from Point 1 "). Only a barely discernible impact on the "peek -a -boo" view of the ocean from the sidewalk at the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Granville (refer to Exhibit 8, "View from Point 3 ") The proposed NBCC PCD would not impact the Public View Point in Irvine Terrace Park because the significant public view from Irvine Terrace is oriented toward Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The NBCC PCD, on the other hand, is located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway from Irvine Terrace Park. Furthermore, the wall buffering Irvine Terrace Park from Pacific Coast Highway, together with the building in Corporate Plaza West and the existing landscaping, makes the Golf Club Parking Lot the only area within NBCC PCD visible from Irvine Terrace Park (refer to Exhibit 9, "View from Point 4 ") and the view of the Golf Club Parking Lot would be improved aesthetically as a result of a large landscaped berm along Pacific Coast Highway and four rows of perpendicular in the Golf Club Parking Lot. Response to Comment No. 10 With the use of RACMs, daily PM10 emissions during site grading (exclusive of demolition activities) would be 7 pounds per day (0.7 X 10.0 = 7 lb/day). The SCAQMD significance threshold of 150 pounds per day would not be exceeded. With the use of Best Available Control Measures (BALM), daily PM10 emissions can be further reduced. Because of the PM1e non- attainment status of the air basin, construction activity dust emissions are considered to have a cumulatively significant impact. Use of Best Available Control Measures ( BACMs) is thus required even if SCAQMD individual CEQA thresholds are not exceeded by use of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACMs). Although the particulate emissions estimated to occur as a result of construction activities necessary to implement the proposed project would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds on an individual basis, these short-term would have a cumulatively significant impact, as indicated in this comment, because the South Coast Air Basis in designated a "non attainment area." However, because these impacts are short-term in nature and would be adequately addressed through the imposition of the menu of measures prescribed in the initial study and by the SCAQMD, the short-term, cumulative PM10 emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. Current research in particulate- exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra - small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM2.5') was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM2.5 range. PM25 emissions are estimated by the SCAQMD to comprise 20.8 percent of PM1e: Other studies have shown that the fugitive dust fraction of PMzs is closer to 10 percent. Daily PM2.5 emissions during construction will be approximately 2 pounds per day compared to the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 55 pounds per day. Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 11 H z 0 CL 0 U- w Fa Y Y .Q C L C Q Lu �C C O L W 3 d N z 0 CL 0 U- w FE h N Y Y C L O G W E O L W 3 d E 0 0 a s U C O H 0 c O U O �i E w x a a m - M H z C) CL 5 0 cr LU w OF co m a= r0 Wd CL E 0 w 3 d F. z 0 w 0 LU _w 0) Q i.a V L O Q W d /C G 0 L 3 m Response to Public Comments -.KLR Planning Newport Country Club - (PA2005 -140) Response to Comment No. 11 As indicated in this comment, the site supports several trees that could occupied by nesting birds during the nesting and breeding season. As such, as with any project that supports trees used for nesting by avian species, construction activities are regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, construction is typically prohibited during the breeding season (i.e., February 15 and July 31) unless it is determined through a pre- construction survey (and subsequent weekly surveys during the construction phase) that nesting does not occur in any of the vegetation potentially affected by the construction activities. Construction may also occur during_ the breeding season within 300 feet of nesting species if the noise level at 300 feet from the source to the affected vegetation does not exceed 60 dBA. These standard conditions /requirements would be implemented to ensure that potential impacts to breeding /nesting avian species are avoided. Response to Comment No. 12 A thorough discussion of global climate change within the context of CEQA is presented in the initial study. It is important to note that the discussion and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions /climate change neither suggests nor implies that the phenomenon of global climate change is "speculative." Rather, the analysis acknowledges the occurrence of the global warming. The conclusion presented in that discussion puts the relationship and /or potential effect of a single project's emissions into perspective based on the global nature of the phenomenon. As indicated in that assessment, GHG emissions in California "... do not specifically produce global climate change impacts in California, but rather quickly commingle with GHG emissions from around the world to influence global climate change patterns throughout the world." As a result of this "commingling," it is infeasible to assess the relative contribution of any one project's impact to worldwide emissions without undue speculation. As further explained, it is equally speculative to determine the nature and extent of potential mitigation required fora single- project's potentially significant impact, were it possible to make such a determination in light of the absence of °a regional or statewide plan regulating global warming and by which it could be measured. The analysis appropriately concludes that, therefore, it is not feasible to evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project without speculation. As a result, the MND follows the directive of Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines which states: "If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact." As stated above, the MND's conclusion very specifically was not that the concept of global climate change /global warming is speculative, but rather that the ability to evaluate cumulative impacts resulting from GHG emissions cannot be accomplished using any of the methodologies required by CEQA without the use of speculation. Response to Comment No. 13 As previously indicated (refer to the description of the golf course clubhouse in Response to Comment No. 8), the maximum height of the golf course clubhouse is 53 feet 6 inches; the reference to 50 fleet will be changed to reflect the 53 feet inches are proposed in the PCDP. 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. According to this Policy, development rights may be transferred within the Newport Center /Fashion Island, subject to the approval by the City Council 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. Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -.140) 16 Response to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach. Country Club - (PA2005 -140) The Applicant's request to transfer development rights for 27 hotel rooms from Anomaly Area 43 to Anomaly Area 46 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan in that (1) it relocates a permitted use within Newport Center, maintaining the intended balance of uses set forth in the General Plan for Newport Center, and (2) the General Plan specifically identified up to 65 hotel rooms for the MU -1-13 land use category within Newport Center, making hotel use a permitted use within the Mixed Use Site and maintaining hotel use within the level of intensity set forth in the General Plan. Policy LU 6.14.3 provides that development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City and with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Because there is no conversion of use, the traffic generation for the 27 hotel units transferred will result in no net change in vehicle trips from a General Plan perspective.. Additionally, as set forth in the MIND and its supporting traffic analysis, the proposed project will actually reduce daily vehicle trips, a. m. peak hour trips, and p.m. peak hour trips due to the reduction of tennis courts. Thus, the transfer itself will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. With respect to consistency with the intent of the General Plan, the analysis of relevant land use policies presented in the initial study indicated that the proposed project, and therefore the transfer of development rights, is consistent with the General Plan. However, such a determination of consistency must be made by the Newport Beach City Council prior to approval of the TDR application. Response to Comment No. 14 According to the General Plan EIR, construction activities will occur at discrete locations in the City, including the subject property, and vibration from such activity may impact existing buildings and their occupants if they are located close enough to the construction sites. As suggested in this comment and in the General Plan EIR, vibration levels associated with the rock crushing activities anticipated to occur during the demolition phases of the proposed project, could be problematic if sensitive uses are located within about 100 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, school children) would experience vibration levels that exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB. However, impacts related to construction vibration are event and location specific. Therefore; it will be necessary to ensure a distance of approximately 1,50 feet is maintained between rock crushing activates and existing sensitive receptors. Response to Comment No. 15 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's tennis consultant has suggested that a ratio of one tennis courts for each 35 members is "ideal." The current membership of the existing tennis club combined with the 7 tennis courts that are proposed to remain (i.e., net reduction of 17 tennis courts) 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. The revised court configuration will meet the demands of the club, although the adjusted scheduling will reduce peak hour play (because fewer courts will be available at peak hours) and spread play more evenly throughout the day. This will reflect the typical private club play patterns which result from the one court/35 members "rule of thumb." As a result, there is no expectation that there is any impact on public recreational use. 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." It is important to note that, as a private club, the existing tennis courts are not generally available for public play. While the club has allowed the Corona del Mar Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 17 Response to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach :Country Club - (PA2005 -140) 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. While it is difficult to assess if the loss of 17 privately owned and maintained tennis courts in the City would adversely impact public facilities, it would appear that without additional membership, the 7 remaining tennis courts would continue to be adequate to serve the members and would not significantly impact existing public facilities elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. Although, as indicated above, the existing tennis courts may provide some recreational opportunities within the service area, the loss of 17 of the 24 tennis courts would not be considered a significant adverse impact. This is due to the fact that the continued use of the seven tennis courts proposed for the tennis club, which will remain private facilities, will be limited to members and guests of the proposed facility. 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, 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. 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. Response to Comment No. 16 The assessment of potential project- related traffic impacts follows the City's protocol for conducting traffic analyses. Trip generation for the existing and the proposed project uses were based on the land use quantities for each land use taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition), as shown on Table 2 of the Traffic and Parking Analysis prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Trips generated by the existing land uses were calculated and subtracted from the trips that will be generated by the proposed development. Based on the project trip generation, the proposed project does not generate enough traffic to warrant further detailed analysis. While the commenter's reference to the underutilization of the existing courts may have merit with respect to the number of existing trips on a 24 -hour basis, that number is not the measure of traffic used by the City (or, in fact, by agencies generally), to evaluate traffic impacts. Rather, "peak hour trips" are the relevant factor because they measure traffic activity at those times of the day when projected increases in traffic may potentially result in significant impacts. In addition to applying the City's standard protocol to measure existing peak hour trips, it also is a reasonable assumption to assume that because of the "surplus" of courts available to tennis club members and the heightened demand for peak hour use of those courts, existing play on the courts has been disproportionately occurred during peak hours. Upon completion of the project, only Response to .Comments:- KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) RE Response to Public Comments - KLR.Planning Newport . Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -140). seven, rather than twenty -four, courts will be available for peak hour play; thus reducing the number of players who can play during the High demand peak hours Whether using the City's standard protocol or applying this reasonable assumption regarding peak hour play, the net result is a projected decrease in the number of trips resulting from peak hour use of the tennis courts. As indicated in this comment, implementation of the proposed project will occur in several phases, including demolition, site preparation and construction of the proposed single- family residences, bungalows, and tennis club and related facilities. Although not quantified, construction traffic impacts would include both heavy truck traffic associated with the delivery of construction equipment and building materials and construction worker and/or vendor traffic. As noted in the initial study, these construction - related trips would be expected to result in some congestion along East Coast Highway in the vicinity of the subject property, however, it is important to note that none of these trips would occur during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours due to the restrictions placed on the project through the Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan. As required in the MM -B, which must be submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the plan must identify all construction traffic routes and avoid streets where construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficiency of the proposed route. Other requirements imposed on the project would include restrictions on heavy truck traffic during peak hours, use of flagmen, barricades, and similar measures to ensure that traffic and circulation is not adversely affected. Response to Comment No. 17 Refer to Response to Comment No. 11. As previously indicated the project applicant would be subject to the requirement mandated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and would be required avoid construction during the nesting season (February 15 through July 31). In order to undertaken construction during the nesting season, the applicant would be required to undertake a pre- construction survey to confirm the absence of nesting species. An initial study was prepared for the NBCC proposed by I BC, which includes the demolition of the existing golf course clubhouse and reconstruction of a larger clubhouse as indicated in this comment. Because the analysis for the clubhouse assumes the same trip generation as the GRF proposed clubhouse, despite the larger structure, trip generation of the clubhouse is the same for the two projects. Therefore, with the exception of short-term traffic, noise and air quality impacts, the GRF analysis provides the "worst case" scenario for the two projects if the City were to approved the IBC proposal for the golf course clubhouse and the GRF land use proposal for the tennis club, bungalows and spa, and five single- family residential dwelling units to the east. As indicated for the proposed project, the short-term construction impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the imposition of requirements placed on construction traffic through the Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan prescribed in the MND. Enhanced mitigation is required to ensure that construction- related air pollutant emissions, which were identified to be cumulatively significant due to the "non attainment" status of the air basin, will reduce those temporary impacts to a less than significant level. Similarly, construction noise impacts are short-term in nature and would be controlled through measures prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, properly tuned construction equipment, etc. Other potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant because the proposed clubhouse would not result in any significant changes to the existing land use and, when combined with the land uses to the east proposed by GRF, which result in a reduction of traffic. Response to Comment No. 18 The fitness center and spa are components within the Bungalow component of the proposed project and would be available for use by guest of the Bungalows and perhaps Tennis Club members. As such, the trip generation factors utilized for the Bungalow and Tennis Club uses would include use of the spa and Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach. Country Club (PA2005-140) 19 Response. to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach. Country Club - (PA2005-140) fitness center, which would typically not generate any trips independently. As a result, it is not necessary to include trip generation rates for those uses. Similarly, the trip generation rate used for the golf course club house (Land Use No. 430: Golf Course); reflects not only golf courses up to 36 holes, but also facilities that include a pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. Therefore; the trip generation rate used for the golf course clubhouse is appropriate to estimate trips that would result from the implementation of the proposed project. As previously indicated, because the proposed land use is the same as the existing land use, and would not result in any new trips when compared to the existing land use, a detailed traffic analysis was not required. Response to Comment No. 19 The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project complies with the City's protocol for preparing traffic analyses. Because the peak hour trips generated by the proposed project would be reduced when compared to the existing land uses, it was determined that project- related traffic would not result in a significant impact to existing or future roadway and /or intersection operating conditions. As a result, a detailed traffic analysis was not required. Response to Comment No. 20 The requirement that the applicant prepare a parking management plan is based on the potential for special events to occur at either the golf course or the tennis club, both of which have hosted tournaments in the past. As required by the City of Newport Beach, a special use permit would be required and, as a condition of the special use permit, the applicant would be required to prepare the parking management plan. In the event that additional parking is required to accommodate the special events held at the golf course and /or tennis club, the parking easement is a means by which the applicant could meet the conditions stipulated in the special use permit to provide, among other things, adequate parking. However, based on the proposed uses, the parking proposed for each of the uses, not including special events such as golf or tennis tournaments or other activities determined by the City to require a special use permit, exceeds the parking required by the City and that identified in the Planned Community Development Plan. Response to Comment No. 21 This parking easement noted in the MIND would provide parking at certain times beyond all needs identified for the normal and customary uses of the proposed facilities. However, it is noted simply to provide information with respect to the potential for special events which might require additional parking. Those special events, however, are not part of the proposed project and would not be authorized by approval of the proposed project. Each "special event," which may include golf tournaments, tennis tournaments, or other such activities conducted at the project site would be subject to the granting of a special event permit pursuant to the requirements mandated in Chapter 11.03 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Section 11.30.050 (Standards and Requirements) allows the City to impose conditions on any Special Event Permit, including those related to, "... use of City beaches, fire protection; traffic, parking, security, dust control, water quality protection of the bay and ocean, noise temporary structures, signs and banners, outdoor lighting, insurance, and other matters deemed by the Reviewing Authority to be necessary for protection of public health, safety and general welfare." Response to Comment No. 22 Recreational outdoor noise would be no greater than that occurring at the present time. There are 24 tennis courts that currently exist on the subject property. The use of these courts has, in the past and, generated noise associated with play at the tennis club both during regular play and during tournaments held at the facility. As indicated in the project description, implementation of the proposed project will Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club.(PA2005 -140) 20 Response: to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -140) result in the elimination of 17 tennis courts, leaving seven courts for active play and use. It is anticipated that the level of noise associated with seven tennis courts would be no greater than the noise generated in the past by the use of up to 24 courts. Based on the reduction of the number of tennis courts (i.e., 24 existing courts compared to 7 proposed courts) and the smaller overall area in which tennis would be played, it is anticipated that noise levels at the tennis club could decrease, but in no event would be greater. Furthermore, Section 10.28 of the Noise Ordinance (Loud and Unreasonable Noise) is intended to ensure that noise levels do not create a public nuisance or detriment "... to public health ... and peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants.' To that end, loud and unreasonable noise is prohibited. However, as indicated previously, noise associated with either the proposed tennis club or the golf course would not generate a greater level of exterior noise than currently exists at the present time. Therefore, no significant noise impacts associated with either recreation use are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment No. 23 The Traffic and Parking Evaluation prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates included an assessment of the parking provided for the proposed project. Based on that assessment, the proposed project would result in a surplus of 72 parking spaces, including 8 spaces in excess of the 50 parking spaces required for the tennis club /tennis spa, and 7 spaces more than the 27 parking spaces required for the Bungalows. The table below identifies the City's parking requirements prescribed in the Zoning Code as well as the parking requirements reflected in the proposed Planned Community District Regulations As indicated in that table, on -site parking meets or exceeds the project- related parking requirements. Land Use NBCC PC Parking_. NB Zoning Code Parking Parking Required Parking Provided Surplus /' (D,eficit) Golf Course 244 total As Specified by NB Planning Director 244 300 56 Tennis Club 4 /court 4 /court 28 58 8 Tennis Club Spa 4/1,000 SF 4/1,000 SF 22 Bungalows 1 /rental unit 1! nest room plus 2 27 34 7 Villas (SFDs) 2 covered and 2 off- street/home 2 enclosed /unit 20 21 1 Total I 1 341 413 72 SOURCE: Kimle -Horn and Associates, Inc. The City of Newport Beach has reviewed the parking supply analysis prepared by the applicant's consultant as well as that prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates summarized above and has determined that the parking provided on -site exceeds that required for the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 24 Refer to Response to Comment No. 23. Response to Comment No. 25 Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 21 and 23. Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 21 Response to Public Comments -.KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -140) Response to Comment No. 26 Refer to Response to Comment No. 21. Response to Comment No. 27 The Phase I ESA prepared for the project thoroughly evaluated the potential hazards and /or hazardous materials associated with the existing uses and subject property. With the exception of potential lead - based paint (LBP) and asbestos containing materials (ACM) that may be present in the existing structures„ no recognized environmental conditions were identified during the on -site investigation and /or database search conducted for the proposed project and documented in the ESA. As a result of that investigation, no potentially significant health hazards are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required, despite the recommendation to conduct soil sampling. Response to Comment No. 28 The air quality analysis prepared for the proposed project estimated the potential short-term air quality impacts associated with the asphalt demolition and crushing /reclamation :activities proposed for the project. The results of that analysis are presented in the initial study in Table 1. As indicated in that table, the asphalt demolition and crushing /reclamation activities would generate 3.2 pounds /day of ROG, 31.3 pounds /day of NOx (26.7 pounds /day after mitigation), 14.1 pounds /day of CO, 1.8 pounds /day of PM1c (0.8 pound /day after mitigation), 1.3 pounds /day of PM2.5 (0.3 pound /day after mitigation), and 3,191 pounds /day of CQZ. The table also includes emission estimates for structure demolition, mass grading, fine grading, trenching, construction, and construction and painting. None of the short-term emissions for any of the construction activities exceeded the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Response to Comment No. 29 Construction emissions anticipated for each component of the proposed project would result in small, incremental levels of pollutant emissions. Assuming some "overlap" of the golf course clubhouse and other components of the proposed project as suggested in this comment would be small when combined together and would not result in emissions that would exceed the thresholds established for each pollutant by the SCAQMD. Response to Comment No. 30 As indicated in the initial study, the project- related construction activities will result in potentially significant cumulative air quality impacts. However, these impacts do not exceed significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD and, furthermore are short-term in nature and would occur only during the construction phases of the project. Mitigation measures, including enhanced measures have been prescribed in the MND, because the project area is located in a non- attainment area. Implementation of the mitigation measures; as well as compliance with the SCAQMD- mandated for dust suppression and other pollutant emissions anticipated to occur during construction, are adequate to reduce the potential cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No. 31 Most of the sensitive receptors that would be affected by the proposed project are located more than 100 feet from the proposed project. Construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times with smaller, fine particles remaining suspended in the atmosphere semi - indefinitely. As a result, the dust is comprised mainly of large diameter, inert silicates that are chemically non - reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 22 Response to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -140) particles are, therefore, more of a potential soiling nuisance to random sensitive receptors within 100 feet as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather and typically do not pose an adverse health hazard. The deposition distance of most soiling nuisance particulates is less than 100 feet from the source (EPA, 1995). As indicated above, there are few sensitive receptors within 100 feet from the project construction site perimeter. Response to Comment No. 32 Table 16 in the air quality analysis includes a comprehensive list of construction equipment that would be used over the several construction phases. Because little, if any, asphalt demolition and crushing /reclamation would be required during the construction of the clubhouse, no impacts associated with those activities would occur. Rather, the pollutant emissions would be limited to that generated by the equipment associated with the remainder of the construction activities identified in Table 16, including structure demolition, mass grading, fine grading, construction, and construction and painting. Response to Comment No. 33 Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 -year lifetime exposure. Public exposure to heavy equipment emissions will be an extremely small fraction of the above dosage assumption. Diesel equipment is also becoming progressively "cleaner" in response to air quality rules on new off -road equipment. Any public health risk associated with project - related heavy equipment operations exhaust is anticipated to be small and not quantifiable as indicated in the air quality analysis. Furthermore, ventilation along the coast, combined with the relative short duration that the pollutants are suspected in the area, reduce the potential adverse effect of the diesel exhaust and other particulates. As a result, they are considered to be less than significant. Response to Comment No, 34 As indicated in prior responses (refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 18 and 19), no additional: trips are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. A net reduction in trips would occur due to the significant reduction in the number of tennis courts. In addition, vehicular trips generated by the used identified in this comment (e.g., fitness center, spa, banquet facilities, etc.) are ancillary to and accounted for in the trip generation rates for the primary uses (i.e., golf course clubhouse and bungalows). As indicated in the discussion of traffic impacts, it is estimated that the proposed project will result in a net reduction in trips. therefore, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated. Response to Comment No. 35 Although the air pollutant emissions estimated for the proposed project are 'based on a 2012 completion date, the emissions are considered to be a worst case assessment due to the anticipated continued improvements in emissions technology and more rigorous regulatory controls on pollutant emissions, which would result in fewer emissions. As a result, the operational emissions generated by the proposed project for some future date beyond 2012 are anticipated to be less than that presented in the air quality analysis. Response to Comment No. 36 As indicated' in Response to Comment No. 12, it is not possible to determine the nature and extent of potential mitigation required for a single - project's potentially significant impact and, therefore, too speculative in the absence of a regional or statewide plan regulating global warming and by which it could be measured. The analysis does, as indicated in this comment, recognize the project impacts would contribute cumulatively to the phenomenon of global warming, however, the analysis does not conclude Response to Comments -.KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 23 Response to Public Comments - KLR Planning Newood Beach Country Club - (PA2005 -140) that the cumulative impacts are significant given the speculative nature of such a conclusion without knowledge of the nature and extent of other projects world -wide. Although mitigation measures are not required, several measures have been recommended to reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project. Response to Comment No. 37 Upsizing of the existing storm drain is required in order to accommodate the post - development storm runoff; no flooding impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Response to Comment No. 38 As indicated in this comment, the proposed project includes the construction of a new 30 -inch RCP on a property adjacent to the subject site. That construction is a component of the project. Therefore, any change in the project description would require additional environmental clearance. Response to Comment No. 39 The information presented in the preceding responses addresses the comments submitted on the proposed project. The analysis included in the initial study and the additional information provided in these responses adequately evaluated the potential impacts anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Response to Comments - KLR Planning Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Or. Attachment No. PC 7 Errata to the Draft MND Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Errata for the IS /MND Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2005 -140) Golf Realty Fund Page 4: Column 4 (Height (ft.)) under "Building Heights" in Table 2 (Summary of Proposed Uses) to reflect a maximum building height Change 50 feet to 53'6" for the proposed Golf Course Clubhouse. 2. Page 5: Delete all of the text and replace it with the following: The project site encompasses approximately 142 acres (refer to Table A), which are divided into four sub- areas identified below. Each sub -area as well as the hand car wash is described below and illustrated on Exhibit 2. Table A Land Use Allocations Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan Golf Realty Fund Sub Area Approximate Area (Acres) The Tennis Club Sub -Area 4.62 The Villas Sub -Area 1.25 The Bungalows Sub -Area 3.44 The Golf Club Sub -Area 133.01 Total 142.32 'Includes Golf Clubhouse, Golf Parking Lot and Hand Car Wash SOURCE: Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan July 12, 2010 Golf Clubhouse The golf clubhouse floor plan has _a maximum of 35,000 gross square feet, exclusive of below grade cart storage, in two stories, including approximately 18,100 square feet on the first floor and approximately 16,900 square feet on the second floor. The lower floor will accommodate the following features: Grill, women's lounge and locker room, men's locker room, and pro shop. Other features included on the first floor include a cart barn and club storage. The second floor will accommodate a ban St room and kitchen, dining room, lounge, foyer, offices, private meeting and dining rooms, and a "19` hole." Other features which currently exist and will continue to be part of the clubhouse facilities include a snack stand (180 square feet), existing golf course restroom facilities, and existing greens keeper buildings and area. The maximum height of the proposed golf clubhouse is 53 feet 6 inches, measured from the existing grade to the mid -point of the sloped roof. (The reference to a maximum 50 -foot height limit reflected in Table 1 on page 4 of the initial study referenced in this comment is incorrect and will be revised to reflect the 53 feet 6 -inch maximum height noted in this description.) Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Errata Newport Beach Country Club. (PA2005 -140) Tennis Clubhouse and Courts The maximum floor area of the tennis clubhouse is 3,725 gross square feet and will have a maximum building height of 30 feet (measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof). The tennis clubhouse includes a lobby, pro shop, office and locker rooms. A total of seven tennis courts, including one stadium court will replace the 24 tennis courts that currently exist on the subject property. Screening for the tennis courts from The Villas E will also be provided in the form of a five -foot block wall that would be designed to be compatible with the proposed Villa E, adjacent to the tennis courts. In addition, the exterior perimeter of the tennis courts facing the Granville Condominiums, Granville Drive, and the Tennis Club parking lot will also be screened, utilizing the existing 10 -foot high chain link fence covered by a wind screen. Bungalows The Bungalows proposed by the applicant will consist of 27 "hotel' units that encompass approximately 29;044 square feet of floor area. A 2,170 square foot Concierge and Guest Center is also included in this development component. In addition, the Bungalow Spa, which is an auxiliary use for and part of the Bungalows, encompasses 7,490 square feet. This facility will include -a fitness center, spa, spa bar and lounge. Other features include a Zen Garden, Jacuzzi and swimming pool. The pool and /or spa equipment will be enclosed by five -foot block wall. The maximum building height of the Bungalows is 31 feet, measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof. Villas The five Villas are proposed within a 1.25 -acre sub -area. Lot sizes of the single - family detached residential dwelling lots will vary from 5,295 square feet (Villa A) to 17,151 (Villa D) square feet. Homes will range in size from 2,201 square feet (Plan A) to 6,384 square feet (Plan D). The maximum building heights (measured from existing grade) permitted for the Villas ranges from 23 feet (Villa A) to 39 feet (Villa D). Swimming pools are also permitted for each of the five Villas. Golf Club Parking Lot and Private Hand Car Wash The proposed Golf Club Parking Lot has 300 on -site parking spaces. In addition, as described in Response to Comment No. 4 of The Irvine Company, above, an existing perpetual offsite Parking Agreement will continue to provide as many as 554 non- exclusive parking spaces on weekends and holidays to supplement the onsite Golf Club parking. The frontage road that exists adjacent to East Coast Highway will be eliminated and replaced with landscaping. In addition, a private hand car wash area is proposed within the parking lot in the vicinity of Country Club Drive. The area identified to accommodate this project feature encompasses approximately 240 square feet (i.e., 12 feet wide and 20 feet long). Use of the private handcar wash is limited to golf and possibly tennis club members only. Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 3. Page 8, Table 2: Delete Table 2 and replace it with the revised Table 2 below. Table 2 Tennis Club Development Phasing Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) MND Revised Exhibit :" Phasing Plan,' Duration (5125111) Description (Months) Reference Phase Installation of Temporary Modular Tennis 1 4 1 Clubhouse' Demolition of Tennis Club building, 9 tennis 1 courts, perimeter tennis court fence remains, portion of Tennis Club parking lot (61 parking 1 4 2 spaces), landscaping and small portion of existing site wall Construct The Villas (3); Private Street, New Tennis Clubhouse and Parking Lots (refer to 14 6 4 Exhibit 6' 2 Demolition of '3 tennis courts, small portion of Tennis Club parking lot and remaining Tennis 1 5 3 Club Building Construct Center Court area and Bungalow Pool 3 8 6 3 Demolition of 3 tennis courts remaining portion of old Tennis Club parking lot and removal of 1 7 5 Temporary Modular Tennis Clubhouse Demolition of 2 tennis courts, and perimeter tennis court fence in front of the 3 completed Villas — After substantial completion of the Golf 1 9 7 4 Bungalows removal of perimeter tennis court fence in front of the Golf Bungalows. Construct Golf and Tennis Bungalows and 15 10 8 remaining 2 Villas. Total Schedule 36 Anticipated Start date is September 2011 SOURCE: The Templeton Planning Group (May 2011) Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 4. Page 16, Table 3: Delete Table 3 and replace with Table 3 below. Table 3 Golf Clubhouse Development Phasing 5. Page 39, Paragraph 2: Change 50 feet to 53' 6" in Line 5 and Line 7. 6. Page 52, SC -8: Revise SC -8 as indicated below: SC -8 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be available during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. The area surrounding any cultural materials or fossils encountered during pradina shall also be investigated to determine the extent of the site. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 4 Duration MND Exhibit Phase Description (Months) Reference Demolition of East Side Golf Clubhouse Parking Lot and 1 PCH Ent 1 11 Construct East Side Parking Lot and PCH Entry2 4 12 2 Demolition of West Side Golf Clubhouse Parkin Lot 1 13 Construct West Side Parking Lot and Temporary Golf Club 6 14 3 Demolition of Golf Clubhouse 2 15 Construct New Golf Clubhouse 14 16 Demolition of portion of Greenskeeper Area, Temporary modular Golf Clubhouse and northern portion of Golf 2 17 4 Clubhouse Parking Lot Construct Greenskeeper Area and Golf Porte Cache and 4 18 Parkin Total Schedule 34 'Start date to be determined. 2Includes car wash. SOURCE: The Templeton Planning Group (July 2010) 5. Page 39, Paragraph 2: Change 50 feet to 53' 6" in Line 5 and Line 7. 6. Page 52, SC -8: Revise SC -8 as indicated below: SC -8 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be available during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. The area surrounding any cultural materials or fossils encountered during pradina shall also be investigated to determine the extent of the site. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 4 Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Page 77, Table 10 (General Plan Policy Analysis): Policy LU 5.3.3: Change 50 feet in Line 12 and Line 14 in Column 3 to 53'6". 8. Page 80: Revise the consistency analysis for Natural Resources Element Policy No. 18.3 as follows: °°^° se ^ ^' °^ ° ^' ^ *'^ ^Implementation of the proposed project does not requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan and the project it is not therefore, subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives before adopting or amending a general plan. Nonetheless, he City has ^" °c with t. ".° requirements of S° 18 by submitting—submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)_. '^ addition, the Gityand has also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representativesens requesting consultation WithiR the 90 day statutory period. 9. Page 82, Table 11 (Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Analysis): Policy 2.1.2.1: Revised the consistency analysis in Column 3 to read: The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation on the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan, which designates the golf course site GS (Open- Spaee)PR (Parks and Recreation) and the tennis site MU -H /PR (Mixed Use Horizontal /Parks & Recreation). The Open SpaceParks and Recreation designation allows golf courses. The MU -H /PR designation allows horizontally - distributed mix of uses, which may include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses, and active public or private recreational uses, including parks, golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. In addition, the project addresses the relevant policies related to development of the site and the protection of coastal resources identified in the CLUP as discussed in this table. 10. Page 96, Second sentence in the paragraph under (c): Change 50 feet in Line 3 to 53'6". Errata Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) Attachment No. PC 8 Letter dated September 27, 2011 from I. Chase and E. Feuerstein rainbarg Family Trast, Mesa Shopping Center Last, LLC, Mira Mesa Shopping Center West, LLC September 27, 2011 Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO KBRANDTONEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV AND U.S. POST (CERTIFIED MAIL) Re; PA 2005 -140; Request for Continganctof Planning Commission Hearing Dear Ms. Brandt: We are informed the two applications for redevelopment of the land comprising the Newport Beach Country Club and acl'pacent Racquet Club (PA2008 -152 and PA2005 -140, respectively) are being considered for Planning Commission consideration on October 20, 2011. Given the unresolved issues between the owners of the underlying fee, which affect not only (lee planning aspects of the project, but the City's ability to grant the proposed entitlements, we request that PA2005 -140 be continued to a later date so that efforts toward a resolution can be made. As we have indicated in the past, we do not wish to hold up the processing of the International Bay Clubs' plan (PA2008 -152), and support that plan with the proposed frontage toad serving the adjacent (northerly) property. This plan provides an enhanced landscape as viewed from the public right -cf -way and allows a more generous setback of the parking lot from Pacific Coast Highway. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Irving Chia ft, Fan arg Fancily Trust Ece: Aaron Harp, City Attorney Michael Recupero, Esq. Elliot Feuerstein, Mesa Shopping Center East, LLC, and Mirn Mesa Shopping Center West, LLC Correspondence Item No. 2a & 3a Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 Mary Stapleton 642 Ramona Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 October 17, 2011 Newport Beach City Council l RECEIVED 2011 OCT 17 AM 0 10 OF;r,: OF THE C TY CLERK Cy.'1 r- ,-1PT HkH Re: Project File Numbers: PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152, Newport Country Club BY M�NM CAM oat l�ti � �OQM 0vS O� _APO Cam' OF NE" Regarding the Notices of Public Hearings: Please read and place this concern in your files. The parking issues have not been addressed. it is a significant problem to the residents close to the intersections of Irvine Terrace and Pacific Coast Highway. Whenever there is a big event, the Country Club parking lot is covered over by big vans, or, as in the past, by a tennis court. The only parking for workers and attendees is offered offsite, far away, with shuttle transfer to the event. No one wants to do this when they can just park in Irvine Terrace and take a short walk to the event. Someone puts a weak sign at the entrance to Irvine Terrace to say "no event parking in Irvine Terrace" which is just an invitation to passersby to drive in there and park. This has been tolerable for short periods of time for Toshiba Golf, for example. However, with a hotel there trying to maximize income, I foresee a lot of events in the future with many many occasions where Irvine Terrace residents will be greatly impacted by event parking. Public parkers obliterate resident parking. They obliterate resident's guest parking. They park on the street corners blocking traffic turning views and also blocking the use of the cut down handicap curbs. They park jutting into residents driveways. Once I couldn't even get out of my driveway. They throw trash on the ground, bottles, papers, cigarettes, etc. And, they have a screw you attitude if I happen to see them and mention anything to them about how they are parking. Offsite parking requirements with shuttles do not work. The Irvine Terrace streets affected by the Country Club event parkers are Bonnie Doane, Malabar, Ramona, Santanella, Serenade and Dolphin Terrace. You, as the City Council, have the chance now to make sure that a huge parking structure is mandatory for the development, one which has plenty of room for aff the Hotel workers, all the Country Club Members and all the event attendees. Make the developers show you their plans for sufficient parking before you approve the project. Please address this issue now and in all future discussions about the development. We are counting on you to protect us. Cordially, MaryM? apleton THEODOPA ORINGHER COUNSELORS AT LAW October 18, 2011 VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Correspondence Item No. 2b & 3b Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Kimberley Brandt Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O. Box 176 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 THEODORA ORINGHER PC 535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa Mesa, Calihomia 92626 -7109 T (714) 549 -6200 • F (714) 549 -6201 www.ttxounsel.com TIM PAONE tpaone@tocounsel.com (714) 549 -6115 Re: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) / Application of Golf Realty Fund Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) / Application of Newport Beach Country Club. Inc. ennLLYAMI. o.IOR This letter is written on behalf of Golf Realty Fund ( "GRF "), the Managing Owner of the fee interest in the approximately 145 -acre property (the "NBCC PCD ") which comprises the vast majority of the Newport Beach Country Club planned community. As you know, the NBCC PCD is the subject of two scheduled public hearings on Thursday, October 20. One of those pertains to PA2005 -140 submitted by GRF (the "GRF Application ") and the second pertains to PA2008 -152, submitted by the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (the "IBC Application "), the lessee of the golf club property. GRF requests a two -week continuance of both the GRF Application and the IBC Application. The basis of this request is that: At a meeting with City staff on September 9, 2011, a process for structure of the public hearings on the GRF Application and the IBC Application was presented by City staff. As understood by GRF, that process allowed the GRF Application to be heard and acted upon by the Planning Commission first so that, among other considerations, any planned community regulations related to the GRF Application would not be encumbered by the proposed general plan amendment which is part of the IBC Application. GRF consistently has requested not to be included within THEODORA ORINGHER =NSF1LISATUw Newport Beach Planning Commission October 18, 2011 Page 2 any approval process which involves a general plan amendment to increase the size of the golf clubhouse. The second step in the hearing structure presented by staff on September 9 was the hearing on the IBC Application. As presented, that hearing would have involved a separate consideration of IBC's proposed general plan amendment which, if acceptable to the Planning Commission, would have been recommended to the City Council as a separate action to amend any recommended approval of the GRF Application. Again, the purpose was, among other things, to keep IBC's proposed general plan amendment separate from any approval granted to GRF. GRF welcomed and appreciated staffs September 9 proposed hearing structure. However, upon receiving and reviewing the staff reports for the two applications, it is clear that staff has reconsidered its position and now is proposing that a single Planned Community Development Plan be approved and has recommended that that approval include a general plan amendment. GRF has consistently opposed the proposed general plan amendment and has provided comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the IBC Application stating why, among other things, the MND is not adequate as it pertains to the general plan amendment. GRF most certainly appreciates the complexities created by the concurrent processing of two competing development plans. However, staff's change in the structure of the upcoming hearing process from that presented on September 9 only came to GRF's attention as we read the staff report this weekend. Rather than attempt to sort through the many procedural implications of making GRF's approval part of an undesired general plan amendment during Thursday's Planning Commission hearings, GRF requests a continuance to allow GRF to better assess the implications of this change of direction and work with staff to hopefully find a mutually acceptable approach to the hearing structure. • The staff reports are openly deferential to IBC's position that, using the staff report's words, the "white hole site plan cannot accommodate the [IBC] proposal without a significant redesign." This staff conclusion — a conclusion with which GRF strongly disagrees — became known to GRF only upon reading the staff reports. Further, the staff report itself states only staffs conclusion without explaining the basis for that conclusion. Our comments here are not intended in any way to be critical of staff, even though we disagree with some of staff's conclusions. To the contrary, we commend staff on its hard work under the unusual circumstances of these applications and recognize that sometimes final conclusions are not articulated until a staff report is issued. However, IBC clearly has had the opportunity to present to staff its argument that IBC's proposed golf clubhouse and GRF's proposed parking lot design are not compatible "without a significant redesign" — and staff has THEODORA ORINGHER =NSF1LISATUw Newport Beach Planning Commission October 18, 2011 Page 3 accepted IBC's contention. On such a critical issue and after years of processing, GRF deserves the opportunity, well before the Planning Commission hearing, to hear from staff the reasons that staff has deferred to IBC's position and to provide detailed input to staff as to why GRF believes IBC's position to be incorrect. Additionally and ironically, staffs recommendation now essentially "white holes" from the IBC application what staff refers to as the "Tennis Club portion of the project site." As a result, GRF now requires time to evaluate the implications of this recommendation and then provide input to staff in advance of the public hearing. • For some time, a draft development agreement submitted by GRF for the GRF Application has been with City staff. Although indications over the past few months were that only minor changes might be required, two weeks ago we received an entirely different document from the City Attorney's office. We have had discussions with the City Attorney's office to express our concerns with both the form and substance of the revised agreement. While we recognize that the timing of the presentation to us of this revised document was the product of factors beyond anyone's control, we are not comfortable with the document at this time and believe that focused discussions with the City Attorney's office can produce a document which reflects greater mutual agreement. As of today, we do not believe the draft document is yet ready or appropriate for Planning Commission consideration. We certainly are not yet in agreement with the provisions of the newly proposed agreement. These issues are significant and all parties can benefit from the clarification that can result from a short continuance. Obviously, it is critical that any continuance apply to both the GRF Application and the IBC Application. We are requesting only a two -week continuance of the hearings on both applications to the November 3 Planning Commission meeting. Should the Planning Commission believe that a longer continuance is needed, that also is acceptable to GRF. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tim Paone tp:tp 859427.2/80981.10002 I f�-= CAA PLANNING October 19, 2011 Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Ms. Kimberly Brandt, AICP Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2008 -152) Correspondence Item No. 2c & 3c Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 This letter is written in response to the October 18 letter from Mr. Tim Paone on behalf of Golf Realty Fund (GRF). As representative of Newport Beach Country Club (NBCC), we do not agree that a continuance is warranted for the NBCC application as requested by Mr. Paone. The GRF and the NBCC applications were filed separately and require separate actions by the City. Each application had a separate and distinct public notice, making it clear that the two applications would be acted on independently by the Planning Commission. The implication that a General Plan Amendment (GPA) affects the GRF application is without merit. Whether the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council agree to grant the GPA and approve the NBCC proposal has no bearing on the processing of the GRF application. Since the GRF application does not request a GPA, there should be no confusion as to which application the General Plan Amendment applies. We are prepared to go forward with the October 20 Planning Commission hearing and request that the Planning Commission's consideration of the NBCC application not be delayed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. //V� Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 • Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581 -2888 • Fax (949) 581 -3599 fAild2t Ms. Kimberly Brandt, AICP October 19, 2011 Page 2 of 2 c: Dave Wooten, International Bay Clubs Perry Dickey, Newport Beach Country Club Rosalinh Ung, City of Newport Beach THEODOPA ORINGHER COUNSELORS AT LAW October 19, 2011 VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Correspondence Item No. 2d & 3d Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Kimberley Brandt Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O. Box 176 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 THEODORA ORINGHER PC 535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa Mesa, Calihomia 92626 -7109 T (714) 549 -6200 • F (714) 549 -6201 www.ttxounsel.com TIM PAONE tpaone@tocounsel.com (714) 549 -6115 Re: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) / Application of Golf Realty Fund Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) / Application of Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. Inn LTAAMI.. a 0R We have reviewed today's letter from Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning objecting on NBCC's behalf to Golf Realty Fund's request for a continuance of tomorrow evening's Planning Commission hearings on the respective applications of the Golf Realty Fund and NBCC /IBC. Her statement that the granting of the GPA and approval of the NBCC proposal "has no bearing on the processing of the GRF application" certainly doesn't reconcile with our reading of the staff reports for the two projects. In both staff reports, staff recommends approval of staff's proposed Planned Community Development Plan ('Staff's Plan "). Neither the NBCC /IBC application nor the GRF application for the Planned Community Development Plan will be approved if staff's recommendation is followed. Rather, the staff recommendation would effectively tie the two applications together under a single Planned Community Development Plan which includes a general plan amendment. It appears that Ms. Schaffner's statement that the general plan amendment does not affect the GRF application is dead wrong. If our reading of the staff reports is in error, please let me know as soon as possible and I will stand corrected. However, based upon our reading, it appears that Ms. Schaffner's view that "[s]ince the GRF application does not request a GPA, there should be no confusion as to which application the General Plan Amendment applies" shows that NBCC /IBC does not understand what the staff reports are proposing. In fact, here statement itself shows that there is confusion over how this proposed process will work. It is precisely to avoid such confusion that GRF had requested and continues to request that GRF's approvals not be encumbered by a general plan amendment. For the reasons stated in our letter yesterday, GRF continues to THEODORA ORINGHER =NSF1LISATUw Newport Beach Planning Commission October 19, 2011 Page 2 request a very short continuance to allow us to work our way through some of the issues presented by staffs proposed approach. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tim Paone tp:tp 859620.1/80981.10002 Correspondence Item No. 2e & 3e Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2005 -152 MICHAEL RECUPERO, ESQ. October 19, 2011 Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO KBRANDT @NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV AND U.S. POST (CERTIFIED MAIL) Re: October 20.2011 Planning Commission Agenda Items 2 (PA 2005 -140) and 3 (PA2008 -152) Dear Ms. Brandt: As you know, this office represents one -half of the ownership of the Newport Beach Country Club and Tennis Club (the "Properties') which you are considering for entitlement. Comments on NBCC Plan (PA2008 -152) As we have indicated in the past, we do not wish to hold up the processing of the International Bay Clubs' plan and support that plan with the proposed frontage road serving the adjacent (northerly) property. We believe this plan should move forward tomorrow October 20, 2011 despite Mr. OHill's last minute request that it be delayed. Comments on Tennis Club Plan (PA2005 -140) My clients have no objection to the request for continuance made by Tim Paone regarding the Tennis Club Plan. 31877 Del Obispo St. • Suite zoo • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 -3228 Ph: 949.429.6300 • Fax: 949.429.6303 Newport Beach Planning Commission October 19, 2011 Sincerely, 1 AN 107INMINI Michael Recupero, Esq. Ecc: Aaron Harp, City Attorney Dana Smith, Asst. City Manager Leonie Mulvihill, Asst. City Attorney John Olson, Esq. Tim Paone, Esq. David Wooten A PAGE 2 MICHAEL RECUPERo, ESQ. THEODORA ORINGHER Pc THEODORA Co Mc., Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa a Mesa, California 92(26 -77(19 ORINGHER F (714) 549-6200 selx • (7, 4) 549.62111 www.tocounscl.com COUNSELORS AT LAW TIM PAONE tpaonc @tocounscl.com (714) 549 -6115 Correspondence Item No. 2f & 3f October 20, 2011 Newport Beach Country Club PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152 VIA E -MAIL Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Kimberley Brandt Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O. Box 176 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 Re: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) / Application of Golf Realty Fund Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) / Application of Newport Beach Country Club Inc Dear Ms. Brandt Thank you for taking the time late yesterday to clarify staffs intentions with respect to the procedure for this evening's Planning Commission hearings on the GRF and NBCC /IBC applications. As you explained, it has been staffs intent that staffs recommended alternative Planned Community Development Plan for the GRF application will reference a 35,000 square foot golf clubhouse, while, staffs recommended alternative Planned Community Development Plan for the GRF application will reference a 56,000 square foot golf clubhouse. As a result, GRF's hearing will not include a general plan amendment to expand the size of the golf clubhouse. Your clarification of the staff report's intent has addressed the concerns expressed in my letter yesterday and is much appreciated. Nonetheless, GRF's other concerns, as set out in my letter on Tuesday, October 18, which have led to our request for a brief continuance, remain. At this time, we are not comfortable with the provisions of the recently revised Development Agreement and require time to work through our concerns with the City Attorney's office. We also must note that NBCC is the lessee of the golf course property and that GRF, as managing co -owner of the fee interest, has yet to even see a copy of the proposed IBC /NBCC Development Agreement which will encumber that fee. Additionally, we remain concerned about staffs conclusion, based upon the position of IBC /NBCC, that the "white hole site plan cannot accommodate the [IBC] proposal without a significant redesign." As noted in my earlier letter, staffs conclusion only became known to us THEODORA ORINGHER COO NSEI ORS AT LAW Newport Beach Planning Commission October 20, 2011 Page 2 upon receipt of the staff report and Mr. O Hill has not had the opportunity to explain to staff why he believes this conclusion to be incorrect. Obviously, IBC /NBCC had the opportunity to present their side of the argument to staff prior to the issuance of the staff report. It is only fair that, after all the time, effort, and money that has gone into the preparation of these applications, GRF be given the same opportunity to address this pivotal issue with staff. This discussion is detailed, technical, and, perhaps, lengthy. It should not have to be made for the first time during a Planning Commission hearing. We want to assure the Planning Commission that, should it grant our continuance request, the discussions with staff will occur quickly so that this issue will not cause further delays. Toward that end, we would like to thank you for reaching out to us proactively to schedule a meeting for Friday, October 21, to allow us to make our case to staff on the issue of the compatibility of a redesigned parking lot with the proposed IBC /NBCC golf clubhouse. We also will work closely with the City Attorney's office to address our Development Agreement issues. We do recognize that the decision to grant our continuance request rests with the Planning Commission. And we also recognize, as you appropriately cautioned, that the Commission has the ability to grant our request as to the GRF application, but deny it with respect to the IBC /NBCC application. GRF hopes that neither staff nor the Commission would support or consider a continuance of the GRF application only. We hope all will recall that GRF had asked many times that its application, which was filed years before the IBC /NBCC application, be allowed to proceed when ready and not be delayed by the IBC /NBCC application. It was the City's decision that both applications be heard at the same time, even if that meant that GRF's application would be delayed. GRF, though reluctant, has accepted this decision and cooperated with the City and IBC /NBCC in keeping these applications together and working together to reconcile the plans. GRF can easily argue that its application, which has not substantively changed, would have been ready for hearing many months earlier if it had not been tied to the IBC /NBCC application. GRF now asks for a short two -week continuance with very good cause. At this point, it is only right that both applications be continued together. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tim Paone 859679.1/80981.10002 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB, INC. CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT Entry Drive Porte Cochere Perimeter Fencing Frontage Road Easement Signage /Corner Open Space Pad Elevation /Grading Quantities Building Height Parking Lot Landscape Setback 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 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 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 PERIMETER FENCING BEFORE PERIMETER FENCING AFTER FRONTAGE ROAD l _I LANDSCAPING PER V DRAWING O PERIMETER FENCE SECTION CMU RETAINING WALL CLUBHOUSE PARKING 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 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 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` 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 10/20/2011 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB (PA2005 -140) Golf Realty Fund October 20, 201 1 Golf Realty Fund Project Requests: Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Clearance) Planned Community Development Plan Adoption (Legislative Standards) Site Development Plan (Land Use Permit) that incorporates: Tentative Vesting Tract Map Transfer of Development Rights Temporary Structures Use Development Agreement (Vested Development Rights Guarantee) Maximum Development Potential Summary • 18 -hole Golf Course • 35,000 SF Golf Club House and associated parking lot • 7 tennis courts (including I stadium court) and 3,725 SFTennis Club House and parking lot • 27 Hotel Units (including ancillary uses) 10/20/2011 2 10/20/2011 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB (PA2008 -152) Newport Beach County Club, Inc. October 20, 2011 Project Summaries Comparison Golf Course 18 holes 18 holes Golf Club House and related parking lot Tennis Courts and related parking lot Tennis Club House V(((ao Hotel UnitsNillas 35,000 SF Club House 56,000 SF Club House 7 including I Stadium NotApplicable Court 3,725 SF NotApplicable 5 NotApplicable 27 NotApplicable 10/20/2011 Newport Beach County Club Project Requests: • Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Clearance) • General Plan Amendment (Legislative Standard) • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Legislative Standards) • Site Development Plan (Land Use Permit) that incorporates: Temporary Structures Use Permit • Development Agreement (Vested Development Rights Guarantee) Maximum Development Potential Summary * 18 -hole Golf Course * 56,000 SF Golf Club House and associated parking lot 10/20/2011 As Owner of Newport Beach Q Realty 7,ost would support Golf project — A condition requiring Host's consent for the T ®R from the hotel Site; or — A use conversion of tennis courts to hotel rooms, thus avoiding the T ®R • Should have been explored by Golf Realty previously • Host should not suffer because Golf Realty did not consider a potentially viable alternative Ell I I ?m Generates about $2.1 MM/ year in Transie ' Occupancy 1 Continues to assess further use for the Newport. Beach hotel property Existing traffic at tennis courts ample to support Golf Realty's boutique hotel Unnecessarily reduces de mio en t I Statistical /fit intensity allowed in /-\j t _, / 1 lljpl�l lllll� lipilliq lilliq ril III ll��g F i I llacz� "I Ill I 11- i i 1, IN F MWO A o concept ill 01 o ��� pr, 10 r!' 'I � :�i' � — Sufficient traffic load in existing condition — Eliminated tennis courts' development intensity is converted into hotel rooms; no need for TDR — No limit on Motel rooms in Ll unlike limit on residential — Does not set precedent —no other tennis courts have Development Intensity under General Plan — No apparent constraint on converting a flat use (tennis courts) into a building; square foot issue still being worked out Use Conversion r �, _ to Work ® Golf Realty's project is troubled- - Sued by partners — Financial promise not real $730,000 /year @ TOT of 10% would require full occupancy 365 days /year at rate of $740 per room — Conflict with IBC's proposal Compare to Moat's record of successful projects Host J L Stakeholder with Regard — The hotel currently has 532 rooms — Balance = 79 hotel rooms (no sunset) Consistent h 2006 subdivision shortly before General Plan adoption — GPA, LUP Amendment, and parcel map created 79 new condo units on adjacent land, while reserving the preexisting 79 hotel units to the Marriott site 0 Host has relied units being for it — The 27 hotel units that Golf realty wants are a subset of the 79 hotel units, and have nothing to do with the adjacent 79 condo units ""Chairperson L / V A asked w i A 1 i -� i v 1 �� l 1 i�, \ l �.l l \ /'�� ��S 'Il � ? I/. rI% �, � ! 1I / \ / unused hotel I. A answered no. yy cation. He was — Minutes from hearing on subdivision M to I ufitYU x 20' let) 36 Lj . - NN .,k (12'x 56' fif Off �Ices 2'x 40')not own on 2004 ay ,M CO course service tent (10'x 2bJVetAv size NIAUNDIx 40' festfooms v size th f 81"P admissions o Q'I ckets 10'x 20') O'x 20') ----------- — — — — — — --pro–M., pro am gift ----- - .2 mom- (8'x 20 trade 1, -� ' .. .... ra let regi suation Pd `y MEW 0 w 1,119,Y30 tent) .... .... I A 0 i let Wit co er�. t nv Z/ trailer 2-(8' 6' -LEL . ... ... U11, L I II t Fgx n6Tn7 M J-E I If --- ... ... shuttle route (dashed) OSHIBA SENIOR CLASSIC OURNAMENT PLAN NBCC Planned Community Newport Beach Country Golf Realty Fund (PA2005-140) Planning Commission Public Hearing October 20, 2011 r4, ,U !;i W�1` �LIF0 1 Status Update (since August 4t" PC Meeting) • Mitigated Negative Declaration — Comments received from the Commission in addition to comments received from general public — Responses to Comments and an Errata have been prepared for clarification purposes — There are no new impacts identified — Analysis presented in MND remains adequate and recirculation of the document is not required 2 • Alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) —Further refined from prior draft by staff with input from both applicants —Has no prescribed architectural theme — Development limit for golf clubhouse is 35,000 square feet 91 • Site Development Review Application — Has been submitted to redevelop existing golf club and tennis club sites with detailed plans; and addressed: • Existence of Frontage road easement • Status of Hotel transfer request • Loss of tennis courts • Golf club site's parking lot design • Golf clubhouse building height • Bungalow encroachment on the adjacent property • Development Agreement - not available 21 Recommendation • Conduct public hearing; Continue the application to November 3rd meeting; and Provide directions to applicant and staff of the Commission's expectations so action can be taken at the next meeting 5 43' PROPOSED MAX RIDGE HEIGHT �i�ABOVE EXIST. GRADE (THIS SPECIFI, F.F. 122.5' 113.5' (SR) IN B.) 01.7' ___ -- F.F. 108.5' 0. 1ob;r4 _ '`I 97.0 97.T �.S - PAOPOSEDGAADE LOWEST EXISTING GRADE BELOW NAV29DATUM NOTED RIDGE =107.5 PACFIC COAST HIGHWAY EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION Building Height Comparison (Estimation - provided by GRF) Height at Peak (1) Distance from East Coast Hwy Building Width (2) 22 feet 53 feet, 6 inches 50 feet, 9 inches 344 feet 262 feet 424 feet 265 feet (1) As measured from the lowest existing grade (2) Width is measured parallel to East Coast Highway 300 feet 378 feet